Exercitations Divine, Book 1 · Exercitation 2
EXERCITATI. II.
What uſe reaſon hath in Divinity.
2 Cor. 10. 5.
And bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Chriſt.
AS God in the creation ſet up two lights to guide and to direct the world, Gen. 1. 16. ſo the Lord hath given two lights to direct man; the light of reaſon to direct him in things below here, and Divine light to direct him in things above: theſe two lights the Grace doth not extinguiſh reaſon, but rectifieth it.one of them doth not extinguiſh the other, but onelyonly diminiſh it, and maketh it fall downe and give place, and then rectifieth and exalteth it. Eſa. 42. 15. I will make the rivers ylands, and I will dry up the pooles. The rivers come from the fountaines, but yet when the light of grace commeth in, then the rivers are diminiſhed and they decreaſe that the dry land may appeare: reaſon is not taken away here, but it falleth downe and giveth way to grace; but the pooles ſhall be dryed up, that is, grace taketh away ſchiſmes and heriſies and drieth them up: but when reaſon ſubmitteth her ſelfe to Divinity and is rectified, ſhee hath good uſe in Divinity. And even as a Dwarfe ſet upon a Gyants ſhoulders ſeeth much further than hee did before: ſo doth reaſon when it is rectified by Divinity; and ſo grace doth not extinguiſh reaſon but perfecteth it: and therefore Iuſtine Martyr called religion true philoſophie, and then he ſaith, he became a Philoſopher when he became a Chriſtian.
Let us conſider firſt what is above the reach of reaſon Things that reaſon is not able to do in Divinity and matters of Faith.in Divinity. Firſt, reaſon cannot bee a judge in matters Divine, for reaſon can never judge of the object of ſupernaturall verity. Reaſon ſheweth this much to a man: when it ſeeth the antecedent and the conſequent, that this followeth rightly upon that: but reaſon never judgeth of the object of ſupernaturall verity, but Divinity enlighteneth the mind and maketh the ſpirituall man to judge of this. A Carpenter when he is working, doth ſee by his eye when he applieth the Simile. ſquare to the wood, whether it be ſtreight or not; but yet his eye (without the which he cannot ſee) is not the judge to try whether the tree be ſtreight or not, but onelyonly the ſquare is the judge: So reaſon in man (without the which he could not judge) is not the ſquare to try what is right or what is wrong, but the Word it ſelfe is onelyonly the rule and ſquare; reaſon cannot conſider how faith juſtifieth a man, or whether works bee an effect of faith or not, but reaſon can conclude onelyonly ex conceſſis, of things granted, if faith be the cauſe and works the effect, then they muſt neceſſarily goe together, and reaſon goeth no higher.
Secondly, no midſt taken from philoſophy can make up a Divine concluſion, neyther would it beget faith in a man. Example, God is not the efficient cauſe of ſinne, the efficient cauſe is a terme attributed to God: here if a Divine ſhould goe about to prove eyther by logicke or grounds of metaphyſicke, this concluſion were not a Divine concluſion, whereupon a mans faith might reſt, as if he ſhould reaſon this wayes, No efficient cauſe can produce a defect but an effect, God is an efficient cauſe, and ſinne is a defect, therefore God cannot produce ſinne; this were but an humane concluſion and could not beget faith. So if he ſhould reaſon from the grounds of metaphyſicke this wayes, God is ens entium, and the properties of ens are vnum verum bonum, therefore God who is ens entium cannot produce ſinne, becauſe hee is goodneſſe it ſelfe; the concluſion were but an humane concluſion and could not beget faith: but if a Divine ſhould prove the ſame by a midſt taken out of the Scriptures, and ſhould reaſon thus. 1 Ioh. 2. 16. All that which is in the world, is eyther the concupiſcence of the fleſh, or the luſt of the eye, or the pride of life, not from the Father, this midſt will make up a Divine concluſion which will beget faith in a man, and then the Chriſtian man may ſay to the Philoſopher as the Samaritans ſaid unto the woman of Samaria, I beleeve not now for thy reaſon, but for the authority of God, which is the ground of my faith.
Thirdly, Philoſophy doth not inlighten the minde with ſpirituall knowledge, it inlightneth the minde onelyonly with a generall knowledge whereof Iohn ſpeaketh, Iohn 1. 9. Rom. 1. when he beleeveth, his reaſon at the firſt is mere paſſive; therefore this ſpeech of Clemens Alexandrinus would be very warily taken, Philoſophiam Lib. 1. Strom.foreign vocat; as though philoſophy made an introduction to ſaving faith: And this ſpeech of ſome Divines is harſhly ſpoken, lumen natura accendit lumen gratiae, and Baſils compariſon muſt not be ſtretched over farre, as Dyers before they bring on the moſt perfect dye, they dye firſt with the baſer colour, to make it the more fitte to receive the more bright colour: So humane learning may be a preparation to grace. But the compariſon is too farre ſtretched here, humane learning is a preparation to make a man underſtand the axiomes, ſyllogiſmes and logical part in Divinity; but a heathen philoſopher having the helpe of nature, is no ſooner converted to the truth. A learned Philoſopher converted to the faith, may have a greater Certitudo evidentia. adhaerentia.certainty of evidence than a laicke, and may know the literall ſenſe better, but hee hath no greater certainety of adherence, as wee ſee oftentimes when it commeth to the poynt of ſuffering. But ſeeing zeale is not alwayes according to knowledge, therefore knowledge of humane Sciences is a great helpe to the knowledge of faith once bred, when it is ſanctified.
Philoſophie muſt not tranſcend her bounds and Reaſon muſt not tranſcend her bounds.commit Saltum, as they ſpeake in the Schooles, when ſhee taketh midſts which are mere philoſophicall to prove any thing in Divinity; this was the fault of moſt of the Schoolemen: but when ſhee doth keepe herſelfe within her bounds, then ſhe hath good uſe in Divinity. Matth. 22. the Sadduces reaſon this way concerning the reſurrection. If there were a reſurrection, then there ſhould follow a great abſurdity, that ſeven men ſhould have one wife at the day of judgement: but this is abſurd: therefore, &c. But Divinity telleth reaſon, that here ſhe goeth without her bounds, meaſuring the eſtate of the life to come, by the eſtate of this life, and borroweth midſts which are not Divine to prove this concluſion; for in the life to come wee ſhall be like Angels, who neyther marry nor give in marriage, and neede not to propagate their kind by generation.
Another example. Nicodemus reaſoned this wayes, He that is borne againe muſt enter into his mothers womb, Ioh. 3. 4 no man can enter againe into his mothers womb, therefore no man can be borne againe: but Divinity teacheth reaſon that ſhe tranſcendeth her bounds here, and uſeth a midſt which is mere naturall to prove a ſupernaturall concluſion.
A third example, Arrius reaſoneth this wayes; hee that is begotten is not eternall, Chriſt is begotten, therefore he is not eternall: here Divinity telleth reaſon that ſhee is out of her bounds, and applyeth her midſts falſly. There is a threefold generation, firſt a Generatio Phyſica. Metaphyſica. Hyperphyſica.phyſicall generation, ſecondly a metaphyſicall, and thirdly an hyperphyſicall: phyſicall generation is this, when a mortall man begetteth a ſonne, and this is done in time: metaphyſicall generation is this, when the mind begetteth a word, and this is alwayes done in time: but hyperphyſicall generation is that eternall generation, and this is done before all time; and Divinity ſheweth reaſon how ſhee miſapplyeth her phyſicall and metaphyſicall generation, to this eternall generation.
Whether is ſuch a propoſition true in Divinity, and Queſt. falſe in reaſon, the Sonne of God begotten from all eternity, true in Divinity, the Sonne of God begotten from all eternity, falſe in the court of reaſon: So Mary the Virgin bare a Sonne, true in Divinity: Mary the Virgin bare a Sonne, falſe in the court of reaſon?
That which is true in one Science, is not falſe in another. Anſw. In Iſrael there was a judicatorie of ſeventy who judged of matters of greateſt weight, and there was an inferior judicatory, conſiſting of three, and theſe judged of goods and matters of leaſt moment: that which was truly concluded in the higheſt judicatory was not falſe in this inferior judicatory, although they could not judge of a falſe Prophet as the great Synedrion did, yet they held it not falſe in the loweſt judicatory, when the great Synedrion concluded ſuch a one to be a falſe Prophet: So that which is true in Divinity is not falſe in reaſon, but onelyonly above her reach; and if any thing were true in one Science, and falſe in another, then verum non eſſet reciproca affectio entis, that is, that which hath a being ſhould not bee true, and that which is true ſhould not have a being, theſe two propoſitions ſhould not be converted. There is a verity Veritas ſuprae rationem. juxtae rationem. infrae rationem.that is above reaſon, and there is a verity which is agreeable to reaſon, and there is a verity that is under reaſon, the firſt is of things taken up by faith, the ſecond is of things taken up by reaſon, the third is of things taken up by ſenſe, but there is no verity contrary to reaſon, it is not againſt reaſon to beleeve that a Virgin conceived and bare a Sonne, but it is above reaſon.
Wee muſt not ſeclude reaſon altogether from Divinity, What uſe reaſon hath in Divinity.Chriſt himſelfe uſed the helpe of reaſon againſt the Sadduces, and Paul againſt the Iewes, Heb. 7. 17. Thou art a Prieſt for ever, after the order of Melchizedek. This is revealed by God himſelfe that Chriſt is the King of peace and righteouſneſſe, yet to prove this and to make it manifeſt to the miſbeleeving Iewes, he borroweth a helpe of a logicall notation, ſaying, which is by interpretation, the King of righteouſneſſe, the King of peace, Heb. 7. 2. So Chriſt uſeth reaſon againſt the Sadduces: God is the God of Abraham, Iſaack and Iacob, hence he inferferreth this conſequent, that they muſt live.
But they ſay that Chriſt and Paul were immediatly Object. directed by God, that they could not erre in their Midſts, and concluſions as we doe.
If Pauls extraordinary calling had given him power to uſe reaſon, then they had ſpoken to the purpoſe, but Anſ. he uſeth reaſon as common to him and to all other men, whether Apoſtles or not Apoſtles.
But they ſay, that Chriſts authority and Pauls was Object. greater than ours is.
This wee grant, they diſputed againſt thoſe Anſw. who acknowledged not their authority, but yeelded onelyonly to them, in reſpect of the force of the arguments, is it not lawfull for us to doe the ſame againſt our adverſaries? which Chriſt did againſt the Sadduces, and Paul againſt the Iewes.
But whatſoever was pronounced by Chriſt againſt Object. the Sadduces, or by Paul againſt the Iewes, it became by and by holy Scripture, which we cannot ſay of our concluſions.
Although arguments uſed by Chriſt and his Apoſtles Anſw. became by and by the Word of God, yet it will not follow that we may not uſe theſe midſts brought forth by reaſon, although they become not Scripture; but then that would follow if wee brought forth theſe principles of reaſon, to make them the object of our ſaving faith.
Whether were the Sadduces bound to beleeve this Queſt. argument of Chriſts, as an article of their faith, or not?
By the force of this conſequence as it were the Anſ. worke of reaſon, they were not bound to beleeve it, but as it was proved to them out of the Scriptures they were bound to beleeve it.
Seeing humane midſts have no force to binde of Queſt. themſelves, why are they uſed in proofe againſt men?
This is done for the infirmity of man, who is hard Anſw. to beleeve, and the Divine midſts will not ſerve to refute the naturall man. Theſe who have good and perfect Simile. ſight need no other midſt to ſee by, but the light; but a man who is of a weake ſight and purblind, uſeth Spectacles as a helpe to his ſight: ſo the perverſe heriticks make us to bring in theſe humane midſts, whereas the midſts taken out of the Word of God ſhould ſerve by themſelves to convince. When Chriſt roſe againe, Thomas doubted of the reſurrection and thought that his body had beene but a Spirit, but Chriſt bearing with his infirmity, by this humane midſt proveth that hee is fleſh, becauſe hee may bee touched and felt.
Obſerve againe that in Divinity ſome propoſitions are merely Divine, and ſome are mixtly Divine. Theſe that are merely Divine, reaſon can doe little thing here, it can but joyne the tearmes together, but it cannot take up theſe great myſteries; example, if I were diſputing againſt the Monothelites who denyed that there were two natures in Chriſt, and ſhould reaſon thus; Where there are two natures, there are two wils; but in Chriſt there are two natures, therefore two wils. That in Chriſt there are two wils, this is a propoſition merely Divine, reaſon can never take up this, yet reaſon ſheweth this much, where there are two natures there muſt bee two wills, and it judgeth onelyonly of the connexion of theſe two, but it cannot judge of the verity of this, whether there be two wills in Chriſt or not.
Yee will ſay then, what doth reaſon in the verity Queſt. of theſe propoſitions which are merely Divine?
Reaſon in a regenerate man concludeth not that to Anſ. be falſe which is above her reach, but onelyonly admireth and reſteth in this great myſtery; and reformed reaſon enlightened by the Word of God, goeth this farre on, that ſhe beleeveth theſe things to be poſſible with God which ſhee cannot comprehend; but reaſon in a corrupt man will ſcorne and mocke theſe things which ſhee cannot comprehend, as the Stoicke called Paul a babler, Act. 17. 18, when hee diſputed againſt them for the reſurrection, and called it a new doctrine.
In theſe propoſitions againe which are mixtly Divine, reaſon hath a further hand; example, No naturall body can be in moe places at once, Chriſts body is a naturall body, therefore it cannot be in moe places at once; this is mixtly Divine, for the properties of a naturall body ſheweth us that it cannot be in moe places at once, and the Scripture alſo, ſheweth us that Chriſts body is a naturall body.
But is not this a mixture of Divinity and humane Queſt. reaſon together, when wee borrow a midſt out of the Scriptures, and then confirme the ſelfeſame thing by reaſon?
This maketh not a mixture of Divinity and philoſophie, Anſw. but maketh onelyonly philoſophie to ſerve Divinity.
When we uſe reaſon to helpe our weakneſſe, we doe not ground our faith upon reaſon or upon the light of nature, but upon that ſupernaturall light; and the light of nature commeth in, but as in the ſecond roome Simile. to confirme our weakneſſe: and as we aſcribe not the price of the Ring, or the worthineſſe of it to the Hammer which beateth it out, but to the Gold it ſelfe, ſo our faith is not grounded upon humane reaſon or the light of nature, but upon the Word of God it ſelfe.
How can reaſon ſerve in Divinity ſeeing the naturall Queſt. man perceiveth not the things of God, and the greater Philoſophers, the greater enemies of grace?
Wee muſt diſtinguiſh inter concretum & abſtractum Anſ. betwixt philoſophie and the Philoſopher: many of the Philoſophers oppugned the myſteries of Divinity by their corrupt and naturall reaſon: but true philoſophie impugneth it not, and the greater light extinguiſheth not the leſſer, and verity doth not contradict it ſelfe; and truth in philoſophie, is but the footeſtep of that truth which is in God by way of excellency.
The concluſion of this is, contra rationem nemo ſobrius Concluſi. dicit, contra ſcripturam nemo chriſtianus, & contra eccleſiam nemo paciſicus: we muſt learne then to give every one of theſe their owne place and not to reject reaſon altogether from Divinity, but to captivate her and make her a handmaid to Divinity.