(5) The use of human reason in religion is of two sorts:  the former, in the conception and apprehension of the mysteries of God to us revealed; the other, in the inferring and deriving of doctrine and direction thereupon.  The former extendeth to the mysteries themselves; but how? by way of illustration, and not by way of argument.  The latter consisteth indeed of probation and argument.  In the former we see God vouchsafeth to descend to our capacity, in the expressing of His mysteries in sort as may be sensible unto us; and doth graft His revelations and holy doctrine upon the notions of our reason, and applieth His inspirations to open our understanding, as the form of the key to the ward of the lock.  For the latter there is allowed us a use of reason and argument, secondary and respective, although not original and absolute.  For after the articles and principles of religion are placed and exempted from examination of reason, it is then permitted unto us to make derivations and inferences from and according to the analogy of them, for our better direction.  In nature this holdeth not; for both the principles are examinable by induction, though not by a medium or syllogism; and besides, those principles or first positions have no discordance with that reason which draweth down and deduceth the inferior positions.  But yet it holdeth not in religion alone, but in many knowledges, both of greater and smaller nature, namely, wherein there are not only posita but placita; for in such there can be no use of absolute reason.  We see it familiarly in games of wit, as chess, or the like.  The draughts and first laws of the game are positive, but how? merely ad placitum, and not examinable by reason; but then how to direct our play thereupon with best advantage to win the game is artificial and rational.  So in human laws there be many grounds and maxims which are placita juris, positive upon authority, and not upon reason, and therefore not to be disputed:  but what is most just, not absolutely but relatively, and according to those maxims, that affordeth a long field of disputation.  Such therefore is that secondary reason, which hath place in divinity, which is grounded upon the placets of God.

(6) Here therefore I note this deficiency, that there hath not been, to my understanding, sufficiently inquired and handled the true limits and use of reason in spiritual things, as a kind of divine dialectic:  which for that it is not done, it seemeth to me a thing usual, by pretext of true conceiving that which is revealed, to search and mine into that which is not revealed; and by pretext of enucleating inferences and contradictories, to examine that which is positive.  The one sort falling into the error of Nicodemus, demanding to have things made more sensible than it pleaseth God to reveal them, Quomodo possit homo nasci cum sit senex?  The other sort into the error of the disciples, which were scandalised at a show of contradiction, Quid est hoc quod dicit nobis?  Modicum et non videbitis me; et iterum, modicum, et videbitis me, &c.