Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	answ_n	quest_n	use_v	4,643	5	9.2230	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A14907	Exercitations divine Containing diverse questions and solutions for the right understanding of the Scriptures. Proving the necessitie, majestie, integritie, perspicuitie, and sense thereof. As also shewing the singular prerogatiues wherewith the Lord indued those whom he appointed to bee the pen-men of them. Together with the excellencie and use of divinitie above all humane sciences. All which are cleared out of the Hebrew, and Greeke, the two originall languages in which the Scriptures were first written, by comparing them with the Samaritane, Chaldie, and Syriack copies, and with the Greeke interpretors, and vulgar Latine translation. By Iohn Weemse, of Lathocker in Scotland, preacher of Christs Gospell.	Weemes, John, 1579?-1636.	1632 (1632)	STC 25212; ESTC S119565	155,578	222

than ours is This wee grant they disputed against those Answ who acknowledged not their authority but yeelded onely 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 onely 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 onely 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 onely 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 EXERCITAT III That the end of Divinity here consisteth rather in practise than in contemplation Luke 11. 28. Blessed are they that heare the Word of God and keepe it THe end of our Divinity here consisteth in doing rather than contemplation If we speake properly doing is not in the understanding but in the will when reason divideth compoundeth or frameth any proposition within it selfe then the understanding is not sayd The understanding is speculative and setteth the will on worke properly to doe but contenting it selfe within it selfe then it is speculative but when the understanding setteth the will on worke then the will doth the understanding but directeth the will and when the understanding reasoneth within it selfe they call this actus elicitus Actus elicitus imperatus but when the understanding setteth the will on worke they call this actus imperatus A proposition in Divinity commandeth us eyther A proposition in Divinity commandeth practise virtually or formally virtually to practise or else formally Virtually it commandeth us to practise example This is life eternall to know thee to be the onely true God and whom thou hast sent Christ Ioh. 17. 3. 11. This is a proposition which virtually includeth in it practise for as the Hebrewes say verba notitiae includunt verba affectus Words of knowledge include words of affection if it be life eternall for us to know God then it is life eternall also

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 onely 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 onely 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

prophesies of the Prophets were not written dayes of Eli to David as some of Asaph Heman and Ieduthun Secondly all the things which were written by the Seers were not written by them as Seers Salomon wrote many things which he wrote not as a Prophet and so did David Thirdly many things which Something 's written by the Prophets profitable for the Church then but not profitable now they wrote then as Seers and were profitable to the Church for that time were not profitable for the Church now and the Spirit of God remitted them then to the civill records and to some prophesies which were then extant but are perished now because now they were not necessary for the Church but all these things which the Lord endited to them by his Spirit and which he thought to be necessary for his Church to be the Canon and rule of our faith all those the Lords watchfull eye hath kept and preserved that none of them are perished The Conclusion of this is The bookes of Emperours Conclusion and Kings are lost yet the Lord hath kept the register of the little Kings of Iuda and Israel both in whole and in parts although they were but Shepherds and banished men And the Church would rather spend her best blood then shee would part with that pretious Iewell or any part of it therefore they called those who delivered the booke of God to the persecuting Tyrants Traditores EXERCITAT XIIII That the points were not originally with the Letters from the beginning Neh. 8. 8. So they read in the Booke the Law of God distinctly and gave the sense and caused them to vnderstand the reading of the Law WE have showne that the Scriptures are not corrupt and that no essentiall or integrall part is wanting in the holy Scriptures Now it resteth to show that the Points the accidentall ornaments were not from the beginning The Iewes who are faithfull keepers but bad interpreters of the Scriptures interpret these words Nehe. 8. 8. after this manner vaijkreu bassepher betorath They read in the booke of the Law this they expound to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the litterall sense which Ezra gave Mephorash distinctly that is adding the Points and distinctions Veshom Shecel Apponentes intellectum and gave the sense that is he added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Targum or paraphrase to it Vajabhinu bammikra and caused them to understand the reading of the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he added the Kabbala But this is a false Glosse Ezra read the Law to them gave them not onely the grammaticall sense but also the spirituall and true meaning of the words he neither added points nor Targum or Kabbala to it The points were not then from the beginning as may be seene by these reasons following The first reason is taken from the Samaritan Character The Iewes acknowledge that the letters of the law Reason 5 which they have now are not the ancient Characters in which Moyses wrote the Law But to these ancient Characters there is no vowell subjoyned as we may see in the forme of the Shekell set downe by Arias Montanus Beza and Villalpand upon Ezekiel The second reason is taken from the first exemplar Reason 2 of the Iewes which they kept in their Synagogues and they have most exactly written and rouled up this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 booke which is the cheefe booke in their estimation and whereof they account more then of any other Hebrew Bible yet there is neyther Poynt nor Accent in this booke but onely Consonants This may be seene also in their ancient billes of divorce wherein are neyther Points nor Accents Therefore the Points were not from the beginning The third reason is taken from the names of the Reason 3 Points and Accents which are Chaldee names therefore they were imposed after the captivity But they who maintaine that the Poynts were from Object the beginning say that this reason holdeth not for the names of the Moneths are Chaldee names imposed after the captivity and yet the Moneths were from the beginning So the Points may be from the beginning although the Chaldee names were given to them after the captivitie As the Moneths were from the beginning and had Answ Chaldee names given unto them after the captivity so the value of the Points were from the beginning but the figures and the names of the Points were set downe a long time afterwards The fourth reason is taken from the translation of the Reason 4 Seventy for when the Seventy read the Hebrew Text wanting the Points they differed very farre from the Hebrew in many things The difference of their reading arose from this because the Hebrew Text wanted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baculus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l●ctus the Poynts Example Gen. 47. 31. and Israel bowed himselfe gnal rosh hamitta upon bis beds head But the Apostle followeth the translation of the Seventy translating it He bowed upon the top of his rod Heb. 11. 21. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Volumen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 caput cranium Psal 40. 7. for Megilla the Seventy read gilgoleth in capite libri for in volumine libri because they wanted the Points and the Apostle followed this reading The fift reason is taken from Ketibh volo keri when Reason 5 the words are written one way and read another This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diversity of reading and writing arose because the letters wanted the Points from the beginning this made them to reade one way and write another way The Chaldee Arabian and Assyrian language which Reason 6 are but daughters proceeding from the Hebrew tongue have no Points therefore it is not probable that the Hebrew Text had Points from the beginning The seventh reason is taken out of the Talmud They Reason 7 write that Ioab killed his master because he taught him to read Zacar Masculus for Zecer Memoria and so made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 masculus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 memoria him to spare the females of the Amalekites whereas hee should have blotted out their memorie and killed them all Now if the points had beene from the beginning then Ioabs master could not have taught him to have read Zacar for Zecer The Points were not from the beginning then but found out afterwards by the Masorath There were three sorts of teachers amongst the Iewes The first was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who gathered the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel traditions of the Fathers together such were the Pharisees The second were the Sopherim afterwards called the Masoreth these observed the letters and words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the reading The third sort were the Midroseth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cabbalists who expounded the Scriptures allegorically The Scribes were from Moyses time who taught the people to reade the Law because the Law wanted the Points and Christ calleth these The

right sense of the Scripture When it is objected to us by the Church Diverse reading make not up diverse sense in the Scripture of Rome that we have not the true meaning of the Scriptures because of our diverse translations Our Divines answer that these diverse translations make not diverse senses in the Scriptures for the sense is still one and the same but these diverse translations helpe us onely to come to the true meaning of the Scriptures and so we must use these marginall and line readings as we use these interpretations When we see a blanke left in the the Text and supplyed in the Margent this addeth nothing to the Text as a word added sometime by a translatour addeth nothing to the Text So when the Masoreth putteth another word in the Margent A word set downe for explanation addeth nothing to the text which is not in the Text that word is set downe onely for explanation and it addeth nothing to the Text. We take up the meaning of the Text by the antecedent The meaning of the text is knowne by the antecedent and consequent and consequent Example Prov. 4. 3. Tender and young was I Liphni before my Mother but in the Margent it is Tender and young was I Libhni amongst the Sonnes of my Mother for Salomon had moe brethren 1 Chron. 3. 6. But these readings may stand he was tender and young 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before his Mother and best beloved of all his Mothers Sonnes The Conclusion of this A certaine Iew gave God thankes for foure things First that hee was a Iew and Conclusion not a Samaritane Secondly that he was bred at Ierusalem and not at Pambiditha Thirdly that he said Shibbeth and not Sibboleth Fourthly that hee needed not ex Tihni-deni cap. 7 the helps of Tiberias meaning the Points and Accents But we who are not naturall Iewes should bee thankefull to God because wee have these helpes to further us in the reading EXERCITAT XV. Of the meanes which God useth to make the Scripture plaine unto us 1 Cor. 14. 11. If I know not the meaning of the voyce I shall be to him that speaketh a Barbarian c. THere are three speciall meanes by which God maketh the Scriptures plaine unto us The first is translation of the Scripture The second is paraprasing Three speciall meanes for making the Scriptures plaine of the Scripture and the third is the interpretation of the Scripture In the Translation of the Scripture consider first What things are necessary for translation what is a Translation Secondly the necessitie of translation Thirdly what things a Translator should observe and what things he should shunne Fourthly who they were who translated the Scriptures Fiftly the authority of the translation of the Seventy Sixtly the authority of the vulgar Latine translation First what is a translation We translate when we What is translation change out of one language into another and it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Translator consider the words a part then it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is great force in the words and therefore the Translatour must observe them Plato was wont to call Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu obstetricem because when he sought out the words then he brought forth the truth Secondly let us consider the necessity of Translation The necessitie of translation proved by sundry reasons without a Translation wee can not understand a strange language but it is barbarous to us Reasons proving the necessitie of translation First when the old testament hath words altogether Reason 1 unknowne to the Iewes it useth to interpret them Example Words in the old Testament unknowne to the Iewes are interpreted Purim was a Persicke word unknowne to the Iewes therefore the Holy Ghost interpreteth it calling it a Lot So the Evangelists writing in Greeke and having sundrie Hebrew and Chaldee words they expound them in Greeke as Siloe that is sent Ioh. 9. 7. Abba interpreted by Pater Rom. 8. So Tabitha kumi by interpretation Daughter arise Mark 5. 21. So Thomas called Didymus See Mark 7. 34. and Act. 1. 27. and Revela 1. 7. amen by nai So Abaddon be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reve. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 9. 11. So Rabboni by Master Ioh. 20. 16. why doth the holy Ghost interpret these names but to teach us that he would have the Scriptures translated into knowne tongues that the people might understand them Why doth the holy Ghost interpret Elymas by Magus Quest Act. 13. 8. But Elymas the Sorcerer for so his name is by interpretation withstood them Seeing all translations should be in a more knowne tongue but Magus is as obscure as Elymas Magus was first a Persicke word but afterwards it Answ was well enough knowne to the Iewes Elymas was but a part of Persia so called from Elam the sonne of The Persians are called Elamites Sem therefore the Persians are called Elamites Act. 2. and Luke interpreteth Elymas by Magus as by that which was well enough knowne to the Iewes and to us now for we take Magus commonly for a Magitian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 magus a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 formare vel fingere the Arabick translateth Magus by Hhartom from Hharat fingere or formare because the Magitians draw figures and circles when they conjure Why is the prayer of Christ upon the Crosse set Quest downe in Hebrew by the Evangelists Eli Eli lama sabacthani Matth. 27. 46. The Evangelist doth this that we may perceive the Ans Why the prayer of Christ upon the crosse is set downe in Hebrew bitter mocke that the Iewes used against Christ saying He calleth upon Elias for in no other language the mocke will so appeare Secondly it was a curse pronounced against the people of God when the Lord should send strangers against Vnknowne tongues were a curse pronounced against the people of the Iewes them who should speake unto them in an unknowne tongue Esa 28. 11. So it is a curse to the Church as the Apostle applyeth it to speake to the people the misteries of their salvation in an unknowne tongue 1 Cor. 14. 21. The Lord at the Pentecost gave the gift of tongues to the Apostles that they might speake to the people Reason 3 in a knowne language Every man heard them speake in his owne language Act. 2. 6. And to some hee gave the tongues but not the interpretation of them but lest the people should not understand these languages he gave God gave the gift of tongues to some and to others he gave the interpretation of them to others the gift of interpretation 1 Cor. 12. 10. but the Church of Rome studieth of purpose to keepe the Scriptures in an unknowne tongue and thinketh that thereby the mindes of the people are more affected and stirred up to