Sorry to come in late to the discussion, and sorry I can't spend much time on this, but it seems to me this is being looked at through an inadequate lens. The focus is being placed on the logical but the terms "good" and "necessary" are in fact ethical. When it comes to what we "ought" to believe and to practice the discussion is ethical in nature. Ethically, what is good is not always necessary to be done. (See, for example, point 5 of the Larger Catechism's rules for understanding the ten commandments. And as Gillespie has been mentioned, see his masterful treatment of "necessity" in book 1 of English Popish Ceremonies.) The logical element only comes into the discussion with regards to what follows necessarily and can be shown to be implied in the teaching of Scripture. These deductions may or may not be good. As to whether they are good will depend on the ethical category. The Puritans worked with the moral/positive distinction, as clearly seen in WCF 20.2. Morally, in the area of all of life, the ten commandments are the rule for deciding what is good. Positively, in the area of faith and worship, specific instruction or institution is required.
The idea that the Puritans thought an inference becomes less necessary the further up the logical chain one ascends will not bear historical scrutiny. A look at any casuistic exercise of the day will show that inferences are binding on every step of the ladder.
As far as I can ascertain, the London Confession's revision is showing a stricter tie to the letter of Scripture than the Westminster Puritans would have allowed. This seems to be connected with the unique perspective with which antipaedobaptists deal with "positive" institutions. Of course, the statement in chapter one is related to the overall teaching of Scripture in both its moral and positive elements, so it seems to me to be an "unnecessary" revision, and one which could cause some confusion when it comes to assurance of salvation, marks of the church, etc., which require the subjective element to be included among the premises from which one draws logical inferences.
The idea that the Puritans thought an inference becomes less necessary the further up the logical chain one ascends will not bear historical scrutiny. A look at any casuistic exercise of the day will show that inferences are binding on every step of the ladder.
As far as I can ascertain, the London Confession's revision is showing a stricter tie to the letter of Scripture than the Westminster Puritans would have allowed. This seems to be connected with the unique perspective with which antipaedobaptists deal with "positive" institutions. Of course, the statement in chapter one is related to the overall teaching of Scripture in both its moral and positive elements, so it seems to me to be an "unnecessary" revision, and one which could cause some confusion when it comes to assurance of salvation, marks of the church, etc., which require the subjective element to be included among the premises from which one draws logical inferences.
