Apocalypse

Just as the Prophets had various revelations, even concerning the same matter, at different times, and consequently do not always preserve the order of time, but narrate future things later and past things earlier, and vice versa: so also St. John does here from time to time, though more sparingly and rarely. For the Apocalypse is more connected, consequent and ordered than the prophecy of Isaiah, Jeremiah and the other Prophets. The reason for this is that the entire Apocalypse revolves around the sealed book which John saw in chapter v, and its seals. Wherefore some do not rightly judge that the order in the Apocalypse is greatly confused and disturbed: whose opinion moved Alcazar to devise a new interpretation, in which he would exactly preserve and defend the order and sequence of St. John, namely by explaining all things mystically and symbolically. I judge both these extremes to be less true, and to be avoided, and that the middle way should be followed, so that namely the order be preserved as much as possible, and the series of the text not be inverted, unless necessity or evident reason compels it; where however that compels, I shall not unwillingly admit hysteron proteron and inverted order. But this happens very rarely indeed, as the chronological order itself will soon make clear, namely only in four instances: first, in the seventh angel and the trumpet of the seventh seal, of which in chapter xi, verse 15, which ought not to be placed before the sealed book, as the other seals, but after it, and that from the nature of the matter, namely the consummation of the world which it brings about; whence properly in it there is no hysteron proteron, but the straight series and order of things to be done. Second, in the binding of Satan by Christ, which ought to have been placed at the beginning of the Apocalypse; and in his loosing at the time of Antichrist, which ought to have been placed at the beginning of chapter eleven: but here they are placed in chapter xx, for the reason I gave there. Third, in the narration of the death, resurrection and ascension into heaven of Elijah and Enoch; for their life is woven in at chapter xi, verse 7, when rightly it ought to be placed at chapter xix, before verse 11. Fourth, in certain visions which are interspersed here and there repeatedly concerning the heavenly glory of the Blessed, and concerning the judgment and punishments of hell of the reprobate, as appears in chapter vii, verse 15; chapter xiv, verse 14; chapter xv, verse 2. For these in their proper order pertain to the end of the Apocalypse; yet they are more often mentioned and repeated partly in the seals, partly in the sealed book: because the work of the Apocalypse is, through these and similar things, to animate the faithful, both present and future, to endurance and constancy in persecutions; and nothing animates them so much as the hope and consideration of heavenly glory and crown. Again, to terrify and strike down sinners, both present and future, especially at the time of Antichrist, when charity shall grow cold and iniquity shall abound, through the threat of divine judgment and the punishments of hell. For the serious and attentive consideration of these things especially deters and restrains the impious from sins. Receive therefore the chronological order of the entire Apocalypse.

First, in the first three chapters are recounted the seven epistles and admonitions of Christ to the seven bishops and Churches of Asia Minor.

Second, in chapters iv and v, St. John sees through a vision the book sealed with seven seals, in which were described or sealed those things which from the time of St. John until the end of the world were to happen, and especially those things which were to happen under the times of Antichrist: for the seven seals contain those things which were to happen partly completely, partly in their beginning before Antichrist; but the sealed book itself contains things to happen at the time of Antichrist. Moreover the seals begin to be opened in chapter vi, and are finished in chapter x, verse 8: for there, the seals already opened, the book is unsealed; wherefore from chapter eleven to the end of the Apocalypse, are recounted those things which were written or represented in the sealed book.

Third, in chapter six, in the first seal, by the white horse is signified the victory of the Apostles and preachers of the Gospel over paganism and the gentiles subdued and to be subdued to Christ. In the second seal, by the red horse are signified the ten persecutions of the faithful, through ten Roman Emperors up to Constantine. In the third seal, by the black horse is signified Arianism and heresies, which after the persecutions of the Emperors, under Constantine the Great began to assail the Church. In the fourth seal, by the pale horse is signified Mahomet and Saracenism, which even now persecutes the Church. In the fifth seal, the souls of the holy Martyrs come forth, asking for an end to persecutions and vengeance. In the sixth seal, John passes over to the final times: whence he sees the sun darkened, the moon reddened, the stars falling from heaven, etc. Wherefore henceforth until the end of the book he deals with the final times, namely with the time of Antichrist, as in chapter xi and onwards, or with the years adjoining to it, those immediately preceding it, as he does from this place of the sixth seal up to chapter xi.

Fourth, in chapter seven are marked the elect Jews and Gentiles, lest they be touched by the plagues of God and his seven angels, about to be sent forth into the world, that is, upon the impious. This marking pertains to the sixth seal, of which in chapter vi, verse 12: for it precedes the plagues which are contained in the seventh seal, and consequently will precede the Antichrist: understand this in an inchoate sense: for the Jews will begin to be converted and marked before the Antichrist, but they will be converted and marked fully and universally after the Antichrist.

Magog, and the Antichrist. For shortly before their slaughter Elias and Henoch will be slain, will rise again, and will ascend into heaven. Here also, namely in verse 15, chapter xi, he interweaves the seventh trumpet of the seventh angel and the seventh seal. For this alone among the seals will not pass through the times of the Antichrist, but rather will follow: for it will accompany the death, resurrection and ascension of Elias and Henoch; wherefore that, equally as the death, resurrection and ascension of Elias and Henoch, seems rightly to be placed in chapter xix, before verse 11: for it precedes the victory and judgment of Christ.

Fifth, in chapter eight and nine the seventh seal is opened, and there come forth seven angels sending forth seven plagues into the world, that is, upon the impious who are not marked. These plagues in general and briefly Christ foretold in Matthew chapter xxiv, verse 29; Mark chapter xiii, verse 24; Luke chapter xxi, verse 25; but John here sets them forth particularly and one by one. To this also pertains the destruction of Babylon, of which chapter xvii and xviii, Ribera thinks. But in chapter xvii, verses 16 and 17, I showed in that place that it is placed in its own order and sequence, and pertains not to the seals, but to the sealed book.

Sixth, in chapter ten, St. John sees an angel in glorious attire, swearing that there shall be time no longer, that is, that the end of the world is at hand: soon seven thunders resound and harmonize with him. Then, verse 8, the seven seals being now opened, he is commanded to devour the book before sealed, now opened. Wherefore here the seals end, and the first part of the Apocalypse, containing those things which will precede the Antichrist, concludes, and the second part begins, which is the book itself, or the matter of the book: therefore

Seventh, in chapter eleven he recounts those things which were contained in the book, which all pertain to the time of the Antichrist. And so chapter xi predicts that a great part of the Church and of the faithful will be delivered to the Antichrist, and that Elias and Henoch will contend against him. For these will be two heads and princes of the faithful resisting the Antichrist, and consequently will be as it were leaders of the holy war against the Antichrist, which he describes in the following chapters. Moreover, because in this chapter John began the history of Elias and Henoch, lest he be forced to make mention of them again in the following chapters, he completes it in this place, and treats of their death, martyrdom, resurrection, ascension into heaven, which all will happen later, whose proper place seems to be, that they be placed in chapter xix, before verse 11, namely before the battle which Christ is about to wage against Gog and Magog and the Antichrist.

Eighth, he describes the war of the demon with the faithful and the Church through the Antichrist, throughout chapter xii. Ninth, in chapter thirteen he describes the Antichrist, his customs and his precursor, under the form and symbol of two beasts.

Tenth, in chapter fourteen he describes the glory of virgins, who will generously resist the Antichrist. Then on that occasion he briefly touches upon the day of judgment, and the punishments of the reprobate in hell. Eleventh, in chapter sixteen and chapter fifteen he describes the seven final plagues. Twelfth, after these will follow the destruction of Babylon, of which he treats in chapter xvii and xviii, and thence the jubilation and exultation of the Saints, of which he treats at the beginning of chapter xix. Then he begins to narrate the final battle of Christ against the Antichrist, Gog and Magog, and he completes its narration in chapter xx. Where he traces back the origin of this battle to a higher point, and begins from the binding of Satan made a thousand years before by Christ, who will be loosed at the beginning of the reign of the Antichrist, but more at its end, when he will bring to him Gog and Magog and other nations. Soon after their slaughter, he describes Christ coming to the final judgment.

Finally in chapter twenty-one and chapter twenty-two he depicts at length and graphically the glory of the heavenly Jerusalem, prepared for the Martyrs and Saints who have contended generously, which they will receive as a prize from Christ on the day of judgment. From what has been said it is easy to see how correct and exact is St. John's sequence, and the order of things and time, and how rare and few are the hysterolagies in the Apocalypse.

Editor's Note

This little prooemial dissertation is editorial matter, added by the editor of the year 1891 at Peronne, drawn from Patricius On the Interpretation of Holy Scriptures (as his annotations acknowledge). It is not part of the original commentary of Lapide, but introduces the hermeneutical framework of the entire volume.

1. A grave question is one which we undertake, concerning the spiritual sense of the Scriptures. For it is a matter of that sense, which the Holy Spirit, the author of Scripture, willed to underlie the Scriptures no less than the literal sense, which this one book has as its own particular property, shared with no other, which finally in the latter ages Lutherus first of all, then others among the Protestants, and commonly the moderns, who are called Rationalists, utterly reject, and deny that they recognize it in the Scriptures. These things, I say, sufficiently show in what place that question ought to be held.

2. Furthermore, what the spiritual or mystical sense is, and from what origin it is to be traced, is to be learned fully from the doctrine of the Fathers. Yet the usage of this name is twofold in their writings: one, by which it signifies that sense which is proper to the Scriptures themselves, of which we now treat; the other truly to designate those opinions which are indeed not at all subject to the Scriptures themselves, yet are certain consequences and inferences of those things which are said or narrated in the Scriptures, concerning which also we shall treat below. Yet this discrepancy of usage, which is found in the books of the Fathers, is the cause why this question, which otherwise would be sufficiently straightforward, if we held steadily in our mind a correct understanding of the spiritual sense, is so intricate and confused among authors, even among those who are heard to be most skilled in theological matters, whom you would wonder at, whether while they speak or while they dispute, calling the spiritual or mystical sense that which is plainly another thing, namely those consequences which we mentioned, or the literal sense itself referring to mysteries and such sublime things, and also transferred.

3. It ought therefore to be our care, that having first indicated the origin and laid bare as it were the source of the spiritual sense, and with the notions and names of things clearly distinguished from one another and accurately, we may have this question most lucidly, and avoiding the circumlocutions with which some, I know not by what scruple driven, stuff and entangle it, we may set forth the whole matter as simply as possible. Which also we shall safely accomplish, if we go that way under the guidance of Thomas, which he himself, following the Fathers, opened to us, expressing the sum of those things which we are about to treat in these few words most excellently: "The author of sacred Scripture is God, in whose power it is not only to accommodate words to signify, which man also can do, but also things themselves. And therefore when in all sciences words signify things, this science has as its own property that the things signified by words also signify something else. That first signification therefore, by which words signify things, pertains to the first sense, which is the historical or literal sense; but that signification by which the things signified by words again signify other things, is called the spiritual sense, which is founded upon the literal sense and presupposes it," I, Quest. I, art. 10.

4. By these words of Thomas we are taught that the spiritual sense can underlie the Scriptures for this reason, that through those things which are narrated or commemorated in them, other things were signified by God the author. From which also that consequence follows manifestly, that this spiritual sense is not so much proper to the Scriptures themselves as to those things which the Scriptures contain; yet it underlies the Scriptures, because the Holy Spirit, assigning those things to the sacred codex, willed also to assign that signification which he had put in those things, and which we should gather from the Scriptures equally as the literal sense. In a word, that the Scriptures can contain the spiritual sense, they have this from the very signification of types; but that they actually contain it, this is from no other source than from the counsel and will of the Holy Spirit. Yet with these things known beforehand, anyone easily understands that the spiritual sense can be regarded in two ways, as it underlies the Scriptures themselves, and as it underlies those things which are commemorated in the Scriptures, and therefore, although it is one and the same sense, yet for the sake of clarity it can be divided in thought and as it were held to be two senses, of which the former you would appropriately call the spiritual sense of words, the latter of things; the latter however is the origin and as it were the source of the former. Moreover, a particular discipline ought to be concerning each; we shall set down a few things concerning the consequent sense of the Scriptures.

Chapter I: Concerning the Spiritual Sense of Things, or Typology

5. All those things from which the spiritual sense of words or of the Scriptures themselves emanates, we call by the common name of types with Paul, Galatians IV, 24; and the signification of types itself, indeed the whole of this discipline, has the name typology given to it by more recent writers. Types are therefore either persons, or things, or actions, and those events and deeds which by a peculiar counsel and institution of God were conformed and directed to this end, that they might either prefigure certain future things pertaining to the very economy of the divine covenant, especially to Christ and His Church; or express and represent certain more sublime things, namely spiritual, heavenly and divine things, by means of ruder lineaments; or finally be norms and rules by which we might measure and fashion our morals. Whatever we gather at the same time from the writings of the Fathers which touches types in any way, it is easy to refer to that threefold kind; we shall therefore divide the types themselves into prophetic, anagogic and tropological, which names, although not always used by the Fathers themselves with the same constant meaning, we shall discuss singly concerning each kind, setting forth those things which are more necessary to know, and finally we shall say certain other things pertaining to this treatment of typology in general.

Article I: On the Various Kind of Types

I. On prophetic types.

6. The kind of types which are called prophetic extends more widely than the other kinds; for the whole economy of the old covenant was a foretelling of the new covenant, or a kind of foreshadowing. Wherefore very many examples of prophetic types can be drawn from the old covenant, whether they be persons, such as Adam, Melchisedech, Isaac and Ishmael, Moses; or things, such as the ark of Noah, the old law, victims and ceremonies, festival days, the cloud which led the Israelites, manna, etc.; or events and deeds, such as the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, the passage of the Red Sea.

It is clear that these types, since they were signs and symbols of future things, are to be held as foretelling announcements, not otherwise than the prophecies themselves are, from which they differ in this one respect, that these were uttered in words, but those in the manner in which we have spoken. They must, however, be altogether distinguished, as Thomas distinguished them, Quodlibet VII, article 15, to 1, and article 16, prophetic types from symbolic vaticinations, by which the prophets sometimes predicted future things, and of which the Scriptures exhibit a threefold mode. One of these was when God first represented to the mind of the prophet some image, usually monstrous and enigmatic, then opened its meaning, and finally the prophet narrated the whole matter to others, as is seen to have happened in Jeremiah I, 11-16; XXIV, 1-8; Ezekiel XXXVII, 1-11; Amos VII, 7-8; VIII, 1-2, etc. Another was when God commanded the prophet himself to do something, adding a declaration of the deed done, which the prophet would teach to others: such things we find in Isaiah XX, 2-4; Jeremiah XIII, 1-9; XIX, 1-11; Ezekiel IV, 1-8, etc. Finally, when the prophet himself pronounced those things which God had previously revealed to him, adding at the same time some symbolic thing or action, for the sake of illustration and ornament, such as are the prophecies of Ahijah, III Kings XI, 29; of Elisha, IV Kings XIII, 15; and of Agabus, Acts XXI, 11. For in none of these types is there any place for the prophets. But neither are these mere images hovering before the mind of the prophet, as is the first mode of symbolic vaticinations; nor are they actions otherwise causeless, nor looking to anything else than to represent by means of a kind of rude image to the eyes also those things which the prophet imparts to the ears of his hearers, as happens in the two latter modes.

II. On anagogic types.

7. The name anagogy more recent writers are accustomed to apply to that spiritual sense which concerns the eternal blessedness of men. But the Fathers did not define the use of this word within such narrow limits. For since any spiritual sense elevates the mind and soul of the reader to things higher than those which the words themselves taken in the obvious sense signify, the common name anagogy for the spiritual sense was sometimes made by the Fathers according to the meaning of the word. Yet sometimes and more properly they called by this name that spiritual signification which by its nature touches things more sublime than earthly and corporeal things, especially heavenly and divine things. Therefore those types to which this spiritual signification is peculiar are also called by their proper name anagogic types.

You will find some of these and their interpretation in the Book of Wisdom, such as the temple of Solomon, IX, 8, and manna, of which several significations are read in the book itself, XVI, 21-26; and more also in the epistles of Paul, such as the city of Jerusalem, Galatians IV, 25, the tabernacle and its parts and instruments, Hebrews IX, the priesthood of Melchisedech, ibid. VI, 20 seqq., the priesthood of Aaron, ibid. VIII, 1 seqq. Moreover, anagogic types are fewer than the others, especially because for the most part they can be numbered among prophetic types, and by the Fathers they have in fact been numbered to both simultaneously most frequently.

III. On tropological types.

8. The third kind comprises typological tropes, or moral types, whose spiritual significance is called tropology, a name indeed used by the Fathers and derived from the Greek word τρόπος, which among other things signifies custom and practice. A type of this kind was the manna, Wisdom XVI, 27; likewise, as Paul testifies in I Corinthians X, 5, those things which befell the Israelites in the desert. Furthermore, you will scarcely or not at all find anything of which the sacred writers have expressly made mention as a moral type of this kind, although it is possible to conjecture that this kind of types was quite widespread, both from those things which Paul speaks of concerning the deeds and events of the people of Israel journeying through the desert, for which there is no reason why we should not think the same applied to other things read in the Old Testament; and from the fact that, since the whole economy of the former covenant was in some way a prefiguration of the latter, which God made with us, it must be supposed that the customs which we ought to follow were also accounted for in that former covenant.

9. Yet we do not for that reason think that any matter assumed or proposed by the sacred writers as an example, although it be called a τρόπος by them, should be reckoned among the types of which we are treating, but only those to which we can gather from the very words of the writers themselves, or from elsewhere, that the form of a type was impressed by God. For not everything which can serve as an example (for instance, Paul proposing himself, Philippians III, 17; II Thessalonians III, 9, or the Thessalonians, I Thessalonians I, 7, as an example; or Christ washing the feet of his disciples, or bearing the cross, or even "suffering outside the gate," Hebrews XIII, 12) is a type, although every moral type is an example. For although God willed that all these things be examples of virtues, it must not be believed that he willed this in that peculiar and more sublime manner in which he himself so conformed and governed persons, things, and events, that a spiritual significance (beyond the literal) lay beneath them, which is proper to moral types.

What we say concerning the sacred writers must also be said, as is fitting, concerning the Fathers and the interpreters of Scripture, who if they bring forth some thing or person from the Old or New Testament, and propose it as an example, and from those things which are related of it in the Bible gather some moral sense, we shall not straightway pronounce that thing or person to have been a moral type, since such interpretations can be made even of other things which are not read in the Bible, namely of the deeds of saints or famous men, who assuredly were not types at all. But if it should please someone perhaps to call those things from which the Fathers and interpreters draw forth sentences and teachings pertaining to morals types, according to that notion in which whatever can serve as an example the Greeks call a τύπος, we do not object, provided that the distinction stands between these and those moral types of which this question treats, and which from the peculiar counsel and institution of God had a spiritual significance inherent in them.

Article II: In What Respect Types and Symbols Differ

10. This is the place where we should observe that types have sometimes been called symbols by the Fathers, and not inappropriately: for every type is indeed a symbol. Yet we would not fittingly give the name of type to every symbol. Wherefore, since God used not only types but also other symbols, and since types, but not all other symbols, are of that kind of things which oracles and prophecies are, which have something exceeding the nature, force and order of things, and which therefore ought not to be invented where there is no necessity to receive something of that sort in reality, we shall suggest certain indications and a rule by which we may more securely distinguish types from other symbols which God used or ordered to be used.

Therefore, symbols of past things are not necessarily to be held as types, which are properly held and called μνημόσυνα, or memorials, such as the rainbow, Genesis IX, 13; the feast of Passover among the Hebrews insofar as it was a memorial of their deliverance from servitude; the consecration of the Eucharist, which the Church calls the memorial of the Lord's death. Nor those things which God joined to his words in order to confirm or more fully illustrate some matter, which however he had already clearly and openly expounded, such as the portents which accompanied the covenant made between God and Abraham, the cloud which opened the temple constructed by Solomon: which symbols you might aptly call ἐπιδεικτικά. Nor those which might conveniently be called μεταστατικά, by which, that is, God used to signify something in such a way that, with words added, he seemed indeed to speak of the symbol, yet anyone could easily understand that the sense of the words pertained elsewhere, as was the serpent, to which God spoke in place of the devil, Genesis III, 14, the fig tree withered at Christ's command. Nor finally δεικτικά symbols, which portended something that would happen or was happening at the same time as they themselves were employed, such as the slaying of victims for sin and for trespass, which indicated that the penalties were remitted by the law.

11. On the other hand, we think that those symbols ought to be held as types which, just as they have none of the aforesaid characteristics, so also whether you consider their own nature or the things which they signified, you can easily understand that by the one God they are so confirmed, ruled and ordained to signify something, that between themselves and between the thing signified some likeness or analogy is perceived to intercede. Of this kind are certain men or events of human affairs or of other things employed as symbols by God; but also very many things and very many deeds, of which it suffices to have remembered one lamb, which was a symbol both of the exodus from Egypt and of Christ once to be immolated, each from divine institution and purpose: but of the former indeed nothing but a mere symbol, as it were of a past thing, which the Israelites themselves could have devised and instituted by their own effort; but of the latter also a type, as it were of a future thing, not yet fully known to men, which it directly and immediately prefigured, with no prediction interposed, by which it might be used for illustration.

12. In general, however, so that we may distinguish types from mere symbols, let this rule be derived from the nature of the spiritual sense of the Scriptures. Since in symbols nothing else is to be found except the signification of some one thing, hence when we know something which is read in the Scriptures to be a symbol, and yet the sense itself obvious and literal of the words by which it is commemorated conveys nothing of that kind, we shall hold for certain that it is not a mere symbol, but a type. For then it must be said that beneath the literal sense of the words there is also another sense, namely a spiritual one; but the spiritual sense in the words does not derive from mere symbols, in which, as St. Thomas teaches in Quodlibet VII, article 15, ad 1, article 16, this sense does not subsist, but from types alone, concerning which those things are said, is it derived. These can be examples. Matthew interprets as spoken of Christ returning from Egypt the words which Osee brought forth concerning the people of the Israelites reduced from that same Egypt; and so this reduction was a symbol of that return. But was it also a type? The very nature of the thing according to what we have just observed sufficiently teaches it; yet we shall learn this same thing if we apply this rule. For when you have examined those words, as in the book of Osee itself they are connected with the rest of the discourse, you will perceive that the obvious and literal sense offers nothing which touches upon Christ; therefore a spiritual sense will be hidden in those words, and so what the literal sense produces, the reduction, I say, of the Israelites from Egypt, is by no means a mere symbol: for the literal sense would certainly produce that; but a type of Christ returning from that region. In the same way you will recognize that the paschal lamb, the Psalter, Solomon, and other things were types of Christ, not bare symbols, concerning which the things in the Scriptures of the old covenant are so said that when accepted in the literal sense they pertain not at all to Christ, yet the writers of the New Testament received and interpreted them as said of Christ.

Article III: It is Proved that the Dispensation of the Prior Covenant was Adorned with Types

13. The nature and manifold form of types having been declared, it must now be demonstrated that these types, when the dispensation of the prior covenants obtained, were truly employed by God. No one of the Catholics doubts about this matter; indeed even from the Heterodox many were those who thought thus, among whom stand out Grotius, Cocceius, Glassius (Sacred Philology, book II, part I, tract. 1, sect. 1), Spencerus (On the Laws of the Hebrews Ritual, book I, cap. XI), and in more recent times J. Dav. Michaelis and J. Christoph. Blasche. Yet from the older Heterodox not a few, but in our age almost all, reject any types whatsoever, especially prophetic ones; or, if some of them sometimes seem to accept any, they nevertheless affirm that they were types according to the outcome, according to the event alone, and on account of some likeness which they had with those of which they are thought to be types, not however because God so conformed and directed them that they would prefigure those things. But both the Scriptures, and the traditions, and the opinion of both the old and new synagogue, and reason itself, we have found to favor us so much that it is necessary that our adversaries lose the case. Let arguments both from the Scriptures and from reason be at hand; for the rest see Patricius, vol. I, pag. 189-200.

14. Our opinion is defended by Scripture in more than one way. First indeed, the words of Paul are manifest, by which he expressly affirms that there were such types, which either prefigured future things, Rom. V, 14; Gal. IV, 24; Coloss. II, 17; Hebr. IX, 9; X, 1; XI, 19; or set forth heavenly, divine and other things more sublime than bodily and earthly things, Hebr. VIII, 5; IX, 23; or taught us to form our morals rightly, I Cor. X, 6, 11. But Peter also demonstrates quite clearly that what happened to Noah and his family when the flood came upon them was a type of baptism, calling it their antitype. But neither are the testimonies of the old covenant lacking. For the author of the book of Wisdom writes thus concerning the temple: "And thou saidst me to build a temple..... a likeness of thy holy tabernacle, which thou hadst prepared from the beginning," IX, 8, that is, a type of heaven. The Psalmist, beginning to sing of what happened to the Israelites in the desert, calls these things a parable (משָׁל) and riddles (חִידוֹת), Psalm. LXXVIII, 2, for no other reason surely than because they signified something other than what they were, just as parables signify something other than what they sound. Furthermore, the sacred writers speak of certain persons, things or events in such a way, and compare and explain all these things so that it is evident even to their adversaries (see Bauer's Sacred Hermeneutics § 8, near the end) that, even if those writers do not openly pronounce it, these same things were held by them as types, such as we have described, namely those which, not from any similarity which they might happen to have with other things, but, to speak with Peter, "by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God," Acts II, 23, signified those things.

15. But the writers of the New Testament not only acknowledge types among those things which constitute the economy of the divine covenants, nor only hand down to us persons, things, deeds and events as types, but they use those very things which are written concerning types, which cannot be understood in the literal sense as written concerning other things, in such a way that they are used as if they were not written concerning types, but concerning those things which were signified through types: which cannot be repeated from any other cause surely than that it was certain and indubitable to them that those things which were said or written concerning types were also said or written concerning the things signified through types; yet this could not happen otherwise than if it were equally certain to them that the force by which types signify something else was divinely imparted to types. We have indicated above (n. 11) some of the words of the ancient Scriptures which are used in this way by the writers of the New Testament. It is also helpful to observe that Christ himself used some of them in the same way. That noble saying of the Psalmist is: "The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner," Ps. CXVII, 22, which we read transcribed in Matthew, and in Mark, and in Luke, and in Acts, and in the first Epistle of Peter, and which, although the Psalmist speaks of himself, Christ nevertheless used as if it were said of himself: but how could this be, unless the Psalmist and those things which are narrated as having happened to him by those words were a prophetic type of Christ?

16. But what of the fact that the sacred writers not only accomplish what we have enumerated up to this point, but moreover draw the force of arguments either from types or from those things which are written concerning types, in order to argue or confirm something which pertains to things figured by these types? For thus Paul, Rom. IX, 27, when he mentions the gathering of the gentiles to Christ, also bids the Jews to hope, using the testimony of Isaiah, who nevertheless speaks of the Israelites being vindicated from the servitude by which the Assyrians pressed them, Isai. X, 22. The same Paul, in order to demonstrate that "the end... of the law is Christ unto justice to every one that believeth.... which.... is of faith," Rom. X, 4, 6, brings forth those things which Moses had said concerning the old law: "The word is nigh thee in thy mouth and in thy heart," ibid. 8 from Deut. XXX, 14. The same Paul argues that the Synagogue with the Mosaic laws was to be rejected by God, Gal. IV, 21-31, from those things which are narrated concerning Hagar and Ishmael in Genesis, and indeed from those very words by which God commanded Abraham to cast out both from his house, Gen. XXI, 10: "Cast out this handmaid and her son," etc. In the same way he defends the divine nature of Christ, Hebr. I, 5, namely by bringing forth those things which God had said concerning Solomon: "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son," II Reg. VII, 14. But you would find other things of this kind in Paul. Christ himself used those words of the Psalmist, of which we spoke a little before, in order to prove what was to be expected by the Jews themselves not believing in him from him himself.

17. Finally, the scriptures themselves furnish another weighty argument for our position, which, although it could conveniently be reduced to some of those which we have set forth, is nevertheless better to pursue with particular consideration. Now these are the oracles of the ancient scriptures, whose fulfillment the apostles and evangelists establish in a different matter than that concerning which it is certain those oracles were issued in the literal sense, by using these forms of speech: "And the scripture was fulfilled, Then was fulfilled, That it might be fulfilled," and similar ones. This happens in these chapters of the New Testament: Matt. II, 15; XIII, 35; John XIII, 18; XV, 25; XIX, 36; Acts I, 16. For we must acknowledge a twofold fulfillment of these oracles: the first in that matter to which the literal sense pertains; the other in that which the writers of the New Testament say the oracle was fulfilled. Wherefore such oracles pertain to both matters. But who could determine how they might pertain to the latter, which their literal sense in no way concerns, unless he posit that the former matter was a type of the latter? Now in order that this argument of ours may retain its force, we must demonstrate that those locutions: "That it might be fulfilled, Then it was fulfilled," etc., in the very words themselves to fulfill, to be fulfilled, to be perfected, in these locutions mean exactly the same thing, namely that that very thing comes to pass or happens to which the cited oracle pertains, not however other things similar to these, concerning which nevertheless it was in no way uttered.

18. How much weight should be given to this position, no one fails to see, and so it is surprising that there have been and still are men most devoted to the Catholic faith who have called it into question either in deed or in word. For if the meaning of those words were otherwise, one would certainly doubt whether very many prophecies, which are brought forth by the apostles and evangelists on that account, truly pertain to Christ, or at least their significance would be destitute of the authority of Hebrew writers, which would confirm it, besides which it would be more absurd to have accommodated these oracles to those matters concerning which they were in no way issued, on account of some mere similarity which might happen to exist between those and those concerning which they were truly issued. Moreover we have many things by which to defend the truth of this position. For, as others have already observed, those locutions carry with them a certain energy by which we are compelled to receive them in a wholly different signification than as a simple form of comparison, and to announce a mere similarity of things. Furthermore we find parallels of those locutions in the Old Testament, and in these the very words are used which the Syriac interpreter of the New Testament constantly employed for the words to be fulfilled, to be perfected, employed in that manner which we seek, namely the words מלא, which is to be fulfilled "to be fulfilled," and שלם, which is to be perfected "to be perfected," or to be completed or to be finished, never in any other sense except that which we say underlies those locutions in the New Testament: for they signify that very thing to come to pass or to happen which was to come to pass or to happen, because it had either been foretold, or promised, or, in order that it come to pass, had been in some manner commanded or instituted. Read III Kings II, 27; VIII, 15, 24; II Paralipomenon VI, 16; XXXVI, 21; Psalm XX, 5, 6, in which is the word כלה, and Job XXIII, 14; Isaiah XLIV, 28, in which the word שלם is used. But also in the New Testament we read very many places in which no other meaning can be added to the word to be fulfilled and similar words except this one alone, since it is certain that those things concerning which they are said to be fulfilled had been foretold; from these it will suffice to have indicated a few in which what we affirm cannot be denied even by the Socinians themselves: Matt. II, 23; Luke I, 20; XXIV, 44; John XVIII, 9, 32; Acts III, 18; XIII, 33.

19. Our opinion has not much to fear from the authority of certain Syrian writers, who, writing in the Syrian language—that language which is nearest to the language of the apostles and of Christ himself—employed such formulaic expressions when they accommodated the words of Scripture to things other than those about which they were originally spoken; this, I say, has no weight by which anyone could prove that such use of those formulae was also proper to the speech of those who committed the New Testament to writing. For, besides the fact that none of those Syrian authors is so ancient that he did not flourish nearly three hundred years after the completion of the edition of the New Testament, at that time, namely, when it is to be believed that the speech of the Syrians had diverged more and more from the Syrochaldaic speech in which Christ and the apostles spoke, all Christians are, and all employ those formulaic expressions only when they bring forth testimonies of Scripture, from which it appears that those formulae ought not to be repeated by them as adopted from the manner of speaking, but from an altogether different cause; what this cause is, however, is easy to perceive. For those who handle the volumes of the Fathers with their own hands know that they sometimes spoke and wrote in the manner and mode of the sacred Writers and in the same formulaic expressions, for the confirmation of which matter the most abundant testimony is at hand, namely that of Augustine, writing thus: "So great is the force of custom even for learning, that those who have been nourished and educated in the holy Scriptures in a certain way marvel more at other locutions, and consider them less Latin, than those which they have learned in the Scriptures, nor are they found in the authors of the Latin language." *Doctr. Christ.* lib. II, cap. XIV. Since, therefore, Christian writers and the oracles of Scripture, as is known, accommodated them to other and diverse things, and sometimes wrote and even spoke in the very speech of Scripture itself, it was not difficult for it to happen sometimes that both occurred together, that is, that they accommodated the sense of the oracles to other things, and at the same time did this using that very formulaic expression which the sacred Writers were accustomed to use in transcribing and explaining the oracles; and this especially because the similarity of things suggested that formulaic expression, when in truth that had been done which was written in the oracle, that, I say, which the words of the oracle, separated from the rest of the discourse and the context of the book and taken apart, could sound, even if that had not been done about which it was issued and written. But all this is confirmed by the reason that this *καταχρηστικός* use of the verb *implere* is found, though rarely, among the ancient Christian writers, and indeed among those who wrote in Greek, namely among Clement of Rome, yet never among others; to whom on the contrary that notion of this verb which we defend was by no means unknown; for in Herodotus we read: "ποτὲ ἀποπλῆσαι τὸν χρησμὸν... τὸν περὶ τῆς ναυμαχίας ταύτης εἰρημένον," lib. VIII; but in Cicero: "Ne aut id profiteri videar, quod non possim implere." *Pro Cluent.* See Forcellini's Lexicon, v. *impleo*.

II. Reasons.