ADDITIONES

35BWhat wouldst thou have me give thee while I live, most beloved son, or leave thee after my life by title of succession, save what may contribute to the knowledge of the sacred Scriptures, and may confirm thy steps in the most solid fervour of catholic truth? For this is the truth which I bear in my heart and profess with my mouth, and of which I think it was written: « The father shall make known to the sons his truth [Vulg. tuam, "thy truth"]; » which, since I had not received it from my earliest age, but, born under the faithlessness of Jewish blindness, had learned the sacred letters not from sacred doctors: from erring masters I drew erring senses, busying myself rashly, like the other leaders of that faithlessness, to entangle the right letter in not right cavillings. But when it pleased him whose mercy has no measure to call me back from darkness to light, from the murky whirlwind to the clear air: the scales fell, in a manner, from the eyes of my mind; and I began to reread sacred Scripture somewhat more studiously, and now not faithlessly but humbly to seek the truth, and, not trusting in the powers of my own wit, 35Cto ask of the Lord with my whole heart that he would deign to fix in my heart what would be more wholesome for my soul; night and day I awaited his help. And so it came about that the desire for the catholic faith glowed more strongly in my mind from day to day, until I publicly professed that very faith which I bore in my heart; and at about the age at which thou now art, I received the sacrament of baptism in the sacred font of this church, taking the name of Paul, while thou wast then rejoicing in the innocence of infancy, thou who after me, in that tender age, wast cleansed from original guilt in the sacred laver before thou couldst be stained with actual guilt, receiving the name of Alphonsus before thou knewest how to name thy letters. And as time went forward, applying myself to the study of the sacred letters, I gave my labour to the reading of both Testaments; and, sometimes by hearing living masters, often by rereading the works of the holy doctors and of other distinguished men who have passed from this life, by the gift of divine clemency I who had formerly been 35Da master of error was made a disciple of truth: until I came to this old age which thou seest. And, to confess the truth to thee, amid the pressures of the world and the cares of our court, by which I have at times been tossed, this was my chief delight, this my singular solace: to contemplate the eternal and immutable God, and his wonderful works, in the reading of his holy and immaculate law. Nor yet were there lacking 36Bthose successes which the crowd calls prosperous. For divine grace raised me, though wholly undeserving, to no small rank of the Church. For, promoted first to the see of Cartagena, then to this see of Burgos, I have been nourished with the most ample favours of the Church of God: secular things too were added to the ecclesiastical, since, having taken up a very great office, I was quite familiarly conversant both in the house of the most just King Henry of glorious memory and in that of his illustrious offshoot, our renowned king. But thy firstborn brother and thee, how clemently, how kindly the clemency of the Almighty has dealt with you, I will not relate; recognize it yourselves. One thing there is which I cannot commit to silence: that to us, who descend from Levitical blood, there has been shown in some small measure what was written so many ages ago: « That to the tribe of Levi no possession was given, because the Lord is its possession; » for God is our possession, Christ our inheritance, who, being about to purify the sons of Levi, that they might offer sacrifices to the Lord in 36Cjustice, a thing foretold of old by the prophetic voice, in these days now permits the true sacrifice to be handled by our hands: would that he did so accepting, as he does tolerating. Nor do I wish thee to think that I have inserted these things idly or boastfully, and have recounted my life to thee to no purpose: since I deem it not idle, nay rather necessary, to acknowledge the benefits of the Almighty; and an open and unfeigned confession of one's own infirmity is not to be attributed to arrogance: especially since I am speaking to thee, from whose memory I would wish these things to fall away at no time ever. For I do not think I act as a sufficiently grateful receiver of such great benefits, if the acknowledgment of them should come to rest along with my life. And to thee, not without reason, among the others, I gladly recount these things, so that what thou didst not see, by the benefit of age, thou mayest, hearing it at least from thy father, commit to memory, and mayest often recount to the younger ones, who perhaps have not heard, when talk of these things comes up: that they may recount them to their sons, lest they forget the works of the Lord, but that they may seek out his law. And since study and discipline contribute not a little 36Dto the clearer seeking-out of it, dearest son, things after which I see thee at times panting (although occupied from boyhood with the teachings of the laws), and, amid the studies of law and the occupations of forensic disputes, trying as it were by stealth to ruminate the ears of grain of both Testaments, I have often purposed to stir thee up with some little gift, and to help thy desire with a father's favour.

37AAnd since, among the almost innumerable works by whose variety divine Scripture shines surrounded, the Postill of Nicholas of Lyra grows illustrious with a renown as recent as it is deserved (he who, running studiously through both Testaments, has handed down with copious lucidity the literal sense, which is chief among the others), I have purposed to give this to thee. And since, held fast by the peril of human infirmity, I do not know the end of my days, yet on account of age with reason suspect it to be hastening: I remember that I have already twice chosen it beforehand for thee, selected from my library. But since the clemency of the supreme Father has mercifully prolonged my life, it has seemed good to me that what I had conceived of bequeathing I should now give outright among the living: but that I should heap fatherly additions upon the fatherly little gift, and should add over, even if it be something small, into the treasury of him who has added days to my life. For it is not lawful, because we cannot give much, to withdraw the hand altogether. For each man is a debtor for as much as the powers of his wit 37Bare able to pay: nor is anyone before God not solvent, since he does not ask beyond one's means; nor is any debtor the wealthier, since he has nothing that he has not received; but his mercy is content with those things which we are able to give, for his justice transcends all that we can do. When, therefore, I had run through this Postill, although I see it written most solemnly and with wonderful copiousness: yet because no human work is so perfect but that something may be added over to it, and of divine Scripture alone it is written: « Add not anything to his words (Prov. XXX); » I thought it expedient in some places to add some things, most of all in those where I saw the teachings of the saints passed over to some extent. Nor was it my purpose to inquire curiously what I might supply: rather I gladly passed on without supplements, except where the supplements themselves called me. Wherefore I purposed neither to write a volume nor to glory in the name of a book, but to give thee the postill itself with very few 37Cadditions copied in the margin; as new students themselves are also accustomed to do, who, when they read through some book with affection, fill the margins with a few little glosses, often written in their own hand, so that they may commit more firmly to memory what they have read. Yet I have not yet been able, as I purposed, to run through the whole Postill: hindered now by the weight of age and the heaviness of the ailments that cling to it; now by slowness of wit; now also by the multitude of occupations and the varieties of human chances standing in the way, which sometimes abound in these parts. But although in some part I have not yet finished, what has been run through I give at once; the rest I shall give, if God permits it to be completed. For I did not wish, on the occasion of its being unfinished, to keep back what had been written, but rather to hand it over forthwith as a kind of earnest of our exchange. This then, my son, is my testament, these are my codicils; recognize this as a legacy set aside in advance out of them, so that in « the law of the Lord may be 37Dthy will, and in his law mayest thou meditate day and night. » And thy meditation, by rereading these and similar things, thou wilt assuredly make purer and sweeter. Gratefully therefore accept this gift of thy parent, given with fatherly affection and with a glad hand. But let us leave these things, and, having invoked with most humble prayers the help of almighty God, whose work we undertake, and from whom and with whom all wisdom has always been, and is before the age, setting forth in a plain style, every flower of words laid aside, whatever we have added to this Postill, let us now put our hand to the plough.

THERE FOLLOWS AN ADDITION ON BOTH PROLOGUES.

Since the intention of the Postillator is chiefly concerned with the literal sense, it seems that before all else it must be asked whether the literal sense of sacred 38AScripture is more worthy than the other senses; and it seems that it is not. For according to the Apostle, II Cor. III: « The letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth. » But the literal sense is properly founded in the letter, while the spiritual sense is properly founded upon the spiritual signification, by which the things signified through the letter further signify other things: therefore the literal sense of sacred Scripture does not quicken, but kills, and consequently is not more worthy than the other senses. Further, the teaching which is had through the spiritual senses is more worthy than that which is had through the literal sense; therefore the spiritual senses are more worthy: the consequence holds, because « whatsoever things were written, were written for our learning (Rom. XV). » The assumption is proved: for through the allegorical sense are had the things that are to be believed, which pertains to faith; through the anagogical, the things that are to be hoped for, which pertains to hope; but through the tropological sense, the things that are to be done, 38Bwhich pertains to charity: namely, in which three virtues God is properly worshipped, according to Augustine. But through the literal sense history alone is had. And that by the aforesaid four senses the four aforesaid things are understood is plain from the verse cited in the prologue of the postill, and it is the common opinion of the expositors; in which verse it is said: The letter teaches deeds, what thou shouldst believe the allegory, The tropology what thou shouldst do, what thou shouldst hope the anagogy Further, according to the Philosopher, I Posterior.: Each thing for the sake of another, and that other the more so: but the literal sense is for the sake of the spiritual sense; therefore the spiritual sense is more worthy; the consequence holds: and the antecedent is proved as to its second part; for the literal sense stands to the spiritual senses as the foundation to the building, as the postillator lays down in the second prologue. And it is certain that the foundation is for the sake of the building, and not the reverse. 38CFurther, the literal sense is taken according to the first signification of the letter, by which words signify things, as is commonly held, and as the postillator lays down in the first prologue: but according to the first signification, by which words signify things, many false things are found in sacred Scripture, especially by attributing to God what in no way befits God, such as local motion, as in Gen. XI: « God came down to see the city, and the tower, » etc.; and so of many other things, which nevertheless are not found in the spiritual sense: therefore the literal sense is not more worthy. Further, those things which are interior, both in corporeal things and in spiritual, are more worthy than the exterior: for in corporeal things those things in which the life of an animal principally consists are in its interior parts, as the heart. The same is plain also in spiritual things, namely that those things which are interior are stronger and higher in worth, as is plain in the tabernacle of the covenant, in which the ark of the testament was placed in the interior place, which is called the Holy of holies; 38Dbut the other things in more exterior places, according to their degree of holiness, as is plain in Exod. XL, and likewise III Kings VIII. The same is plain in the sacraments of the Church, in which the invisible grace, which is given inwardly, is more worthy than the visible form, which appears outwardly. Now since the literal sense is said to be « written in the book without, » and the mystical sense « within, » as is plain in Apoc. V in the authority cited by the Postill, where it is said: « I saw in the right hand of him that sat upon the throne a book written within and without; » it follows that the literal sense is of lesser worth in respect of the spiritual sense. Further, human knowledge commonly proceeds from the less perfect to the more perfect, as is plain not only in the human sciences, which proceed from the senses and from particulars and end in the highest causes of things, but also in those things which pertain to the knowledge of divine things; whence Rom. I: « The invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. » But in the study of sacred Scripture one must begin from the understanding of the literal sense, as the Postillator says in sum; therefore 39Athe literal sense is not more worthy. Further, that sense of Scripture ought to be called more worthy which supplies the defect of another; but the spiritual sense sometimes supplies the defect of the literal sense; for Gregory says in the Morals: « When the order of the history fails, the mystical understanding shows itself to us as though through doors now opened: as if it cried out openly, since you recognize that the reason of the letter has failed, it remains that you return without doubting to the spiritual sense; » therefore the literal sense is not more worthy than the spiritual.

But on the contrary: that sense to which alone belongs the honour properly due to sacred Scripture is more virtuous, or more worthy, than the other senses; since honour is the chief sign of virtue, as in I Ethics: But the literal sense of sacred Scripture is of this kind; therefore the literal sense is the more worthy among the others. The minor is plain according to Augustine in the epistle to Jerome: « For to those books of the Scriptures alone which are called canonical have I learned to pay this honour, that I most firmly believe that none 39Bof their authors erred in anything in writing. » And it is certain that sacred Scripture does not have this honour according to the spiritual sense, because, if it did, an effective argument could be taken from such a spiritual sense, which would be against Augustine in the epistle to Vincent the Donatist, who says that an effective argument is taken from the literal sense alone. In this question six things seem to be considered. First, which is to be called the literal sense of sacred Scripture, and which the spiritual. Second, whether every passage or text of sacred Scripture is expounded in the fourfold sense touched on above. Third, whether of every passage or text of sacred Scripture there is only one literal sense, or sometimes several. Fourth, supposing that at times one text or one authority of sacred Scripture has several, which of them is to be preferred to the other. Fifth, whether an effective argument can be taken from any literal sense whatever. Sixth, answer is to be made to the question, etc.

39CConcerning the first, namely which is to be called the literal sense of sacred Scripture and which the spiritual, it must be said that sometimes that is called the literal sense according to which some history is narrated to the letter: and the words of Gregory in III Morals seem to sound this way, who, speaking of the literal sense, says: « While it narrates a deed it brings forth a mystery. » Likewise, in the verse cited before it is said: « The letter teaches deeds. » But according to this only the historical parts of sacred Scripture would be said to have a historical or literal sense, but not the doctrinal or prophetic parts and the like: since in such no history seems to be narrated: but this is against the common opinion of the expositors, who commonly attribute a literal sense to the authorities of sacred Scripture. Hence otherwise, and more properly, that is called the literal sense which is had through the signification of the letter, by which words signify things. And that is called the spiritual sense which is had through the significations of the things signified by the words, as in the First Part, q. 1, last art.: and 39Dit is the common opinion, which the Postillator follows in the prologue. But it must be observed that through the aforesaid no adequate definition or description is had of the literal sense with which we are here concerned: for some things are handed down in sacred Scripture which, if they were taken according to the signification by which words commonly signify things, would be false: as is plain in parabolic locutions and the like, as will be plain below. Hence it must be added to the aforesaid that for a sense of sacred Scripture to be called literal, it is required that it be intended by the author of sacred Scripture, who is God. The reason for which is: for the literal sense of any writing whatever is that which the author intends, since words are the marks of the passions which are in the soul: as in the first Periermenias; but it is certain that the author of sacred Scripture is God, and so it is plain that the literal sense with which we are concerned is that which is intended by God, and is signified by the words contained in the letter. From which it follows that the literal sense of sacred Scripture ought not 40Ato be called that sense which in anything is repugnant to the authority or determination of the Church, however much such a sense may be conformable to the signification of the letter: for such a sense not only is not intended by the author, but rather is heretical; whence Jerome: « Whoever understands Scripture otherwise than the sense of the Holy Spirit, by whom it was written, demands, can be called a heretic; » which is understood of him who twists the exposition of sacred Scripture to this, that it is contrary to what has been revealed through the Holy Spirit, as in the Second of the Second, q. 11.

It follows also that neither is that to be held for the literal sense which is repugnant to right reason; for such a sense is not intended by the author, namely God, who is the first truth, from whom all truth is derived; and therefore Augustine on Genesis to the letter: « Since divine Scripture can be expounded in many ways, let no one so precisely cling to an exposition, that, if it should be established by certain reason that this is false, anyone should presume to assert 40Bthis to be the sense of Scripture. For by this Scripture would be derided by unbelievers, and the way of believing would be closed to them. » Thus he. The same also is to be said of the spiritual sense of sacred Scripture, which is had through the signification of the things signified by the words contained in the letter: namely, that such a sense ought not to be repugnant to the authority of the Church, nor to right reason: because, if it were, such a spiritual sense would not be attributable to sacred Scripture, revealed by God, who is the highest truth.

Concerning the second, namely whether every passage or text of sacred Scripture is expounded in the fourfold sense touched on above, it must be said that it is not; for Augustine says, II on Gen., In some things the literal sense alone is to be sought. Which is manifestly plain: for there are many things in the canonical books, of the Old Testament as well as of the New, which have nothing but the literal sense only. Which is plain in many things, and especially in the two precepts of charity, on which the whole law hangs, and the prophets, as is had in Matth. XXII. For although 40Cin these precepts, namely: « Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, » many things are contained that are to be expounded, or are expoundable, pertaining as well to the object of charity as to its interior or exterior act, as also to its order, and other things of this kind: all those things nevertheless pertain to the literal sense only. For in this place the things signified by this word God, or by this word neighbour, and by this word thou shalt love, do not again signify other things, from which things so signified a spiritual sense might further be taken: hence the whole of what is handed down in the exposition of these precepts pertains only to their literal sense. And so commonly of the other moral precepts of the Old Testament, and of many other passages, which I omit for the sake of brevity. In the Gospels also many things are handed down to which one need not assign a mystical sense, but only a literal one: as in those things which are handed down as precepts, 40Das when it is said in John XIV: « You believe in God, believe also in me, » and the like. Likewise in those things which are given as counsels, as when it is said in Matthew XIX: « If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast and give to the poor. » In which, and the like, the spiritual sense is not to be sought, which would be taken from the things signified by the words: but only the literal sense, which is taken from the signification of the words, as is manifest. Likewise when in Luke VIII Christ interprets his parable, saying: « The seed is the word of God, » etc., it is manifest that those interpreting words need not have other spiritual senses, since the interpretation itself is expository of the preceding parable. Likewise the Epistles of Paul, which ought to be reckoned one of the chief parts of the New Testament, have throughout almost only the literal sense. For there he speaks as the universal doctor of the Church, expounding and harmonizing both Testaments. For although 41Ain those Epistles deep and difficult things pertaining to faith, and the declaration of both Testaments, are handed down, they are nevertheless not handed down allegorically or anagogically, but only literally; for he himself, speaking historically or literally, shows of certain Scriptures how they are to be understood in the spiritual sense: as when in Galatians IV he says of the two sons of Abraham, « which things are said by an allegory. » Therefore the words of the Apostle are not to be allegorized, or moralized, and the like, but rather to be unfolded: so that from them true literal senses may be drawn out, from which, by proceeding discursively, many, great, and deep things are inferred by argument: as in the other human sciences many things are inferred discursively from certain and true principles, as in 1 p. q. 1, art. 7; all which things indeed pertain to the literal sense, from which they are rightly deduced.

And so it is plain that not every passage of sacred Scripture is to be expounded in the fourfold sense: but, as St. Thomas notably teaches in the 7th Quodlibet, q. 24, sacred Scripture is sometimes to be expounded in those four 41Bsenses, sometimes in three, sometimes in two, sometimes in one only. Hence those things which according to the literal sense regard the deeds of the Old Testament can be expounded in four senses; likewise those things which are said to the letter of Christ the head can be expounded literally of the deeds of Christ, allegorically by referring them to his mystical body, and morally by referring the same to our acts, which ought to be ruled according to him, and anagogically inasmuch as in Christ himself the way of glory has been shown to us. But those things which according to the literal sense are said of the Church can be expounded morally and anagogically. And those things which according to the letter are said morally are not customarily expounded except anagogically. But those things which according to the literal sense pertain to the state of glory are customarily expounded in no other sense, because that state is not a figure of other things, but is figured by all other things. All which things indeed, and others pertaining to this, are declared more fully in the said question.

41CConcerning the third, namely: of every passage or text of sacred Scripture, is there only one literal sense? and it seems that there is not. For according to Augustine in the book On the Usefulness of Believing, three things pertain to the literal sense: of which the first is when the letter is simply expounded; and this he calls the historical sense. The second is when the cause of what is contained in the letter is assigned or expounded; which sense he calls etymological. The third is when the truth of that letter is shown not to be repugnant to the truth of another Scripture; which he calls anagogical. For example, when one reads Gen. II: « The Lord God built the rib which he had taken from Adam into a woman, » etc. The historical sense of that saying is when what is contained in the letter is simply expounded. But the etymological sense is when the cause is given why the woman was formed from the side of the man, and not from another part of the body; likewise why the rib was taken away from him sleeping and not waking, as is treated in the second book, dist. 41D18. But the anagogical sense is when it is shown that the truth of this saying is not repugnant to the truth of another Scripture, where it is said in Gen. I of the creation of man: « Male and female he created them, » etc. From which letter it appears that male and female of the human species were created together at the same time, and not successively, in such a way that the woman would have been taken out of his side after the creation of the male.

But to one who attends well, it is not had from this consideration of Augustine that three kinds of exposition are contained under the literal sense in such a way that each of them is properly the literal sense: but the first exposition is only the literal sense, while the second is a rendering of the cause of that literal sense, and the third is a resolving of its contrariety. Hence the second and third expositions, although they pertain to the literal sense, because through them it is further perfected or elucidated, are nevertheless not properly to be called literal senses. Of which three kinds of exposition 42Apertaining to the literal sense may be understood that saying of II Esdr. VIII, where it is said: « And they read in the book of the Law of God openly and distinctly, and they applied themselves to understanding [Vulg. distincte, et aperte ad intelligendum, "distinctly, and plainly to be understood", without apposuerunt]. » For in that it is said, « they read in the book openly, » can be understood the exposition itself of the letter, which is as it were the door of all the expositions that follow, without the opening of which no one can rightly enter into the other expositions. And when it is said, « and distinctly, » there is understood the sense named anagogical by Augustine, because through proper and true distinctions are resolved the contrarieties which sometimes appear in the sacred Scriptures. And in that which follows: « And they applied themselves to understanding, » can be understood the knowledge of the cause of the law, or of the history, or of some saying of sacred Scripture. For since to understand is to read within, he who through knowledge of the effect arrives at knowledge of the cause is properly said to understand; which sense indeed is called etymological by Augustine.

But it must be further observed that under each kind 42Bof the aforesaid three expositions pertaining, as has been said, to the literal sense, there can be many species. For not only one cause, but several, can be assigned for one saying: likewise contrarieties can be resolved not only in one way, but in several, as is manifest.

Likewise, as to the simple exposition of Scripture, which arises from the primary signification of the word, it is manifest that several literal senses are handed down, not only by expositors or writers commonly, but also by holy doctors, as is plain in Gen. I, in which place, as the Master says in the second book, dist. 13, certain of the holy Fathers who searched out the words and secrets of God seem to have written as it were diverse things. And so it is plain that it is not the case that of every text of sacred Scripture there is only one literal sense.

But if it be said against this that, although diverse men attribute diverse senses to some sacred letter, it does not follow from this that there are several literal senses of such a 42Cletter; but that only that one is literal which the author intends: to this it must be said that, according to St. Thomas in the First Part, q. I, because the author of sacred Scripture is God, who comprehends all things at once by his simple intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says in III Confessions, if even according to the literal sense of sacred Scripture there are several senses: which is to be understood provided that such senses are conformable to the letter, and that they are not repugnant to the determination of the Church or to right reason, as has been said: likewise that they are compatible with one another. But when it happens that two literal senses impassible with one another are attributed to some sacred authority, it is necessary to say that only one of them is literal: as when, in Daniel X, concerning the prince of the kingdom of the Persians, it is handed down by Blessed Gregory in the Moral that he was a good angel who presided over the kingdom of the Persians, while others say the opposite; and so it happens in many other cases.

Likewise it must be observed that the literal sense of sacred 42DScripture is of such capacity or power that there are contained in it virtually all things pertaining to faith, or to good morals and virtues. Hence the Master, who compiled the sentences of the Fathers in a brief volume, into the exposition of which volume the later doctors or writers have brought in, in a manner, all theological matters, founded his whole work on the testimonies of this literal sense; for he says thus in his prologue: « We have put together the volume, God granting, from testimonies of truth founded for ever. » And it is certain that the testimonies of truth founded for ever are the testimonies of sacred Scripture taken according to the literal sense, from which sense alone a testimony, or argument, can be received, according to Augustine where cited above.

But concerning this it must be considered that not all things which are had from sacred Scripture according to the literal sense are immediate, in such a way that they are understood from the primary signification of the letters: but sometimes there is required the addition of some truth, from which truth, joined to the literal 43Asense, another truth may be deduced. As when Christ, in Luke XX, from the testimony of the letter which says: « The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, » concludes against the Sadducees, who denied that there is another life of men after the present one, arguing thus: « God is of the dead or of the living [Vulg. (Luke 20:38) Deus autem non est mortuorum, sed vivorum, "but he is not the God of the dead, but of the living"], » that is to say: since from the literal sense we have it of God, and that he is the God of Abraham, etc.: and reason dictates that God is said to be God in respect of something existing in the nature of things: therefore it follows that Abraham and Isaac were in the nature of things, which the Sadducees denied. And it is certain that this conclusion is not deduced from the sense of that letter: « The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, » etc., unless the other true proposition mentioned above be added; and so the point is plain. And it can also happen that such a conclusion is concluded from the sacred letter by one deduction, or by several successive ones: just as it happens in the sciences, or the human liberal arts, that some conclusions are deduced at once from first principles naturally known, but others through many middle terms ordered one to another, as is manifest. 43BThe true literal sense, therefore, which arises from the primary signification of the letter is to be called the first literal sense; while the others that follow are secondary senses, whose certainty depends on the certainty of the first sense, which is more certain than the secondary senses; just as first principles naturally known are more certain than the others deduced from them. Which consideration is indeed to be attended to in many passages of sacred Scripture.

Concerning the fourth, namely: when several literal senses are handed down of one authority of sacred Scripture, which of them is to be preferred to the others? it must be said that in this it does not seem that a single general rule can be given; but there are certain things to be considered concerning it, presupposing those things which are said above, in the first article, about the literal sense. The first is that that sense seems preferable whose opinion rests more upon reason. Hence in the Decrees, dist. 20, c. Decretales: « For the more each man rests upon reason, the greater the authority his words seem to have. » Likewise 43Cthat sense seems to be preferable to the others which accords more with the letter. Hence, according to Augustine in III On Christian Doctrine, doubtful things are to be determined according to the opinion which is taken from the plainer places of the Scriptures. And it is certain that the plainer places are those which accord more plainly with the letter. Likewise, other things being equal, the literal sense which is handed down by the holy doctors is to be preferred to the other senses handed down by other expositors; whence in the Decrees, c. Allegato, in the expositions of the sacred letters the holy doctors are placed before the supreme pontiffs, and a fortiori before other writers. Likewise, where two senses of the letter are had, neither of which is repugnant to the authority of the Church, nor to right reason, yet one is handed down by catholics and the other by unbelievers, then the sense of the catholics is to be preferred: both because it is rather to be presumed that those who are in the bosom of the Church, to which Christ promised the Spirit of truth, have the true understanding of sacred Scripture, 43Dthan unbelievers, who commonly oppose the truth of the faith; and so that occasion may not be given to unbelievers for believing this, that they themselves expound sacred Scripture better than catholics. Hence Pope Leo, in a certain epistle to the bishop of Alexandria, says that the enemies of the cross of Christ lie in wait for our deeds and words, therefore let us give them no occasion, even a slight one. By which reasoning it seems that, when some letter of sacred Scripture is expounded in the same way by catholics and by unbelievers, then the authority of such an exposition is to be attributed to the catholics, and not to the unbelievers, for the reason aforesaid; especially if such an exposition issued first from catholics: the contrary of which is found in some manner in the Postill, as will be plain below, in Genesis I, where it is asked why on the second day it is not said: « And God saw that it was good, » as on the other days. Yet because, where a plurality of literal senses occurs, it rarely happens that one of the aforesaid senses excels the others in all 44Arespects, but rather one of those senses excels in one way, and another in another; therefore in such matters that saying of Rom. XIV seems to have place: « Let every man abound in his own sense, » saving always the reverence and authority of the saints.

Concerning the fifth, namely: can an effective argument be taken from any literal sense whatever of sacred Scripture? it must be said that, although an effective argument can be taken from the literal sense of sacred Scripture alone, as is plain through Augustine where cited above: yet an effective argument is not taken from any literal sense whatever of sacred Scripture. For since there are many texts in sacred Scripture which are expounded diversely even by the holy doctors, as above in the third article, it follows that from none of such senses can an effective argument be taken; because so one would be arguing as it were from a disjunctive to one of its parts. But well, if senses of this kind, though diverse, agree in something, an effective argument can be taken from there, at least as to that in which they agree; as in Dan. IX, in the computation of the seventy 44Bweeks; where, although the expositors, Hebrews as well as Latins, differ among themselves, not only as to the term from which the weeks take their beginning, but also in the progress of the computation: yet because according to all of them their final term has long since passed into the past, therefore from that authority an effective argument is taken for concluding that Christ has already come, as will be plain in that place.

From which it follows that, since the literal sense of sacred Scripture in certain places is not the same with all, it can therefore happen that from some literal sense a valid argument could be taken against some, for instance against those holding the same literal sense, from which sense nevertheless a valid argument cannot be taken against others, namely those holding another exposition or literal sense: which diversity indeed happens rather often between us and the unbelievers. For there are some texts of sacred Scripture whose sense, which is literal and true among catholics, 44Cis not sufficient for an effective argument to be taken from it against unbelievers or heretics, but it will not be taken away by this that such a sense of the catholics is true and is to be reckoned literal among catholics. For example, when the Psalmist says: « By the word of the Lord the heavens were established (Psal. XXXII), » etc., the true and literal sense among catholics is that by the word of the Lord, that is, by the Son of the Father, the heavens were established: which exposition is indeed among catholics as it were necessary, and consonant also with what is said in John I: « And the Word was with God, and all things by him, » that is, by the Word, « were made. » But from this sense no effective argument is taken against unbelievers who do not receive the Gospel: for they do not grant that there is any real distinction in divine things, such that there is some divine person proceeding eternally from another by way of a mental word. Hence, when it is said: « By the word of the Lord the heavens were established, » they say that here the Psalmist speaks in human fashion: just as when some things are done at the command 44Dof some lord, it is said that they were done by his word. Yet from this authority a valid argument is taken among the faithful concerning the distinction of persons in divine things, as in the first book of the Sentences, dist. 2. From which it follows that a catholic expounding that authority of the Psalmist ought to expound it in a catholic manner, not caring whether an effective argument could be taken from it against unbelievers who deny the Trinity, or not: because it is not necessary that an argument be taken from every literal sense among all, as has already been said. Which question, nevertheless, the postillator seems to attend to in this place, and in not a few others, as will be plain in their places: for he seems to think that there is no literal sense except that from which a valid argument is taken even against adversaries, which nevertheless is not so to be understood, as has been said.

Concerning the sixth, namely in answering the principal question, it seems that it must be said that the literal sense can be compared to the other senses in two ways: in one 45Away universally, namely in respect of the whole of sacred Scripture in common; in the other way particularly, namely according to certain particular places of sacred Scripture. If it is compared in the first way, and sacred Scripture is taken as it is principally speculative, then the literal sense according to one consideration is of the same worth as the other senses, but according to another consideration is more worthy than the others. For which it must be known that one speculative science is said to be more worthy than another on two counts: in one way from the worth of its matter; for, as the Philosopher says in XI On Animals, The least that can be had of the knowledge of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge which is had of the least things. And according to this consideration the literal sense and the spiritual sense of sacred Scripture, taken in common, are of the same worth: for according to both senses the same thing is treated, namely God, and creatures 45Bas they are referred to God, First Part, q. 1. But in another way one science is said to be more worthy than another from certainty, according to which that science is said to be more worthy which is more certain; and according to this consideration it is manifest that the literal sense is more worthy, since it is more certain than the others. For the whole certainty of the other senses of sacred Scripture depends on the certainty of the literal sense sensu. Hence Augustine, On Christian Doctrine: « There is nothing which is handed down obscurely in any place of sacred Scripture which is not expounded plainly elsewhere. » The reason for which is: for a spiritual exposition ought always to have its support from some literal exposition of sacred Scripture, as is fully handed down in the quodlibet and question cited above. But if the literal sense is compared to the other senses according to certain particular places of sacred Scripture, then it is manifest that in many places the spiritual sense is more worthy, because it treats of a higher matter; as when one reads of Abraham 45Cin Gen. XXI that « he had two sons, » etc. Which is expounded by the Apostle, Gal. IV, allegorically of the two Testaments: where it is plain that that allegorical sense is more worthy than the historical sense of that letter; and the same is plain of many others. But if sacred doctrine is taken as it comprehends under itself practical science, then too the literal and spiritual senses can be compared in a twofold way, namely universally and particularly, as has been said. If in the first way, then the literal and spiritual senses are of the same worth; for that practical science or art is more worthy which is ordered to a further end, as the civil art to the military, as in I Ethics. And it is certain that the ultimate end of the whole of sacred doctrine, inasmuch as it is practical, whether according to the literal sense or according to the spiritual sense, is one and the same, namely eternal beatitude. But if they are compared in the second way, namely according to particular places, then it is manifest that in some places the spiritual sense is more worthy, as being nearer to the ultimate end, as is plain 45Din many ceremonial precepts, as when it is said in Deut. XXV: « Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out thy grain on the floor; » which is expounded spiritually by the Apostle, I Cor. IX, who shows that the literal sense of that precept is of small usefulness, of which he says: « Doth God take care for oxen; or doth he say it indeed for our sakes? » and so of many others. There are also other considerations by which the literal sense is pre-eminent over the spiritual senses, of which one is on the side of extension: for the literal sense extends itself to every particle of sacred Scripture; for every passage of sacred Scripture has some literal sense: but the spiritual senses do not extend themselves to the whole of sacred Scripture, as is plain from what was said in the second article.

Another consideration is on the side of universality: for the literal sense is more common or more universal, because even the unlearned, who are not fit to grasp intelligible things, grasp spiritual things through the literal sense, 46Aat least under corporeal likenesses, as in the First Part, quest. one, artic. 9. And it is certain, as in I Ethics, that a good, the more universal it is, the more divine.

From this threefold consideration, therefore, by which the literal sense, compared simply to the other senses, is more worthy, a threefold reason can in a manner be taken for the commendation of this Postill, namely that of master Nicholas.

The first is on the side of the literal sense, which in the aforesaid manner is more worthy than the others; for this Postill, among the others that come into common use, attends more to the literal sense, the other senses being passed over, or touched very little, as he himself says in the prologue.

The second reason is on the side of its extension: for there have been some solemn postills on certain or single books of divine Scripture, which did not extend themselves to all the books; but this one extends itself to 46Bboth Testaments, passing over nothing of them.

The third reason is on the side of its universality, or commonness: for this Postill, at least in these parts of Spain and, as I believe, of Gaul, is more common than the others, around the ordinary Gloss. For not only theologians have recourse to it, but also jurists and others desiring to have a plain understanding of sacred Scripture.

But although, from the aforesaid three things, this Postill is simply to be commended, there are nevertheless three other things by which it seems, at least in some places, to fall short.

The first, because in many places it seems unreasonably to set the expositions of the holy doctors after its own exposition, and sometimes even after the expositions of the Hebrews, which is unfitting, as was said in the fourth article above. Among which holy doctors he seems many times unreasonably to impugn St. Thomas, sometimes expressly, sometimes 46Ctacitly, the utterances of which holy doctor I firmly believe to have been tried by the fire of charity, and purged in many ways by the dictate of natural reason. From which holy doctor also the Postillator himself frequently takes many things, although he does not cite him, except only in reproving him.

The second, because in the Hebrew letter, to which he many times has recourse, he does not seem to have been sufficiently learned, as if he had learned it in boyhood, but he seems to have had knowledge of it as though acquired from others in adult age by begged assistance. Which matters much in many passages of sacred Scripture, as will be plain in their places.

The third, because, as he himself says in the second prologue, among the Hebrew doctors he chiefly brings in Rabbi Solomon, who, as he asserts, spoke more reasonably than the others among them toward the declaration of the literal sense: the opposite of which is manifest among the Hebrews: who, although they reckon that same Rabbi Solomon a solemn doctor in talmudic matters, nevertheless do not do so in those things which pertain 46Dto the exposition of the faith and of sacred Scripture; but rather certain others are reckoned among them greater, or more solemn, in expositions of this kind, such as Rabbi Moyses, the Egyptian, and Rabbi Moyses, of Gerona, and Rabbi Abenhazra, and others, as will now be seen.

In order, therefore, that the aforesaid and certain other things may shine forth more, which is thought very useful, considering the universality of this Postill, to which even unbelievers sometimes have recourse, and many times not in order to learn, but rather in order to reprove. For, as the Master says in the prologue: When the dispositions of wills disagree, the sense of minds also comes to disagree; I resolved, out of zeal for the divine truth, to run through it, and, where according to the measure of my weakness anything should seem to need an addition, to add it over in the margins, and to give thee the Postill itself with the additions, as I was saying in the preface. Yet do not think me as one correcting, or rashly asserting: which be far from me; but as simply proposing to thee, and to others, if they should read this: the definition, however, of the things that are said by me, and their approval or reproval, I humbly and devoutly leave to the determination of 47Aholy mother Church, and of whoever judges better. And when thou wishest to read any addition of this kind, thou must first see in full the opinion of the Postill on the same passage: for each addition supposes that the opinion of the postillator in the same place is to be understood beforehand. Nor am I unaware that this little work will not please all, namely those who perhaps will read it, but I fear, to speak after Bernard, that on this account I shall be exposed to the indignation of many, and that I shall be judged sometimes superfluous, sometimes presumptuous. But since I have not dared to put forth my hand as a new expositor, nor have I written anything after the Fathers which is against the Fathers, nay rather, as I think, on behalf of the Fathers, but rather have handed down in a plain manner this little which thou wilt see, leaving the mysteries of deep things to the more skilled, the charge of presumption, as I reckon, falls away. Nor do I believe that I incur the vice of superfluity either, since I had intended not so much to expound the sacred letter, which many of our elders have already done, as to take occasion by speaking of it: 47Bpartly that I might stir up the devotion of my ageing years; partly that by admonishing thee to our studies I might help thee in some measure; partly also because I delighted to speak with thee, I thought this matter, treated more broadly and usefully in the course of conversing, honourable and useful. If, however, thou shouldst perhaps find anything of superfluity or presumption, although I do not perceive it: for some vices, especially spiritual ones, are sometimes unknown to those who possess them, which may the Saviour in his infinite clemency deign to pardon, do thou bear it patiently, considering the zeal rather than the effect.

But now let us come to the question proposed, answering the arguments.

To the first, it must be said that the Apostle says: « The letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth (II Cor. III), » he does not intend to distinguish between the literal and spiritual sense, with which we are here concerned: but between the old law, which had been given in written letters, namely on the tables of the decalogue, and in the books of the Mosaic law; 47Cand the new law, which was given in the spirit, namely in hearts, as was prophesied in Jerem. XXXI; hence the old law is called the law of the letter, and the new law the law of the spirit. And because the Old Testament gave knowledge of sin, by which concupiscence was increased occasionally through human malice, which always strives toward what is forbidden; but did not give grace, by which man might be helped to fulfil the divine precepts: therefore he says. « The letter killeth, » namely the law of the letter, which kills occasionally, in the aforesaid manner; but the new law, which is called the law of the spirit, quickens, inasmuch as it is the law of grace, by which man is helped to fulfil the divine precepts.

To the second, it must be said that through the literal sense there is had not only history alone, namely of things done; but also the things that are to be done, as is plain from the precepts of charity, on which, according to the teaching of Christ, the whole law hangs. Likewise through the literal sense are had the things that are to be believed, as concerning 47Dthe unity of God, Deut. VI: « Hear, O Israel, thy God is one, » And concerning the Trinity of persons, as Matth. XXVIII: « Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, » and so of the other things pertaining to faith and hope. Hence, according to Thomas, First Part, quest. 1, last artic., in the reply to the first argument, nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which Scripture does not somewhere manifestly hand down through the literal. As is the opinion of Augustine, On Christian Doctrine. Thus he. Hence from the fact that in certain places of sacred Scripture the literal sense teaches only deeds, it does not follow simply that through the literal sense those things are not had which are of necessity for salvation to be believed, done, and hoped.

To the third, it must be said that in spiritual things the foundation is often said to be nobler or more worthy than the building: for Christ, who exists incomparably more worthy than the other members of the Church, is called the foundation; whence I Cor. III: « Other foundation 48Ano man can lay but that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. » Which is said according to a likeness; for just as in corporeal things the foundation sustains the building, and is prior to it, and when it fails the building tends to ruin: so in the spiritual building Christ sustains the whole body of the Church, and is prior to it in worth and causality, without whom the ecclesiastical building would be made void. Likewise, in its own way, it must be said of the literal sense, namely that it is the foundation, namely in respect of the other senses, according to a certain likeness; for just as in a corporeal building, when the foundation is taken away, the building tends to ruin: so the whole spiritual sense of sacred Scripture would fall to ruin if the literal sense were wholly taken away, since the spiritual sense, concerning those things which pertain to salvation, must be founded in the literal sense, as has been said.

To the fourth, it must be said that in sacred Scripture many things are handed down parabolically or metaphorically, namely 48Bunder the likeness of corporeal things. And this on account of two things: first on account of necessity, second on account of usefulness. For because the weakness of our knowledge, which has its beginning from sense, cannot understand divine things unless they are veiled round with a variety of sacred veils, according to Dionysius in I On the Celestial Hierarchy, therefore it is necessary that divine things be handed down to us under such likenesses. In which there is also a certain usefulness, namely that to the unlearned, who are not fit to grasp intelligible things, spiritual things may be set forth at least under corporeal likenesses. Hence the Saviour, in Matth. XIII, after he had set forth a likeness, saying: « There went out one that soweth, » etc., afterwards says to the disciples: « To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom, » but to the rest in parables, etc. Hence, according to Thomas, in the First Part, quest. 1, last articl., in the reply to the third argument: In such parabolic or metaphorical locutions, the parabolic sense is contained under the literal sense. The reason for which is: for by words something is signified 48Cproperly, and something figuratively; nor in such cases is the literal sense the figure itself, but that which is figured. Therefore, when Scripture names the arm of God, the literal sense is not that there is in God a corporeal member of this kind: but that which is signified by the member, namely operative power. And the same is to be said when God is said to descend, and the like: namely, that the literal sense is not that God is moved in any way, but that he works after the manner of one descending, applying his providence to lower things; and so it is plain that from such locutions falsehood can never underlie the literal sense of sacred Scripture.

To the fifth, it must be known that, although the book of sacred Scripture (de quo Ezechielis II et Apocal. V) is said to be « written without » by reason of the literal sense, which is said to be more powerful [potentior; read patentior, "more open", as Lyra's own words quoted here print it at 0029A], because it is signified immediately by the words; and is said to be « written within » on account of the mystical sense, or spiritual sense, which is more hidden: 48Dit does not however follow from this that the literal sense is of lesser worth universally, but only particularly, namely in those places or passages of sacred Scripture in which two senses concur, one, namely, the spiritual, which treats of a higher or more useful matter; and the other the literal, which treats of things done, which are of lesser worth, as was said above. But from this consideration it is had that the literal sense, speaking simply, is more worthy, because the knowledge of it extends not only to the wise, who understand mystical things, but also to the unlearned, according to that saying of Rom. I: « To the wise and to the unwise I am a debtor. » From which the sense of sacred Scripture is manifestly said to be written within and without, even according to the literal sense alone: for, as was deduced in the third article of this question, among the things which pertain to the literal sense some are more inward than others.

To the sixth, it must be said that, just as the study of the human 49Asciences begins from principles naturally known: so the study of sacred Scripture, rightly ordered, begins from the articles of faith divinely revealed in sacred Scripture, which are founded in the literal sense of sacred Scripture. From which articles, together with other things handed down in sacred Scripture, or found by true and right reason, one proceeds to proving some other things: as the Apostle, in I Cor. XV, from the resurrection of Christ argues the common resurrection; and by this process one arrives at all the things which are truly handed down in sacred theology, all of which are reduced to the literal sense of sacred Scripture itself, as has been said. From which it is plain that the study of sacred Scripture begins from the understanding of its literal sense taken primarily, and ends in those things which are handed down in the same sacred Scripture or are deduced from them in the aforesaid manner. And the other things which pertain to the spiritual sense must be founded on the aforesaid, as has been said. From which 49Bthe excellence of the literal sense is plain, inasmuch as there are included in it, concerning the divine knowledge which is through faith, both those things which in the other sciences stand as understanding, namely first principles, and those which stand as science, namely the things deduced from principles, and also those which concern the highest causes of things, which pertain to wisdom, as in III Ethics. But that which the Apostle says in Rom. I: « The invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, » is properly understood of the things which are known of God through creatures, as the philosophers knew them; whence in the same place he says: « That which is known of God is manifest to them, » etc.

To the seventh, it must be said that from that authority of Gregory it is not to be understood that the literal sense of sacred Scripture, namely that which is intended by the author, fails in any place, so that it either includes something false or something wholly useless: for the first would be to weaken 49Cthe whole authority of sacred Scripture, as Augustine says; the second is against the Apostle, who says thus: « Whatsoever things were written, were written for our learning. » But because the literal sense taken from the signification by which words signify things sometimes fails, in such a case Gregory says that one must return to the signification by which the things signified by the words further signify something else, which pertains to the mystical exposition. And in such cases the literal sense principally intended by the author is not that which is understood primarily through the signification of the words, but rather that which is had further through the signification of the things signified by the words. And this happens in sacred Scripture in many ways. First in parabolic locutions, as was said in the reply to the fourth argument. Likewise when Scripture, speaking of one thing to the letter, passes over to another of which it is a figure, as is plain in the first and last rule of Blessed Isidore, which 49Dare set down in the second prologue of this Postill. Likewise when some history, understood only according to the signification of the words, brings in no instruction in faith, or usefulness in morals, nor even leads to any honesty in human conduct, but rather seems to bring in or approve some appearance of evil; and therefore in such a history there must of necessity be sought a sense according to the mystical signification, fitted and useful for something of the aforesaid; according to that saying of Isa. XVIII; « I the Lord teaching thee useful things » And the words of Gregory in the aforesaid authority hint at this when he says: « When the order of the history fails; » for sacred history is ordered to our learning: but when in this it fails according to the signification of the words, it is certain that the order of the history fails, and so one must return without doubting to the spiritual sense, in the aforesaid manner, which in such cases is to be held for the literal. An example of which is had in III Kings I, in the history of Abisag brought to David in his old age, as Jerome notably expounds in that place (See there in the second Addition). 50AWhich defect indeed, in the sense taken only according to the signification of the words, often happens in sacred Scripture in the aforesaid manner; whence in such places one must have recourse to the aforesaid authority of Blessed Gregory, which is much to be attended to.

Gracious prelate. like another Simeon full of years, famous for the study of the divine law, thou hast offered thy veteran old age as it were an evening sacrifice: in which perhaps thou hast received an answer from the Holy Spirit, that thou shouldst not see death unless thou shouldst first elucidate the literal declarations of both Testaments with declarative additions, as though there were in them a vein of life, and in thy light his light 50Bmight be seen; therefore to thee be praise and honour in the Church of the saints, as has been granted to the others who elucidate sacred Scripture. And since, gracious prelate, summit and shepherd, mirror and light-bearing agalma, the introduction of thy work, named the Additions, came by way of prologue into the hands of me, a poor sighing friar minor, first by report, secondly in writing: in which, discerning the rectitude of thy mind planted together with the little branch of the good nature of the law That is, growing on the same tree as the little branch., which Paul sets in about fathers laying up treasure for their children; and no less the term of the question, in which thy ingenious skill asks whether the worth of literal understanding abounds over the other senses of sacred Scripture, on the part of which, against it, thou hast shaken with eight Achillean reasons the foundation of the firmness of the truth in question, strengthening its firmness not a little; in this assigning the decision of the honour owed to virtue under the number six. In all of which, although great usefulness abounds, yet ingenious subtlety does not 50Crefresh the uplifted mind, the affirmative determination of thy question does not satisfy, since its strengthening rather concludes the opposite. For just as the adoration of an image is made not on account of the image, but of the thing imaged, so the reverence and honour of the letter is on account of the spirit: and that on account of which each thing is, is itself the more so; for honour and reverence pass over to the prototype. Not the golden urn full of manna, the rod and the tables, on account of the ark of the covenant, but the ark on account of such things was to be revered. What are the inner things, but spiritual understanding? What is looked upon as the ark, but the letter? Which the vision of Ezekiel shows still more distinctly, when it depicts these things more beautifully under the metaphor of a wheel in the midst of a wheel. A wheel in the midst of a wheel, the letter of grace in the letter of the law: to which it does not grant life, but to spiritual understanding, when it adds: « And the spirit of life was in the wheels. » For this is the true life, which the Word of life preached to Jewish blindness, when he said: « Search 50Dthe Scriptures, » etc. Nor does the first of the decision satisfy, nor the second, nor the third, nor the fourth, nor the fifth, nay nor the sixth, where the comparison of the literal sense to the mystical sense is treated, between which comparison is not possible on account of the grades of diverse species, outside of which comparison does not occur on account of the gradual intension of a specific nature. Wherefore, dependently on these, the motive of the threefold consideration fails, by which the literal sense, compared simply to the other senses, is more worthy, namely, on the side of extension: this fails, since all the sacred utterances are full of the Lord's sacraments. This longer extension of the spirit beyond the letter Paul knew when he said, « All things happened to them in figure [Vulg. Haec autem omnia in figura contingebant illis, "now all these things happened to them in figure"], » not only things written, but also things handed down in any other way whatever. And on this account the second also fails, namely, on the side of universality, since the more universal a thing is, the more communicable. But the literal sense, on account of its limitation, according to famous doctors and notably according to the Irrefragable Doctor, is incommunicable; for it is not divided, 51Abut the mystical is indeed multiplied. And I shall set down the doctor's multiplication: Since, he says, it relates either to morals, or to faith. In the first way the tropological; in the second way in two ways, since it relates to faith either in the Deity, or in the humanity; if the Deity, the anagogical; if the humanity, the allegorical. And the third also fails: since the worth of these senses is weighed by greater usefulness, which follows greater certainty, as far as lies in itself: for the certainty of spiritual understanding is not of speculation, as is that of literal understanding: but it is a certainty of experience, and according to affection, and by way of taste, through the breathing and testimony of the Holy Spirit. From which things the reason for the commendation of the Postill of doctor Nicholas does not arise; but, trusting in thy kindly disposition, to which I devoutly commend myself, I reckon that the reason for its commendation arises from the opposite adjectives, by which thou strivest so undeservedly to reprehend Nicholas. For one is commended from his own work; wherefore he set the opinions of the doctors after, as not pertinent, 51Bso that he might authorize his work to the doctors of the Church, from which he did not deviate: Nor dost thou prove what thou sayest, that the words of St. Thomas have been tried by the fire of charity: since in many of his determinations they have been impugned by many ingenious theologians, admirable men, as though they had written in the body or out of the body, God knows. He is commended secondly, even if not from the propriety of the Hebrew tongue, which he did not suck in with his milk, yet from the truth of the sense, about which he did not err, mingling it with the theological habit, which suckled him. He is commended thirdly in that among all the Hebrew doctors he chose Rabbi Solomon, since among them all he found him the better theologian. These things, thus undigested, I write to thy digested prudence, gracious prelate, with a very brief pen, commending to thy ingenious knowledge the defects of an unskilled pen: yet, God being witness, I am now more moved toward thee than toward anyone living in the world, since among mortals thou art now the more virtuous, and out of reverence for thee thy work would be to me an assiduous diligence if 51Cits presence had come my way. Live with grace, that thou mayest live always in glory.

Man of venerable religion, brother and dearest friend, I acknowledge that I have received thy letter, in the opening of which thou callest me another Simeon, whom I believe I resemble in nothing, unless perhaps in old age, would that it were a fruitful one. But having looked somewhat into its progress, I could rather call thee another Samaritan: for thou hast brought, skilfully enough, the oil of praise with the wine of reproof. But of both materials I believe thou hast brought more than the case required. For I do not feel myself such and so great as thou hast written me; nor do I find my sayings, which are in question, so far as the small measure of my wit is able to understand, deserving of thy reproof. If, however, they are, I shall gladly receive correction: for not to acquire a vain name, 51Dbut to inquire after the truth, is my purpose. But, running through this more broadly: as to the first, thy benevolent affection toward my person, from which I perceive oil of this kind to have flowed, I give thanks for it, and I reckon it worthy of a return of thanks. As to the second, I gladly embrace the effect: for iron is sharpened by iron, and by the solutions of contraries the truth shines out the more. And I have determined to run through thy arguments one by one, and, every flower of the rhetoricians laid aside, in plain words, such as we are accustomed to use in the investigations of the sciences, to answer each, as it shall seem to me, repeating thy objecting words in their places, so that, all confusion removed, the truth of each may become known more openly.

For thou sayest first of my question in general thus: « In all of which, although great usefulness abounds, yet ingenious subtlety does not refresh the uplifted mind. »

Concerning which I wonder not a little at thy discretion: 52Afor words which in the expositions of sacred Scripture abound in great usefulness, what if they do not refresh the uplifted mind? For one of the prophets wrote: « I the Lord teaching thee useful things (Isa. XLVIII), » whence he did not say subtle things, or ingenious: for such things as, as he says, refresh the uplifted mind, if they are distinguished against useful things, seem rather to pertain to being wise in high things than to sobriety.

Consequently thou sayest that the affirmative determination of the question does not satisfy thee, etc. From which it seems that thou hast not seen, or perhaps hast not attentively considered, my determination, especially in the sixth, responsive article, where it is manifestly had that my decision, or determination, was not affirmative simply, but distinctive. For there are three distinctions there, according to one of which the natural sense is pre-eminent, but according to another it is of equal worth, and according to another also of lesser worth, than the spiritual sense.

Consequently thou sayest that the reverence and honour of the letter 52Bis on account of the spirit, because that on account of which each thing is, is itself the more so; from which thou triest to conclude that the literal sense is honoured on account of the spiritual. To which thou bringest the example of the ark of the covenant, to which honour was owed on account of the things contained in it, and not the reverse. My dearest brother, it seems to me that thou hast here entangled the opinions. For if by what thou sayest, letter, thou understandest the characters expressed on the tables, and by spirit thou understandest the sense signified by them, it is certainly granted to thee, but the argumentation does nothing against me. For the literal sense is that which is first understood through the letter, and to it honour is owed rather than to the material letter. But if by what thou sayest, letter, thou understandest the literal sense, and by spirit, the mystical, or spiritual, sense, then a distinction must be made thus: For in certain places of sacred Scripture, as in the historical parts of the Old Testament, or the ceremonial, and the like, the mystical sense is more worthy than the literal, as was shown in the sixth, responsive article of the aforesaid question 52C; and in such places the aforesaid example of the ark of the covenant can have a place. But in other places, where the literal sense alone is sought, according to Augustine, the example seems to have no place at all, as is plain in the very matter of which thou speakest. For in the tables of the Testament, which were enclosed in the ark of the covenant, nothing else was contained but the precepts of the decalogue: which precepts indeed are not expounded principally or commonly except according to the literal sense, to which all their expositions, however manifold, are reduced.

Consequently thou bringest in the vision of Ezekiel of the wheel in the midst of the wheel to show thy proposition, which manifestly seems not to hold. For if thou allegest this vision according to the literal sense, ask master Nicholas, who follows the literal sense most of all, and he will tell thee that by the fourfold number of the living creatures and of the wheels in the vision of Ezekiel is understood the fourfold of succeeding kingdoms, 52Dnamely of the Chaldeans, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans: and so thy authority according to the literal sense does nothing against me; but if thou allegest it according to the mystical, or spiritual, sense, see Gregory, who expounded this vision elegantly in his Homilies on Ezekiel, who expounded the wheel in the midst of the wheel as the New Testament in the midst of the Old: and it is certain that in both Testaments, and consequently in both wheels, the literal sense is found. But thou sayest: although in both Testaments the literal and spiritual sense is found, yet life is not granted except to spiritual understanding, when there is added: « And the spirit of life was in the wheels. » Hear, I pray: if by spiritual understanding thou shouldst understand only the spiritual, or mystical, sense, the literal sense being excluded, thou wouldst manifestly deviate from the truth of sacred doctrine. For it is certain that all the things which are handed down in sacred Scripture as to be believed or done of necessity for salvation are found under the literal sense. 53AFor the mystery of the highest trinity and unity, which holds the highest place among the things to be believed, is founded in authorities of sacred Scripture understood according to the literal sense. Hence Augustine, treating of the order to be kept when the Trinity is treated, in book IV On the Trinity speaks thus: « First, against [contra; read secundum, "according to"] the authorities of the sacred Scriptures: whether the faith holds thus is to be demonstrated, then against the chatterers, » etc. And it is certain that the authorities of the sacred Scriptures which oblige us to believe in the mystery of the holy Trinity are those which say this according to the literal sense: for only from such is an effective argument taken, according to the same Augustine, On Christian Doctrine. Hence all the testimonies which are brought in by the Master in 1, distinct. 2, to found this mystery, are understood according to the literal sense, as is plain in the same place. And concerning the mystery of the incarnation of the Word, in the knowledge of which eternal life consists, whence: 53B« This is eternal life, that they may know thee God, and, whom thou hast sent, thy Son [Vulg. te, solum Deum verum, et quem misisti Jesum Christum, "thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent"] (Joan. XVII), » etc., it is manifest that all the things concerning this that are to be believed of necessity for salvation are handed down principally in the literal sense; as when it is said of the incarnation: « The Word was made flesh (Joan. I), » which according to the literal sense signifies a true incarnation; and when it is said of the death: « Crying with a loud voice he expired (Marc. XV); » and so of the other things to be believed concerning the humanity of Christ: all of which are found in the literal sense. The same of the creation of the world, the other articles of faith, which are proposed to us to be believed, all of which are found under the literal sense; and therefore they have obligatory force, as has been said. But of those things which are to be done of necessity for salvation, I take only those two manifest ones, on which the whole law hangs and the prophets, according to the testimony of the Saviour, namely: « Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart (Matth. XII), » etc.; and: « Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Ibid.). » For these commandments have 53Conly the literal sense. For in this place the things signified by this word, God, or by this word, neighbour, and by this word, thou shalt love, do not further signify other things, from which things so signified another sense might be taken, as is manifest. And note that not only the aforesaid things, which are to be done of necessity for salvation, but also those which pertain to the state of perfection, and are given as counsels, are had through the literal sense, as when it is said: « If thou wilt be perfect, go, and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor (Marc. XIX). » In which words, understood according to the literal sense, are included all those things which pertain to the state of perfection, as is manifest. Likewise the doctrine of the sacraments of the Church, by which justifying grace is given or increased: I ask, through which sense is it given to us in the Scriptures? Through the literal or the mystical? It is not doubtful that it is through the literal. For when it is said: « He that believeth, and is baptized, » etc. (Marc. XVI), 53Daccording to the literal sense the institution of the sacrament of baptism is understood; likewise when it is said: « My flesh is truly food, and he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, » etc. (Joan. VI), according to the literal sense of doctors of this kind the virtue, or efficacy, of the sacrament of the Eucharist is had. Likewise through the literal sense of this kind of saying: « Confess your sins one to another (Jac. III), » we understand the sacrament of penance. Who then of sound mind would dare to say that in the literal sense there is not the spirit of life, since in it all things to be believed and done that pertain to the spiritual life are handed down?

But perhaps thou wouldst say that all the aforesaid things are also had in the mystical sense, for through the allegorical sense are had those things which are to be believed, and through the tropological those which are to be done. To which it must be said that nothing necessary to faith or morals is contained under the spiritual sense which Scripture does not somewhere manifestly hand down through the literal 54Asense. Hence Augustine to Vincent the Donatist: « But who would not most imprudently strive to bring forward for himself something set in allegory, unless he also has manifest testimonies, by whose light the obscure things may be illumined? » But further, concerning the mystical sense, thou seemest to speak thus: For this is the true life, which the Word of life preached to Jewish blindness, when he said: « Search the Scriptures, in which ye think ye have eternal life (Joan. V); » by these words of thine I perceive [thee] to reckon that by the searching of the Scriptures, commanded by Christ to the Jews, he is understood to command them to draw out, or extract, from the sacred letters the spiritual or mystical sense: which, saving thy peace be it said, contains no truth. For I dare to say to thee, brother: Search all the holy Gospels of God, and thou wilt never find that Christ alleged any authority of sacred Scripture, whether in instructing the disciples, or to the Jews contradicting, or even to the devil tempting, except as understood under the literal 54Bsense. Hence master Nicholas too, rightly considering this, in his whole Postill on the Old Testament, wherever there occurs any text alleged in the New by Christ and by the disciples, always expounds it according to the literal sense, insomuch that even that saying of the Psalmist: « The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner (Psal. CXVII), » he expounds as to be understood according to the literal sense of Christ, because Christ alleged that text of himself to the Jews. Likewise all the authorities of the Old Testament which the Apostle alleges in Hebrews I to prove the divinity of Christ, and his other mysteries, he tries to reduce to the literal sense, however much at first sight they have another appearance; which is necessary for this, that they be effective for concluding what is intended; and so in any other places whatever of the whole Postill. From which it is concluded against thee: for Christ commanded those very senses to be searched, concerning which he himself daily taught, preached, or disputed: which are only 54Cliteral, as has been said; and therefore that word of Christ: « Search the Scriptures, » which thou allegest for thyself, is expounded, according to the aforesaid master, of the mysteries of Christ, which are found in the sacred Scriptures understood according to the literal sense. For he says on the aforesaid word, namely: « Search the Scriptures: » Thus the Scripture of the Old Testament designates the time of his coming; Gen. penult.: « The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, » etc.; and Dan. IX, where the coming of the Holy of holies is determined under a certain number of weeks. It determines also the place of the nativity, Mich. V: « And thou Bethlehem? » It determines also the manner of being born, Isa. VII: « Behold a virgin shall conceive? » And the manner of his conversation, Zach. IX: « Behold thy king cometh to thee? » And the manner of dying, Isa. LIV: « As a sheep he shall be led to the slaughter, » etc. And briefly, all the mysteries of Christ are found expressed in the Old Testament, and fulfilled in Christ. Thus he. And it is certain 54Dthat all the aforesaid authorities, alleged by the Postillator, signify the aforesaid mysteries according to the literal sense. And so it is plain that when it is said: « Search the Scriptures, » it is to be referred to the literal sense, which is what was intended.

But perhaps thou wilt say that the literal sense does not need searching, since it is taken from the things signified by the word, so that it offers itself at once to the understanding, with little searching, or investigation of reason: whence it seems superfluous that Christ preached to Jewish blindness: « Search the Scriptures; » since they had been sufficiently taught about this sense. Not so, my brother, not so: for the literal sense of sacred Scripture, although it is taken from the things signified by the word, as thou sayest, yet many have erred in finding or acquiring it, both in the Old and in the New Testament. The reason for which is: For just as it is read through the prophet concerning the ways of the Lord, which are his precepts, or counsels: « The ways of the Lord are right, and the just shall walk in them; but the transgressors 55Ahave fallen [Vulg. corruent, "shall fall"] in them (Ose. XIV); » so it happens in the literal sense; namely, that although it is right, that is, plainer; and the just, that is, those having the light of faith, shall walk in them, namely, in the things intended and signified through the literal sense, by adhering to the faith: yet the transgressors, namely those lacking light of this kind, namely of faith, shall fall in them. In the Old Testament the Jews contemporary with Christ erred in many ways concerning this literal sense: as do the moderns too, following the error of their forebears, as is plain in many places of the Gospel. Hence in the precepts of the decalogue, which are the principal ones among the precepts of the law, they erred so far that by the precepts on the observance of the sabbath they understood it to be forbidden to the letter that anyone should cure his neighbour on the sabbath, which is inhuman; on which point Christ confuted them, showing that it is lawful to do good on the sabbaths, saying: « Which of you that hath one sheep, and if it fall on the sabbaths (Matth. XII), » etc. Likewise in homicide they did not understand 55Banything to be forbidden except the killing of the human body: to whom the Lord opened the sense, asserting that every unjust motion toward harming a brother ought to be reckoned in the kind of homicide. Augustine declares this same thing against Faustus concerning all those things of which it is said in the Gospel: « Ye have heard that it was said to them of old. » They erred also concerning the precept of the honouring of parents, making void the commandment of God for their tradition, as Matthew XV and Mark VII testify; by which reason he shows that it was said of them through Isaiah: « This people honoureth me with the lips, » etc. Upon which, and upon other errors to which they adhered, failing in the literal sense of sacred Scripture, he concludes of them in the same place: « They are blind, and leaders of the blind. » Hence the Jewish blindness which Christ reproves consists in a false understanding of the literal sense. This is plain also through the aforesaid authorities of the Old Testament which the Postillator alleged on that word: « Search the Scriptures; » which authorities indeed according to the true 55Cliteral sense signify the mysteries of Christ, as has been said above: which literal sense the Jews perverting in manifold ways, do not fear to deny the truth of faith expressed through them; whence it is rightly said to them: « Search the Scriptures; » that is, attend diligently to the true literal sense contained in them. Likewise it must be noted that because among the aforesaid errors the more dangerous was the error concerning the knowledge of Christ, in which they held themselves most pertinaciously; for Luke testifies that when once in the synagogue he expounded to them that saying of Isaiah LXI: « The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; wherefore he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor, » etc., as said of himself, they finally cast him out of the city, to throw him down headlong; rightly therefore did Christ say to such: « Search the Scriptures; » because if they had had the true literal sense of such Scriptures, they would have found true testimony of Christ, and therefore he adds: « They are they which bear testimony of me. » But testimony 55Dis not had as certain from sacred Scripture except from the literal sense, as Augustine testifies in many places.

The same is plain in the New Testament. For if Arius had had the true literal sense of this saying: « I and the Father are one, » understanding this unity, moreover, in the divine nature; and likewise had had the true understanding of this saying: « The Father is greater than I, » understanding the greaterness in respect of the assumed nature, he would not have fallen into his condemned heresy. But because he understood the aforesaid otherwise to the letter than the catholics illumined by the Holy Spirit understood them, he fell into the snare. And so it is plain that the aforesaid error consists about the true literal understanding of the Gospel: and so it is to be understood of the others. From which what was intended is plain.

Further thou sayest that the first of my decision does not satisfy thee, nor the second, nor the third, nor the fourth, nor the fifth. Concerning which, if thou hadst shown the reason for thy 56Aunsatisfiedness, perhaps thou wouldst be satisfied. But because thou hast omitted to assign a reason, I give thee no answer; except that one must beware of insatiability of heart, which is reproved in the sacred Scriptures.

Concerning the sixth, because there thou hast declared thy mind, thou must deservedly be answered. Thou sayest first that between the literal and the mystical sense comparison is not possible. Which I reckon very unreasonably said: both because thou thyself comparest the aforesaid senses with one another: for thou hast asserted that the mystical sense is more worthy, and consequently they are comparable by thy own account; and because no one could reasonably deny that the creator is more worthy than the creature, and the distance between the creator and the creature exceeds any distance whatever between created things, as is manifest; and also because these two senses of which we treat are species contained under the genus of the exposition of sacred Scripture, as is plain from all the doctors who speak of this, such as Bede, Augustine and others. For nothing 56Bprohibits that, just as we shall say that the human species is more worthy than the brutish or irrational, so one sense of expounding sacred Scripture is more worthy than another.

Consequently, because I had said in the conclusion that the literal sense was more worthy on the side of extension, because every proposition of sacred Scripture has a true literal sense, but the mystical senses do not extend themselves to the whole of sacred Scripture; against this thou sayest thus: This fails, since all the sacred utterances are full of the Lord's sacraments. Here thou seemest to entangle the opinions through the acceptation of this word sacrament; for if thou tookest sacrament properly, so that it signifies the sacraments of the new law and also of the old, thus thou wouldst assume what is false. For there are many utterances in which no mention is made of sacraments, in whatever sense such utterances are taken. But if by sacrament thou understand a sacred secret, so that by this the mystical sense is understood, thus too thou wouldst assume what is false. For it was shown in the second article 56Cof the question which is in hand, that there are many things in sacred Scripture in which the literal sense alone is to be sought: and it is the opinion of Augustine on Genesis to the letter. But if by sacrament thou understandest any sacred doctrine whatever, thus thou sayest truly, but it does nothing against me, because in those passages in which the literal sense alone is to be sought there are many sacred teachings on faith or morals, as was deduced above; and so it is plain that the extension of the literal sense stands in its vigour; but for the proof of thy assumption, namely that the mystical senses extend to the whole of sacred Scripture, thou allegest thus: This extension of the spirit beyond the letter Paul knew when he said: « All things happened to them in figures [Vulg. Haec autem omnia in figura contingebant illis, "now all these things happened to them in figure"] (I Cor. X), » not only things written, but also things handed down in any other way whatever. This authority of Paul, if thou attend well, does nothing against me. For he speaks there only of the deeds of the people living under the old Testament, whose life was prophetic: whence, having narrated 56Din the same chapter certain of their deeds, both in the crossing of the sea and under the cloud, and the like, he concludes: « Now all these things happened to them in figure. » For he did not say only, all things happened, but with this addition, « Now all these things, » to show that he speaks only of those and similar things. Likewise it is not said that all things were said to them in figure, but « happened; » in which he manifestly shows that he speaks of deeds that happened, but not of things revealed or commanded to them. Did what is said in the old law: « Hear, Israel, thy God is one (Deut. VI), » happen to them in figure? or what is said: « Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, » and the like, and so of similar things? God forbid: there the literal sense alone is to be sought, according to the opinion of Augustine. And from this consideration the pre-eminence of the literal sense according to extension is more clearly plain: for it extends itself to the more notable and more excellent authorities of sacred Scripture 57Aof which it was said above, in which authorities the mystical sense has no place.

Consequently thou sayest that the literal sense is not more universal, because by as much as a thing is more universal, by so much is it more communicable: but the literal sense, on account of its limitation, and notably according to the Irrefragable Doctor, is incommunicable, because it is not divided, but the mystical is indeed multiplied.

Attend, brother, I pray: if thou comparest the senses of sacred Scripture with one another according to their limitation to the matters of which they treat, it is manifest that each mystical sense is limited to a certain matter. For the tropological sense treats only of things to be done according to morals, the allegorical of things to be believed, the anagogical of things to be hoped for; but the literal sense manifestly treats of each of the aforesaid, and also of things already done. Nor do I believe that the Irrefragable Doctor asserts the opposite of this, and so thy comparison rather 57Bmakes for me.

Likewise, if thou hast attended to the universality which I attribute to the literal sense, it is manifest enough: and it consists in this, that not only the lettered, or wise, but also the unlearned, who are not fit to grasp intelligible things, yet grasp spiritual things through the literal sense, at least under corporeal likenesses, according to that saying of the Apostle: « To the wise and to the unwise a debtor « am I (Rom. I); » whence on the side of this universality the literal sense has a manifest pre-eminence.

But in this thou objectest concerning incommunicability; if thou so opinest, thou manifestly deviatest from the truth. For the literal sense is communicated to every proposition of sacred Scripture, as has been said: and again, in many places one passage has a manifold literal exposition, as was shown in the third article of the question. The literal sense is also a great deep, on account of the great difficulties contained in it concerning the things which pertain to faith and morals. Nor is it to be wondered at: 57Cfor in the books of the human sciences, in which the literal sense alone is to be inquired into, there are very many commentaries, and many expositions or writings. Likewise also manifold questions for understanding or elucidating the mind of the authors, as is plain in physics, metaphysics, and ethics. Likewise in the faculties of both laws, and the like; in which neither in the text nor in the gloss is there any sense but the literal. If therefore in those in which only those things are treated which can be known in the light of natural reason, so many multiplicities of commentaries and varieties of questions, and of expositions, and the like, are found concerning the literal sense, how much more in divine Scripture, where those things are treated which are known only by supernatural light, can manifold literal senses, or expositions, questions, and the like, be found.

Nor do I believe it is hidden from thee that the literal sense is divided into three species according to Augustine in the book On the 57DUsefulness of Believing, namely into the historical, the etymological and the anagogical, as I expounded in the third article: likewise the seven keys of his rule, too, which Isidore hands down in the book On the Highest Good, which are set down in the prologue by the Postillator, are nothing but certain species of the literal sense, as is plain to one who understands. From which it is manifestly plain that the literal sense is communicable and multipliable.

Thou sayest also, consequently, that the worth of these senses is weighed by greater usefulness, which follows greater certainty: which I grant thee, as was deduced more at large in the aforesaid question. But what thou addest, that the certainty of spiritual understanding is not of speculation, as literal understanding is; but is a rightness of experience, and according to affection, and by way of taste, through the inspiration and testimony of the Holy Spirit: here thou manifestly entanglest the opinions. For thou attributest to the spiritual, or mystical, sense sensus what has its place in the spiritual man: 58Afor it is not of the nature of the spiritual, or mystical, sense that it give grace to one understanding, or finding, it: nor is it even necessary that one having the true mystical, or spiritual, sense of sacred Scripture be in grace that makes pleasing: for it suffices, for rightly finding, or having, the spiritual, or mystical, sense, to have, or to share in, the gift of prophecy, or the gift of the interpretation of speeches; which, although they are graces, yet are graces freely given only: and so that certainty which thou speakest of as by way of taste pertains to the gift of wisdom: according to which the spiritual man judges all things, even the deep things of God, according to the Apostle (I Cor. II), which is not in question in the matter proposed. From this saying of thine it would also follow that no one would have certainty of any mystical or spiritual sense of sacred Scripture unless existing in grace: and since no one knows by the common law whether he be worthy of love or hatred, it follows that no one would know that he has such certainty of the aforesaid 58Bmystical sense by the common law, which would be very inconsonant with reason.

Consequently thou sayest that I do not prove the words of St. Thomas to have been tried by the fire of charity. If thou hast attended well to my words, I said thus: I believe the words of St. Thomas to have been tried by the fire of charity: whence for my belief no other testimony is required, except that in my sayings and in my writings I always follow this holy doctor, would that worthily and sufficiently. Nor am I unaware that his sayings have been impugned in many things by many ingenious theologians, admirable men, as thou sayest, nor is my belief or my following of him hindered by this: both because it often happens that true doctrines are impugned, as much in theological matters, whose principle is set for a sign which shall be contradicted, as in peripatetic ones; and because those things in which he is contradicted do not bear, as I firmly believe, upon the exposition of any passage of sacred Scripture, whether it be held thus or otherwise: and therefore such things, with me, who care only for the true understanding of sacred and divine Scripture, are more 58Ccurious than fruitful. Hence the Apostle too says of like things that they furnish questions rather than edification, and the rest.

Lastly thou commendest master Nicholas in that he set the opinions of the holy doctors after his own opinion, so that he might authorize his work; and if thou commendedst him simply, thou wouldst certainly do rightly: for he is to be commended, who with so great study and labour expounded sacred Scripture in a plain and sweet style; but I wonder that thou hast commended him for this, that he set his own opinions before the sayings of the saints, as thou sayest, for authorizing his work, since not only does sacred Scripture oppose this commendation; for it is read (II Cor. X): « Not he who commendeth himself is approved; » and Prov. XXVII: « Let another's mouth praise thee, not thine own. » Physical doctrine also urges this; for the Philosopher says: We praise those who blame themselves. And so, by the opposite, to praise oneself, or to set oneself before others, is not commendable; especially 58Dsince the Postillator of whom we speak, as a worthy professor of the order of Minors, is to be reckoned to follow humility, not presumption. For those who are clothed in soft garments, and are in the houses of kings, are accustomed to think great things of themselves. Nor indeed can I be brought to believe that thou reckonest it worthy of commendation to set the opinion of Jerome, or of any holy doctor, after a saying of Rabbi Solomon (especially where reason does not urge it). Praise him therefore in that in which he is to be praised: namely in his right intention, which I believe him to have had; and on account of the great labour which there is no doubt he sustained in order to expound sacred Scripture, and for the greater part rightly: but not from this, that he sometimes unduly deviated from the expositions of the holy doctors.

Secondly thou commendest the Postillator for this, that through the theological habit he had the truth of the sense, although he had not sucked in with his milk the propriety of the Hebrew tongue. Which, saving thy peace, seems to be said less 59Areasonably. For it is known that the theological habit does not extend itself to having the gift of tongues; and therefore when a theologian says: Thus it is in the Hebrew truth, and there it is not found thus, he is not on this account to be commended.

Thirdly thou commendest him for this, that among the Hebrew doctors he found no better theologian than Rabbi Solomon. Concerning which it is known that if in truth of fact he was less skilled than others, he ought not to be commended for this, that he follows him, especially in things deviant from and inconsonant with the authorities of the saints; commend him therefore, as I said, in those things and from those things for which he is to be commended, and I shall gladly embrace thy commendations.

Concluding therefore, dearest brother, do not believe that I wished to reprove the Postillator, as thou sayest; far be it from me: but rather I expressly asserted in the aforesaid question that his Postill is simply 60Ato be commended: although in some places I feel it to be less sufficient; which is not reckoned a fault simply; for no one of mortals can examine all things perfectly: for Homer often nodded. But it is a holy thing in all sciences, especially in divine Scripture, always to set the truth first.

Would that, most beloved brother, thou wert in my company, at least for a little while, so that we might run through these little additions together, and so thou wouldst know by experience that in those places in which I seem to deviate from his sayings, I proceeded out of zeal for truth, not out of eagerness to reprove: and also in these I did not deviate by my own judgment, but by following the opinion of my elders. Farewell, brother in the Lord: and always emulate the better gifts, etc.