Wesley Collected Works Vol 10
| Author | John Wesley |
|---|---|
| Type | treatise |
| Year | None |
| Passage ID | jw-wesley-collected-works-vol-10-549 |
| Words | 398 |
So that, whether it be
true or not, that every good textuary is a good Divine, it is
certain none can be a good Divine who is not a good
textuary. None else can be mighty in the Scriptures; able
both to instruct and to stop the mouths of gainsayers. In order to do this accurately, ought he not to know the
literal meaning of every word, verse, and chapter; without
which there can be no firm foundation on which the spiritual
meaning can be built? Should he not likewise be able to
deduce the proper corollaries, speculative and practical, from
each text; to solve the difficulties which arise, and answer the
objections which are or may be raised against it; and to make
a suitable application of all to the consciences of his hearers? Thirdly. But can he do this, in the most effectual manner,
without a knowledge of the original tongues? Without this,
will he not frequently be at a stand, even as to texts which
regard practice only ? But he will be under still greater
difficulties, with respect to controverted scriptures. He will
be ill able to rescue these out of the hands of any man of
learning that would pervert them: For whenever an appeal
is made to the original, his n:outh is stopped at once. Fourthly. Is not a knowledge of profane history, likewise,
of ancient customs, of chronology and geography, though not
absolutely necessary, yet highly expedient, for him that
would throughly understand the Scriptures? since the want
even of this knowledge is but poorly supplied by reading the
comments of other men. Fifthly. Some knowledge of the sciences also, is, to say the
least, equally expedient. Nay, may we not say, that the
knowledge of one, (whether art or science,) although now
quite unfashionable, is even necessary next, and in order to,
the knowledge of the Scripture itself? I mean logic. For
what is this, if rightly understood, but the art of good sense? of apprehending things clearly, judging truly, and reasoning
conclusively? What is it, viewed in another light, but the
art of learning and teaching; whether by convincing or
persuading? What is there, then, in the whole compass of
science, to be desired in comparison of it? Is not some acquaintance with what has been termed the
second part of logic, (metaphysics,) if not so necessary as this,.