Necessity of Human Learning for a Gospel Preacher, Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Of the Ʋſefulneſs of Logic.
THe uſe of Logic to a Miniſter of the Goſpel is fivefold.
I. For the rational underſtanding, or clear and diſtinct notion of things, in their ſeveral habitudes, reſpects and order, and for the right defining and deſcribing of things; and to diſcourſe underſtandingly, properly, clearly, diſtinctly and methodically, not obſcurely, extravagantly or confuſedly.
II. For underſtanding the ſenſe and ſcope of the Scriptures, the Dependence, Contexture, Method, and Argumentation of them: to diſcern evidently the Arguments and Concluſions in the Diſputations of Chriſt, and of the Prophets and Apoſtles.
III. For the right Dividing of the word of Truth, foreign 2 Tim. 2 15. (which cannot be without the help of Logic, and Rhetoric, which are properly ſubſervient to that end, &c. ſaith Mr. Burges in his Treatiſe of Aſſurance, pag. 620) and for proper Analyſing of the Books of Scripture into Heads and Chapters (according to the ſubject thereof;) and of Chapters into parts; of Texts into ſimple Terms firſt, then into Axiomes, or Propoſitions.
For want of Logic ſome tear the word in pieces (as it were with their teeth and nails) rather then divide it aright.
IV. See Dr. Chapel's Method of Preaching.For the plain, perſpicuous, and methodical handling of Points of Divinity, or Doctrines, and of every Particular in them, in its right maner, due order, and proper place: which is a great help to the Underſtanding and Memory of the Hearrers, and of the Speaker alſo.
V. For Diſputations, and the handling of Controverſies. Logic is of great uſe,
1. To underſtand rightly both the ſtate of the queſtion, and the force of the Arguments.
2 To proceed Syllogiſtically.
3. To detect Paralogiſms, Captions, Argumentations, Fallacies, and Sophiſtries of the Adverſaries of the Truth of God; as the Jews, falſe Prophets, and falſe Apoſtles: of the Broachers or Maintainers of Errors and Hereſies: of Seducers and Deceivers. It is the work of a Miniſter foreign to argue againſt, Titus 1.9.and refute Gainſayers, and to defend Truth againſt all Oppoſers and Underminers, Phil. 1.17. Danaeus, in his Logical piece de Elenchis Haereticorum, reduceth their Sophiſms and Fallacies to their ſeveral Heads, and ſhews the maner of detecting, and anſwering them.
4. To infer, or draw concluſions rationally, clearly and ſtrenuouſly, according to the Rules of good and firm Conſequence.
5. To confute the corrupters of the ſenſe of the Scriptures.
Davenant ſaith, that Philoſophy, In Col. 2.8.which teacheth the Rules and Art of right Diſputing, (that is, Logic) apprime neceſſaria eſt, & ab omnibus adhi…enda in dijudicandis & tractandis omnibus Controverſiis quae ſpectant ad Religionem, is principally neceſſary in handling, and adjudging all Controverſies, which pertain to Religion.
Pareus ſpeaks of the Lutherans as no great friends to Logic: In Col. 2.8.and therefore at Ratisbone, when they would by no means be brought to diſpute Syllogiſtically, though they had the beſt Cauſe, yet were ſadly foiled by the Jeſuits.
Auguſtine, in one of his Epiſtles, ingenuouſly profeſſeth, ad diſſolvenda Haereticorum ſophiſmata, artem hanc (ſcil. Dialecticam) magnum ſibi adjumentum attuliſſe.
I may give three Reaſons of this uſefulneſs of Logic for a Miniſter.
1. Reaſ. Logic is of Univerſal uſe and Influence for all Arts and Sciences, and for all Artiſts, why not for Divinity? (which is the principal) and conſequently for Divines.
Auguſtine, De ordine, lib. 2. cap. 13. ſaith—Dialectica eſt Diſciplinae diſciplinarum. Haec docet docere, haec docet diſcere: quae ſcit ſcire, & alios ſcientes facere, &c. Logic is the Diſcipline of Diſciplines, —This teacheth to teach, and to learn, &c.
2 Reaſ. Reaſon is the Eye of the Soul, and Logic the Art or Way of uſing Reaſon aright: Or it is a Faculty of Reaſoning by Art, acquired by induſtry. They that would debar men of the uſe of Logic, (as one ſaith) would have them blind, Mr. Gataker.or blinded, ☞that they may carry them as the Faulkner doth the Hauk, hoodwink'd whither themſelves pleaſe.
3. Reaſ. The holy Scriptures are full of Logic, of Logical Arguments both Artificial and Inartificial: of Axiomes, Simple and Compounded; and of Syllogiſms of all ſorts.
Chriſt himſelf made uſe of Logic in drawing conſequences, or in arguing from an Antecedent to the Conſequent, or from Premiſes to a Concluſion, in the ſame maner that we do: as to infer and prove from the ſtory of the Creation, and of God's Inſtitution of Marriage, the unlawfulneſs of groundleſs Divorce, Matth. 19.4, 6.—from Hoſea 6.6. to vindicate the lawfulneſs of his Diſciples plucking and eating the ears of corn on the Sabbath-day, Matth. 12.7.
Thus Chriſt proves the Doctrine of the Reſurrection by way of Syllogiſm, or Logical Inference, from the ſaying of God to Moſes, Exod. 3.6. with Matth. 22.31, 32, Luc. 20.37.38.
God is the God of the living,
God is the God of Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob.
Ergo, Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob, muſt live:
and to that end, riſe again.
Chriſt calls this by the Name of Scripture, which was but a Logical Inference drawn from it, Matth. 22.29, 31, &c. with Exod. 3.6.
Thus Chriſt proves the Jews not to be of God, Joh. 8.47.
He that is of God heareth God's words,
Ye hear not God's words,
Ergo, ye are not of God.
This was a Categorical Syllogiſm.
Chriſt uſed Hypothetical Syllogiſms alſo: as John 5.46, 47.
If ye had believed Moſes, ye would have believed me:
But ye believe not his writings.
Ergo, how ſhall ye believe my words?
Thus Chriſt diſputed againſt the Phariſeces—Aſſertion of the Meſsiah's being the Son of David, See Piſcat. in locum.Matth. 22.43, 45.
If Chriſt be David's Son, then David ſhould not call him Lord. But David calls him Lord—How is he then his Son?
Chriſt uſed a Dilemma to nonplus thoſe that asked by what Authority he acted, Matth. 21.23, 25. The Baptiſm of John whence was it? from Heaven, or of Men? and they had Dilemmatical Reaſonings with themſelves what to anſwer to this Dilemmatical queſtion, ver. 25, 26, 27. If we ſay, It was from Heaven, he will ſay, Why did ye not then believe him? If we ſay, Of men, we fear the people, Thus perceiving they were in danger to be catcht with Chriſt's Dilemma, if they anſwered to either part of it, they returned Ignoramus for their anſwer—we cannot tell. Thus Chriſt did clavum clavo pellere, drive out one wedge with another.
See more of Chriſt's Dilemmas in Luc. 6.9. Joh. 18.23.
Chriſt begun to be a Queſtioniſt, and a Diſputant, when he was young, twelve years old, ſitting in the midſt of the Doctors or learned men in the Temple, foreign, Luke 2.46.foreign, both hearing them, Dr. Arrowſmith Orat. 2. Antiweigel. pag. 12.and poſing them. Ecce Jeſum Quaeſtioniſtam! All that heard him were aſtoniſhed at his Underſtanding, and Anſwers. Did not Chriſt herein put honor upon Learning, and upon learned men, and upon Diſputations?
The Prophets and Apoſtles do every where bring Arguments, or uſe Logical Reaſonings, to preſs unto Vertues and Duties, to diſſwade from Vices; to convince, reprove, encourage, comfort, &c. drawn from Cauſes, Effects, Conſequents, Examples, &c. from Promiſes or Threatnings, Rewards or Puniſhments, &c.
Both Chriſt and his Apoſtles draw Arguments by good Logic from the Old Teſtament, to prove Articles of Faith in the New. Hence theſe Phraſes occur ſo often,—it is written—it is written,—and what ſaith the Scripture? —or ſuch and and ſuch a Prophet?
How frequently and ſtrenuouſly doth Paul prove Theological Points (and confirm matters of Faith) by Logical Arguments? As,
Juſtification by Faith, not by Works, Rom. 3.20, 28. and 4.1, 2, 3, &c.
The Neceſſity of Sanctification, Rom. 6.2, &c.
The Filthineſs of Fornication, 1 Cor. 6.13. to the end.
The Reſurrection of the Body, 1 Cor. 15.13.
Paul was very Argumentative and Syllogiſtical in his Epiſtles: He played the Logician notably in the Epiſtle to the Romans; as Chap. 3. v. 28. foreign — Therefore we conclude (ſcil. from the premiſſes laid down before) that a man is juſtified by Faith, &c. Paul's Syllogiſms ſhew his Logic.
His Sorites, Rom. 5.3, 4. and 8.29, 30.
His Induction, Rom. 8.35, &c.
Enthymems are very frequent with him.
His Hypothetical Syllogiſms are many; as Gal. 3.18. If the Inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of Promiſe—But God gave it to Abraham by promiſe— Ergo. The Concluſion is left out, as it is oft in Diſputation.
As Chriſt, ſo his Apoſtles were Diſputants. Paul diſputed againſt the Grecians at Jeruſalem, Acts 9.28, 29. with the Jews, Epicureans and Stoics at Athens, Acts 17.17, 18. The Stoics were moſt famous for Logical Skill, they were accounted in thoſe Times Dialectici maximi. Paul was able to diſpute Logically and Philoſophically with thoſe Philoſophers: —argumenta vibrare, idque Athenis.
He diſputed daily in the School of one Tyrannus, Acts 19.9.
Did not Stephen make uſe of Logic when he diſputed againſt the Libertines and Sophiſters of divers Nations, Acts 6.9, 10?
Logica eſt Radius divinae mentis, Alſted. Encyclop. lib. 4. Didact. cap. 10.eſt Regina mentis humanae, lima ingenii, norma judicii, officina veritatis, & panacea memoriae: atque ita neceſſaria eſt Theologis, Medicis, Juriſperitis, & ipſis Philoſophis; ſive velint docere, ſive refutare, ſive explicare, ſive probare; unde non abs re vocatur Inſtrumentum Inſtrumentorum, & manus Philoſophiae.