Chapter II:3: The Word as formerly Unwritten, Part 2

For in vain on behalf of an ante-Mosaic, ἐγγράφῳ/written, Word is objected,

α.  The Prophecy of Enoch mentioned by Jude in verses 14 and 15, προεφήτευσε δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ Ἐνώχ, λέγων, Ἰδού, ἦλθε Κύριος, etc., and Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh, etc.  For it is not necessary that these things be sought, 1.  either from The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs,[1] cited by Origen and Procopius,[2] and published by JOHN ERNEST GRABE[3] in his Spicilegium Patrum, Century I, in which many prophecies of Enoch are inserted, and also things somewhat similar to what is mentioned by Jude, yet not altogether the same.  But, that the author of this book was in fact a Jew, tinged with elements of the Christian faith, CAVE[4] and DODWELL[5] suppose, referring the writing of the book to the second Century of Christianity.  2.  Neither with great right is recourse to be had to the book that is called Ἀποκάλυψις Ἐνὼχ, The Apocalypse of Enoch, which, according to GROTIUS[6] on this passage, is cited by Irenæus,[7] Clement of Alexandria,[8] Origen,[9] and Tertullian,[10] to which book the Jews in the Zohar[11] bestowed almost the same confidence; and a great part of it SCALIGER[12] gave in Greek out of George Syncellus[13] in his ad Eusebium notis,[14] which Greek KIRCHER rendered into Latin in his Oedipo Ægyptiaco:[15]  see SCALIGER’S Notas in Græca Eusebii, pages 404, 405.  But concerning its argument SCALIGER, in his Notas in Græca Eusebii, page 405b, says that he does not know whether the Jews have more leisure, that they would fabricate these things, or more patience, that they would write them.  For there are so many things in them, says he, that disgust, weary, and shame, that, unless I had known that it belongs to the Jews to lie, and that now they are not able to leave off those trifles, I would have thought them to be not even worthy of reading.  But nevertheless, which is strange, the same SCALIGER, in his Notas in Græca Eusebii, pages 404a, 405b, twice asserts that the passage, which in the Epistle of Jude is produced out of the work of Enoch concerning the angelic prevaricators, was taken out of this fragment.  3.  With difficulty indeed would I believe with COCCEIUS[16] that Jude have been acquainted with this argument of the prophecies and Enoch as Prophet, gathered this from Moses’ history alone, and by conjecture attributed such words to Enoch as might well agree with him and with the time in which he lived:  for when Enoch is said to have prophesied λέγων/saying, it indubitably follows that the words next mentiond are the very words of that Prophet.  4.  Therefore, I would rather say that certainly from Jude it is evident that Enoch προεφήτευσε—λέγων, prophesied…saying; but not that Enoch wrote down this prophecy.  Therefore, this prophecy, delivered orally by Enoch, the Apostle would have had from the tradition of his ancestors, which nevertheless at a later time was able to be written down by others, and concerning the truth of which by the Spirit of God he would have been rendered quite certain; compare 2 Timothy 3:8:  see HOTTINGER’S Thesaurum Philologicum, book I, chapter II, section II, pages 82-88; our AUTHOR’S Expectationem Gloriæ futuræ Jesu Christi, book I, chatper XXIII, § 6.



[1] The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs purports to relate the dying commands of the twelve patriarchs of Israel.  It was composed in Greek, and appears to have reached its final form in the second century AD.  In the Testament certain writings of Enoch are cited.

[2] Procopius (c. 500-c. 560) was a Byzantine historian.

[3] John Ernest Grabe (1666-1711) was an Anglican theologian and chaplain of Christ Church, Oxford.  He was involved in producing the Spicilegium Patrum et hæreticorum, and new editions of Justin Martyr’s Apologia prima, Irenæus’ Adversus omnes hæreses, and the Septuagint (based upon Codex Alexandrinus).

[4] William Cave (1637-1713) was an Anglican churchman and theologian, and patristic scholar.  His Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia Literaria is held in high esteem.

[5] Henry Dodwell (1641-1711) was an Irish theologian and controversialist.  He produced several learned works on ecclesiastical chronology.

[6] Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) distinguished himself in the field of international law, but he was interested in many fields of learning, including Christian apologetics, theology, and Biblical criticism and exegesis.  His dual interest in international law and theology caused him to run afoul of civil authorities:  Embracing Arminian doctrine, he was imprisoned from 1618-1621 after the Synod of Dort declared against the position.

[7] Against Heresies 4:30.

[8] Excerpts out of Theodotus.

[9] Againt Celsus 5.

[10] Against Idolatry; Concerning Female Fashion 1.

[11] The Kabbalah is a set of secret, esoteric Rabbinic doctrines, handed down orally and based on a mystical interpretation of the Hebrew Scripture.  Zohar is one of the principal texts for Kabbalists.  It was probably written by Moses de León in the thirteenth century, but it has traditionally been attributed to Simeon ben Jochai, a second century Rabbi and mystic.

[12] Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609) was a skilled linguist and developed into one of the most learned men of his age.  During the course of his studies and travels, he became a Protestant and suffered exile with the Huguenots.  He was offered a professorship at Leiden (1593), a position which he eventually accepted and in which he remained until his death.

[13] George Syncellus (d. 810) was a monk, syncellus or secretary to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and a chronographer, chronicling the time from the creation to Diocletian.

[14] Scaliger, ever interested in matters of chronology, reconstructed Eusebius’ lost Chronicon.

[15] Athanasius Kircher (c. 1601-1680) was a German Jesuit scholar, skilled in geology, medicine, and Oriental studies.  His Oedipus Ægypticus is a large study of Egyptology and comparative religion.

[16] Johannes Cocceius (1603-1689) was born in Bremen, Germany, and went on to become Professor of Philology at the Gymnasium in Bremen (1630), held the chair of Hebrew (1630) and theology (1643) at Franker, and was made Professor of Theology at Leiden (1650).  He was the founder of the Cocceian school of covenant theology, bitter rival to the Voetian school.

Chapter II:3: The Word as formerly Unwritten, Part 1

The Word of God here supplies the place of the Genus.  When the Word of God is called the Genus of Scripture, one might thence easily conclude that part of the Word of God is Written, concerning which we here treat, another part is Not Written, which the Papists also maintain.  Bellarmine,[1] in his Controversiis, tome 1, book IV, de Verbo Dei, chapter XII, column 255:  “In the next place, I say that Scripture, even if it was not composed so that it might be a rule of faith, nevertheless is a rule of faith, not total, but partial.  For the total rule of faith is the Word of God, or the Revelation of God made to the Church, which is divided into two partial rules, the Scripture and Tradition.”  But for that reason Theologians observe that, when we speak of the Word of God ἀγράφῳ/ unwritten and ἐγγράφῳ/written, it is not thus a division of the Genus into Species, or of the Whole into Parts; but it is a description of the Subject according to its various Accidents; for to the same Word, formerly ἀγράφῳ/unwritten, it happens afterward to be written down, and thus to become ἔγγραφον/ written:  in a similar manner as it is permissible to affirm of a man that he is naked or clothed, which cannot be true of the same subject at the same time, but is able to happen unto the same man at different times.  At the time that the Prophets were yet living among the people of God, the ἔγγραφον/written, Mosaic, etc., Word was flourishing in the Church together with the ἄγραφον/ unwritten Word, which the Prophets were daily speaking forth:  but with the ἀγράφῳ/unwritten ceasing now of a long time after the completion of the Canon of Sacred Scripture, the ἔγγραφον/ written Word of God alone obtains.  SPANHEMIUS,[2] in his Collegium Theologicum Heidelbergæ de Principio Theologiæ, part 2, § 1, 2, opera, tome 3, column 1190:  “We have, therefore, established the Word of God as the true, sole, and adequate principium of Sacred Theology, which Word was at first ἀγράφως, without writing, from Adam unto Moses, —and was afterwards exhibited ἐγγράφως, in writing, in the Canonical Scriptures of both Testaments.  Hence arose the distinction of the Word into ἄγραφον/unwritten and ἔγγραφον/written, not in a composite sense and with respect to the present time, as if today some might be written and some not written, but in a divided sense and with respect to past time, so that what was formerly ἄγραφον/ unwritten might now be ἔγγραφον/written, both being the same materially and with respect to substance, but distinct formally and in the mode of communication.”

The Word ἄγραφον/unwritten alone obtained in the Church until Moses.  Although we would not at all wish to say that Moses was the first inventor of letters.  As far as we are concerned, letters would naturally have an origin far earlier, and would have been already in common use in the age of the Patriarchs:  for why in that age, in which Music, Astronomy, and other arts were thriving, shall we be unwilling to allow that letters were also invented at that time, so that through the help of writing they might instruct posterity, since the evidences of mortality were evident in daily experience?  Indeed, I allow that the invention of letters be attributed to Adam himself as author.  Concerning which matter HUGO’S[3] de prima Scribendi Origine, notis Clarissimi Trotz[4] illustratus, chapter III, is able to be consulted; and also GERHARD JOHANN VOSSIUS’[5] de Arte Grammatica, book I, chapter IX, opera, tome 2, pages 13-15; SPANHEMIUS’ Historiam Ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, epoch I, chapter III, § 7, column 275, epoch II, chapter VII, § 2, column 297; GULIELMUS SALDENUS’[6] Otia Theologica, book I, exercitation I, pages 1-18; VITRINGA’S[7] Sacrarum Observationum, book I, chapter IV, pages 35-37, in notis; BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period I, section I, § 27, tome I, page 109; likewise Conjectures sur la Genese, à Bruxelles[8] 1753, Remark I, pages 281-297.  Yet we do not find the divine Word ἔγγραφον/written before Moses:  but if it had existed, written at the Command of God, and destined by God to be assigned to the Canon; certainly it would have been preserved by God, and by Moses inserted into, or set before, his Pentateuch.  And so they would have committed sacred things also to letters; this they did by a more private decision for private uses, whence writings of this sort by the passage of time were able to be lost again:  After Moses, by the leading of the divine Spirit, had perhaps transferred those things thence into the Book of Genesis, which were profitable for us to know of the origins of the World and of the Church and its history:  consult TRIGLAND’S[9] Antapologiam, chapter II, page 38.



[1] Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) entered the Order of the Jesuits in his late teens.  Bellarmine became one of the great theologians of his era, a Cardinal, and, after his death, a Doctor of the Church.

[2] That is, the Younger.

[3] Hermann Hugo (1588-1629) was a Jesuit priest.  His Pia desideria was one of the most popular devotional texts of the period.

[4] Christianus Henricus Trotz (1703-1773) was a Dutch jurist.

[5] Gerhard Johann Vossius (1577-1649) was a Dutch classical scholar and theologian.  In 1619, his Historia Pelagiana brought him into suspicion of Arminianism.

[6] Guilielmus Saldenus (1627-1694) was a Dutch Reformed pastor and theologian.

[7] Campegius Vitringa Sr. (1659-1722) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and Hebraist.  He was a critical Cocceian, and heavily influenced by his pastor, Herman Witsius.  He served the university at Franeker, first as professor of Oriental languages (1681), then of Theology (1682) and Church History (1697).  He is remembered for his commentaries on Isaiah and Revelation.

[8] Jean Astruc (1684-1766) was a professor of medicine at Montpellier.  His Conjectures sur les Genese was important in the early development of the Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch.

[9] Jacobus Trigland the Elder (1583-1654) was a Dutch Reformed pastor and theologian.  He was deputed by the Synod of North Holland to the Synod of Dort; he was a member of the committee appointed to draw up the Canons of Dort.  In 1633, he became Professor of Theology at Leiden.

Chapter II:2: The Definition of Sacred Scripture

In the Definition set forth in this §, in general is observed

A.  The Genus, the Word of God, concerning which § 3-11.

B.  The Difference of Species, which are sought

א.  From the Efficient Instrumental Cause, or Amanuenses, θεοπνεύστοις/inspired Men, concerning whom § 12.

ב.  From the Material of Composition, which are the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments, concerning which § 13-20.

ג.  From the Object, the Doctrine of true Religion, concerning which § 21-31.

ד.  From the End,

α.  Both proximate, that is, that it might be a perfect and perpetual Norm of this doctrine in the Church, concerning which see § 32-49.

β.  And more remote,

a.  Subordinate, the certain salvation of Elect men:

b.  Supreme, the Glory of God, see § 50.

Chapter II:1: The Denominations of Sacred Scripture

The Revealed Word of God is wont to be called the Sacred Scripture, which contains the Principium of Revealed Theology, even indeed by its Biblical denomination, in which there is very frequent mention of γραφῆς/Scripture,[1] γραφῶν/Scriptures, but also of γραφῶν ἁγίων, Holy Scriptures, Romans 1:2.  And most accurately indeed is it thus called; namely, because the divine Word by divine command was committed to Books for the use of the Church, as we shall see in § 4.  Now, this Scripture deserves to be called Sacred, not only from its Object, which treats of Sacred things; but also from its End, because it earnestly commends Holiness to man, delivers to him the norm of this Holiness, and causes the same to be instilled in him, with the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit being added:  for this is almost common to the divine Word with human writings treating sacred things:  but especially for its Origin, that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and also from its proper Use, that it is to be received by us with a Holy veneration of soul:  both of which are taught be Peter, 2 Peter 1:19-21, where in verses 19 and 20 he commends a reverent use of the Scripture, in verse 21 he affirms the divine origin of the same:  see Commentarium meum in loco.  Commonly κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, by way of eminency, we call the Sacred Scripture the Bible, that is, the Books, on account of their superiority to all human Books.  Among the Hebrews the Word is called the Law; consult VRIEMOET’S[2] Adnotationes ad Dicta classica Veteris Testamenti, tome 3, chapter XIV, page 132.  Concerning other Hebrew denominations of Sacred Scripture ready to hand in the writings of the Jews and here mentioned by our AUTHOR, or similar denominations, consult HOTTINGER’S[3] Thesaurum Philologicus, book I, chapter II, section III, pages 88-105.  Concerning the dubious Sense of the word מִקְרָא/ reading in Nehemiah 8:8,[4] consult below § 39, 45.  The remaining things that pertain to the Synonyms and Homonyms of the word, Sacred Scripture, are able to be sought out of our very AUTHOR.



[1] For example, 2 Timothy 3:16:  “All scripture (γραφὴ) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…”

[2] Emo Lucius Vriemoet (1699-1760) was a Dutch Reformed Theologian and Orientalist.

[3] Johann Heinrich Hottinger (1620-1667) was a Swiss Reformed theologian philologist.  He served as Professor of Church History, Oriental Languages, and Rhetoric at Zurich (1642-1655), and later as Rector of the same (1661-1667), with a brief stay in Heidelberg as Professor of Oriental Languages (1655-1661).

[4] Nehemiah 8:8:  “So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading (בַּמִּקְרָא).”

Summary of Chapter II

 

Summary

 

This Chapter contains a Treatment of the Principium of Theology, or SACRED SCRIPTURE:

 

I.  A Nominal Treatment:  in which the rationale of the denomination of Sacred Scripture is explained, § 1.

II.  A Real Treatment:  in which a very full Definition of Sacred Scripture occurs, § 2, of which is explained:

A.  The Genus, which is the Word of God, which our AUTHOR discusses, § 3-11.

א That Word is considered as:

αFormerly ἄγραφον/unwritten,

a.  With the prophecy of Enoch, etc., not hindering,

b.  On account of various reasons, § 3.

βAfterwards γγραφον/written at the Commandment of God, who

a.  Is shown to have given a Commandment

a.  To write to His Ministers,

b.  To read to His people, § 4, part 1.

b.  Hence the twofold Error of the Papists is rejected,

aThat the Scripture was written down only by chance and at the bare pleasure of men.

bThat the Scripture is not necessary, § 4, part 1.

ב That is called the Word of God, especially on account of its Infallible Inspiration; of which

αThe Object is set forth, which are

a.  All the Persons, that wrote or are set forth as impelled by the Spirit to speak.

b.  All the Matters, dogmatic and historical, good and bad, more or less weighty, which last is defended against the Socinians.

c.  The individual Words, § 5.

βThe Certitude of θεοπνευστίας/inspiration and of the connected Authority of Scripture in itself and with respect to us,

a.  Is asserted in a legitimate manner, § 6

b.  And that method of proving the Divinity of the Scripture is defended against the false method of the Papists, whose captious objections are refuted, § 7.

γThe Authority of Scripture, proceeding from Inspiration, as, with respect to Substance, is in every faithful Edition of the Scripture, so, with respect to the Words also, it is taught to be Independent and Authentic,

a.  Positively, only in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and Greek text of the New Testament, which

aIs proven, § 8.

b.  Is defended especially against the Papists, disparaging the current Authenticity of those texts, whose Objections are resolved, § 9.

b.  Negatively, hence is rejected the Authenticity

a.  Of the Vulgate Latin Version of the Papists, which thesis

1.  Is confirmed by Arguments,

2.  Is freed from the Objections of the Papists, § 10.

b.  Of the Samaritan Pentateuch, § 11, in the beginning,

c.  Of the Greek Version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, vulgarly called Viralis, which

1.  Is built upon by Reasons,

2.  Is defended against Objections, § 11.

B.  Its Differences of Species, sought from

א .  The efficient, instrumental Cause, or Amanuenses, the Prophets and Apostles, of whose ministry God made use in the writing of His Word, § 12.

ב .  The Material from which and the external Form, which

αPositively is related, § 13-18.

a.  The Material of Composition of the Sacred Scripture is the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments, the number and division of which is discussed, § 13.

b.  The present Form the Canon of θεοπνεύστων/inspired Books receives by the reception of those Books into the Canon by the Church, to which was competent

aThe Separation of those Books from the ἀκανονίστοις/ non-canonical,

bThe Arrangement, Inscription, Subscription, Division into Chapters, etc., of the same, § 14.

c.  The proper Attributes of these Canonical Books are,

aThat they never perish:

1.  Neither all at the same time in the Babylonian devastation of the City and Temple of Jerusalem, § 15.

2.  Nor any one individually, which

§.  Is proven,

§§.  Is defended against Objections, § 16.

bThat eduring, all the Canonical books remain,

1.  Always, even those Old Testament books under the New, which against the Anabaptists, etc.,

§.  Is proven.

§§.  Their Objections are resolved, § 17.

2.  Equally, which is observed

§.  Against the Socinians and those Socinianizing, who sometimes elevate the predictions of the Prophets.

§§.  Against the Papists, distinguishing between Books Proto- and Deutero-Canonical, § 18.

βNegatively from the Canon of θεοπνεύστων/inspired are excluded the books that are called Apocryphal, the repudiation of which

a.  Is confirmed, § 19.

b.  Is defended against the Objections of the Papists, who hold six of those as Canonical, and of others, § 20.

ג .  The Object or internal Material, the Material concerning which, or the Argument of Sacred Scripture, which

αIs taught to be the Doctrine of true Religion, unto which all the remaining things occurring in the Scriptures ought to be referred in their own manner, § 21.

βThe Mode is explained, in which concerning its own Object the Scripture is conversantThat is, Scripture relates that

a.  Truly, and indeed equally Truly in all things, Natural things not excepted, which is proven and defended, § 22.

b.  Consistently with itself, to such an extent that no Contradictions, rightly so called, are found among the Sacred Books, § 23.

c.  Perspicuously, to such an extent that in necessary matters it is able to be understood by those reading piouslyWhich perspicuity

aNegatively, is not Objective, and to such an extent is not able to be understood savingly apart from the Illumination of the Spirit:  which

1.  Is proven,

2.  Is defended against the Socinians, § 24.

bPositively, is Subjective:  which Subjective Perspicuity

1.  Is proven against the Papists, § 25.

2.  Is freed from their Objections, § 26.

d.  Perfectly; in such a way that

aPositively we hold that the Dogmas necessary for Salvation are contained Perfectly and Sufficiently in Sacred Scripture:  which

1.  Is proven by arguments,

2.  Is defended against various Objections, § 27.

bNegatively we reject,

1.  Both the Traditions of the Papists orally propagated, which Traditions

§.  Are refuted by arguments, § 28.

§§.  A response is given to the Objections of the Papists on behalf of the same, § 29.

2.  And the Enthusiasts’ private Revelations of the Spirit, as if these might be another principium of the Faithwhich again

§.  Are confuted, § 30.

§§.  A response is given to the Objections of the Enthusiasts, § 31.

ד .  The Proximate End, which is that it might be a perpetual Canon or Rule of Faith and Manners:  Which

α.  End itself

a.  Is proven,

b.  Is defended against the Papists, § 32.

β.  The Means tending toward this end are exhibitedwhich are

a.  The Translation of the Scripture into the vernacular Languages, of which

a.  The Propriety and Necessity is proven, § 33.

b.  The Respect due to Versions is asserted, § 34.

b.  The Reading of the Scripture before and by a Christian people, which

aIs asserted validly, § 35.

bIs defended against the Papists forbidding the Reading of the Bible to the people, § 36.

c.  The Understanding of the Sense of Scripture.  Where

aThe Subject is discussed by our AUTHOR, or the Sense of Sacred Scripture, which

1.  He observes,

§.  Is commonly said to be only One by us, and that either Simple, or Composite.

§§.  But is everywhere established by the Papists as Twofold, Literal and Mystical, which Mystical again is Allegorical, Tropological, or Anagogical, § 37.

2.  His own Epicrisis concerning that, which concerning the Sense of Sacred Scripture he thinks is to be held, our AUTHOR subjoins in five distinct theses, § 38.

bAnd as far as the Predicate, of Understanding, is concerned, to this the Interpretation of Scripture and the Judgment of Controversies of Faith have regardOf these matters is determined

1.  The Subject, with which they agreeAnd thus

§.  The Private Judgment of Discernment agrees with individual Believers; which

 ̸Is proven,

̸̸Is defended against the Papists, § 39, in the beginning.

§§.  A Judgment Ministerial, public, and externally definitive, agrees with the Overseers of the Church, which is proven, § 39, in the middle.

§§§.  The Judgment Normative or directive agrees with the Scripture itself, § 39, near the end.

§§§§.  Whether there be in addition a Judge, Supreme and ἀνυπεύθενος, not accountable, in the Church, is disputed, § 39, at the end.

̸Negatively our AUTHOR holds that this Dignity is not to be bestowed upon

̅ .  An Enthusiastical Spirit, § 40a.

̲̅ .  Human Reason or Philosophy, which, against the Socinians and various Philosophers,

†.  Is proven,

††.  Is defended, § 40b.

̶̲̅ .  The Church, which

†.  Our AUTHOR proves by various arguments, § 41,

††.  And defends against the Objections of the Papists, who maintain the contrary, § 42.

̸ ̸Positively he concludes that this honor agrees with the Holy Spirit Alone, speaking now in the Word Written; which our AUTHOR

̅Proves,

̲̅Defends against various arguments, § 43.

2.  The Object:  which our AUTHOR relates

§.  Negatively not to be Dominical sayings alone:

§§.  Positively, however, he maintains that the Interpretation of Scripture is extended to the whole Scripture, with the treatment of the Prophecies or of Controversial Passages not excluded, § 44.

3.  The Method of arriving at the true Understanding of the Scriptures, and a right Judgment concerning matters of faithto this have regard

§.  The various Means of Interpretation, which are

̸Positively

̅ .  Prayers,

̲̅ .  A Spirit humble, teachable, etc.,

̶̲̅ .  The Resources of other Interpretations, an investigation of the original Languages;

̶̲͇̅ .  The Analogies

†.  Of Faith,

††.  Of Context, § 45.

̸̸Negatively the thesis of the Papists is not admitted, who maintain that the Unanimous Exposition of the Fathers is the best Means of true Interpretation and at the same time a most certain criterionWhich

̅Opinion is refuted, § 46.

̲̅The Objections of the Papists are resolved, § 47.

§§.  The Canons to be observed in Interpretationof which sort are

̸ .  The Interpretation of Scripture, as it ought to be done through clearer words of the Scripture itself.

̸̸.  In that, there is to be no receding from the propriety of the words.

̸̸ ̸.  There is to be no transfer unto a Mystical Sense upon a slight basis, § 48.

̸̸̸̸.  The Force of the Words is to be retained, as far as the Analogy of Faith and of Context permits.  With which Canon is compared that other traditional Canon:  The Word signify all that, which they are able to signify, § 49.

ה .  The Highest End,

αBoth subordinate, the Salvation of the Elect,

βAnd supreme, the Glory of God, § 50.