Annotatio I §.II: No Protestant fight on the first two; only the third remains — is the literal sense proper or improper?
On the first two meanings Protestants have no lawsuit: both sides hold the formal (and equipollent) words, and one genuine sense that fits Christ’s mind.
Only the third stays doubtful and contested.
So the disputed “literal” sense of the words in the proposition reduces to this: is that literal sense proper, or improper?
Latin
Enimverò de prioribus duabus significationibus τοῦ capiendi verba κατὰ τὸ ῥητόν, vel τῷ ῥητῷ retinendi, litigium nullum inter Protestantes, utrâque parte persuasâ, tam Verba formalia & aequipollentia quaecunque, quàm verborum utrorumque sensum genuinum, h. e. semper unum eundemque, verum illum mentique Christi convenientem, tenendum servandumque esse, ut sola tertia in dubio maneat & controversa. Confirmatur: scil. literalem verborum, in propositione spectatorum, controversum sensum ad hoc recidere: Num Sensus literalis, proprius, an verò improprius sit?