and which is collected from the words themselves, whether they be received in their proper or in their figurative signification: That is, it is the grammatical sense, as it is called.

II. From this sense alone, efficacious arguments may be sought for the proof of doctrines.

III. But on account of the analogical similitude of corporeal, carnal, animalium] natural, and earthly things, and those belonging to the present life, to things spiritual, heavenly, future and eternal; it happens that a double meaning, each of them certain and intended by the author, lies under the very same words in the Scriptures; of which the one is called "the typical," the other "the meaning prefigured in the type" or "the allegorical." To this allegorical meaning we also refer the anagogical, as [collatum] opposed in a similar manner to that which is typical.

IV. From these meanings that which is called "the æthiological," and "the tropological," do not differ; since the former of them renders the cause of the grammatical sense, and the latter contains an accommodation of it to the circumstances of persons, place, time, &c.

V. The interpretation of Scripture has respect both to its words and to its sense or meaning.

VI. 1. The interpretation of its words is either that of single words, or of many words combined; and both of these methods constitute either a translation of the words into another language; or an explanation [or paraphrase] through other words of the same language.

VII. Let translation be so restricted, that, if the original word has any ambiguity, the word into which it is translated may retain it; or if that cannot be done, [compensetur] let it have something equivalent by being noted in the margin.

VIII. In the explanation [or paraphrase] which shall be made by other words, endeavours must be used that explanatory words be sought from the Scriptures themselves: For this purpose, [observatio] attention to the synonymy and phraseology will be exceedingly useful.

IX. 2. In the interpretation of the meanings of the words, it must be sedulously attempted both to make the sense agree with the rule or "form of sound words," and to accommodate it to the scope or intention of the author in that passage. To this end, in addition to a clear conception of the words, a comparison of other passages of Scripture, whether they be similar or dissimilar, is conducive; as is likewise a diligent search or intuition

into its context. In this labour the occasion [of the words] and their end, the connection of those things which precede and which follow, and the circumstances also of persons, times and places, will be principally observed.

X. As "the Scriptures are not of private or peculiar explanation," an interpreter of them will strive to "have his senses exercised" in them; that the interpretation of the Scriptures, which in those sacred writings comes under the denomination of "prophecy," may proceed from the same Spirit as that which primarily inspired the prophecy of the Scriptures.

XI. But the authority of no one is so great, whether it be that of an individual or of a church, as to be able to obtrude his own interpretation on the people as the authentic one: From this affirmation, however, by way of eminence, we except the Prophets and the Apostles. For such interpretation is always subjected to the judgment of him to whom it is proposed, to this extent,—that he is bound to receive it, only so far as it is confirmed by strength of arguments.

XII. For this reason, neither the agreement of the Fathers, which can with difficulty be demonstrated, nor the authority of the Roman Pontiff, ought to be received as the rule of interpretation.

XIII. We do not wish to introduce unbounded licence, by which it may be allowable to any person, whether [propheta] a public interpreter of Scripture or a private individual, to reject without cause any interpretations whatsoever, whether made by one prophet or by more; but we desire the liberty of prophesying [or public expounding] to be preserved entire and unimpaired in the church: This liberty itself, however, we subject to the judgment of God, as possessing the power of life and death, and to that of the church, or of her prelates who are endowed with the power of binding and loosing.

DISPUTATION X.

ON THE EFFICACY OF THE SCRIPTURES.

I. WHEN we treat on the force and efficacy of the word of God, whether spoken or written, we always append to it the principal and concurrent efficacy of the Holy Spirit.

II. The Object of this efficacy is man, but he must be considered either as the Subject in whom the efficacy operates, or as the Object about whom this efficacy exercises itself.

III. 1. The Subject of this efficacy in whom it operates, is man according to his understanding and his [affectum] passions, and as being endowed with a capacity either active or passive. (i.) According to his understanding, by which he is able to understand the meanings of the word, and to apprehend them as true and good for himself. (i.) According to his passions, by which he is capable of being carried by his appetites to something true and good which is pointed out, to embrace it, and [acquiescere] to repose in it.

IV. This efficacy is not only preparatory, by which the understanding and the passions are prepared to apprehend something else that is yet more true and good, and that is not comprised in the external word; but it is likewise [consummatoria] perfective, by which the human understanding and affections are so perfected, that man cannot attain to an ulterior perfection in the present life. Therefore we reject [the doctrine of] those who affirm, that the Scriptures are a dead letter, and serve only to prepare a man, and to render him capable of receiving another inward word.

V. This efficacy is beautifully circumscribed in the Scriptures by three acts, each of which is two-fold: (1.) That of teaching what is true, and of confuting what is false. (2.) That of exhorting to what is good, dissuading from what is evil, and of reproving if any thing has been done beyond or contrary to one's duty. (3.) That of administering consolation to a contrite spirit, and of denouncing threats against a lofty spirit.

VI. 2. The Object of this efficacy about which it exercises itself, is the same man placed before the tribunal of Divine Justice, that, according to this word, he [reportet] may bear away from it a sentence either of justification or of condemnation.

DISPUTATION XI.

ON RELIGION IN A STRICTER SENSE.

WE HAVE treated on Religion generally, and on its principles as they are comprehended in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament: We must now treat upon it in a stricter signification.

I. AS RELIGION contains the duty of man towards God, it must necessarily be founded in the mutual relation which subsists between God and man: If it happen that this relation is varied, the mode of religion must also be varied, the acts pertaining to

the substance of every religion always remaining, which are, knowledge, faith, love, fear, trust, dread, and obedience.

II. The first relation between God and man is that which flows from the creation of man in the divine image; according to which, religion was prescribed to him by the comprehensive law that has been impressed on the minds of men, and that was afterwards repeated by Moses in the Ten Commandments. For the sake of proving man's obedience, God added to this a symbolical law, about not eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

III. Through the sin of man, another relation was introduced between him and God, according to which, man, being liable to the condemnation of God, needs the grace of restoration: If God bestow this grace on man, the religion which is to be prescribed to man must now be also founded on that act, in addition to creation. Since this act [on the part of God] requires from man an acknowledgment of sin and thanksgiving for deliverance, it is apparent that, [hic,] in this new relation, the mode of religion ought likewise to be varied, as through the appointment of God it has in reality been varied.

IV. It was the pleasure of God so to administer this variation, that it should not immediately exhibit this grace in a complete manner, but that it should retain man for a season under [obsignatione] the sealed dominion of guilt; yet with the addition of a promise of grace to be exhibited in his own time. Hence arises the difference of the religion which was prescribed by Moses to the children of Israel, and that which was delivered by Christ to his followers: Of which, the former is called "the religion of the Old Testament and of the Promise," and the latter "that of the New Testament and of the Gospel;" the former is also called the Jewish religion, the latter the Christian.

V. The use of the ceremonial law under Moses, and its abrogation under Christ, teach most clearly, that this religion or mode of religion differs in many acts. But as the Christian religion prevails at this time, and as [its obligations are] to be performed by us, we will treat further about it, yet so as to intersperse, in their proper places, some mention both of the primitive religion and of that of the Jews, so far as they are capable and ought to serve to explain the Christian religion.

VI. But it is not our wish for this difference to be extended so far as to have the attainment of salvation, without the intervention of Christ, ascribed to those who served God under the pædagogy of the Old Testament and by faith in the promise. For the

subjoined affirmation has always obtained from the time when the first promise was promulgated: "There is none other name under heaven, given among men, than that of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, by which men must be saved."

VII. It appears from this, that the following assertion, which was used by one of the Ancients, is false and untheological: "Men were saved at first by the law of nature, afterwards by that of Moses, and at length by that of grace." This also is further apparent,-that such a confusion of the Jewish and Christian religions as was introduced by Mahomet, is completely opposed to the dispensation or economy of God.

DISPUTATION XII.

ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, ITS NAME AND RELATION.

I. BEGINNING now to treat further on the Christian religion, we will first declare what is the meaning of this term, and we will afterwards consider the matter of this religion, each in its order.

II. The Christian Religion, which the Jews called "the heresy of the Nazarenes," obtained its name from Jesus of Nazareth; whom God hath appointed as our only Master, and hath made Him both Christ and Lord.

III. But this name agrees with Him in two ways,-from the Cause, and from the Object. (1.) From the Cause; because Jesus Christ, as "the Teacher sent from God," prescribed this religion both by his own voice when he dwelt on earth, and by his Apostles whom He sent forth into all the world. (2.) From the Object; because the same Jesus Christ, the object of this religion according to godliness, is now exhibited, and fully or perfectly manifested; whereas He was formerly promised and foretold, by Moses and the Prophets, only as being about to come.

IV. He was indeed a Teacher far transcending all other teachers,-Moses, the Prophets, and even the Angels themselves, both in the mode of his perception and in the excellence of his doctrine. 1. In the mode of his perception; because existing in the bosom of the Father, admitted intimately to behold all the secrets of the Father, and endued with the plenitude of the Spirit, He saw and heard those things which He speaks and testifies. But other teachers, being endued according to a certain [modum] measure with the Spirit, have perceived either by a vision, by dreams, by conversing " face to face," or by the intervention of an angel, those things which it was their duty to