PROLOGUS SECUNDUS. De intentione auctoris et modo procedendi.
SECOND PROLOGUE. On the intention of the author and the manner of proceeding.
Prologus de intentione auctoris
29B« Vidi in dextera sedentis super thronum librum scriptum intus et foris. » (Apoc. V.) Sicut dictum est in prologo praecedenti, liber iste est sacra Scriptura, qui dicitur scriptus exterius, quantum ad sensum litteralem, et interius, quantum ad sensum mysticum et spiritualem. Qui licet trifariam dividatur 29Cin generali, ut praedictum est; et licet sub quolibet membro possit fieri expositionum mysticarum multiplicatio in speciali; omnes tamen praesupponunt sensum litteralem tanquam fundamentum. Unde sicut aedificium declinans a fundamento, disponitur ad ruinam: ita expositio mystica discrepans a sensu litterali, reputanda est indecens et inepta, vel saltem minus decens caeteris paribus, et minus apta, et ideo volentibus proficere in studio sacrae Scripturae necessarium est incipere ab intellectu sensus litteralis: maxime cum ex solo sensu litterali, et non ex mystico, possit argumentum fieri ad probationem vel declarationem alicujus dubii, secundum quod dicit Augustinus in epistola contra Vincentium Donatistam.
Ulterius considerandum quod sensus litteralis, a quo est incipiendum, ut dictum est, videtur multum obfuscatus diebus modernis: partim scriptorum vitio, 29Dqui propter similitudinem litterarum in multis locis aliter scripserunt quam habeat veritas textus; partim imperitia aliquorum correctorum, qui in pluribus locis fecerunt puncta ubi non debent fieri; et versus incoeperunt, vel terminaverunt, ubi non debent incipi et terminari: et per hoc sententia litterae variatur, ut patebit in suis locis infra prosequendo, Domino concedente; partim ex modo translationis nostrae, quae multis locis aliter habet quam libri Hebraici secundum quod declarat Hieronymus in libro: de Hebraicis, quaestionibus, et in pluribus aliis locis: et alii expositores sacrae Scripturae legendo vel scribendo idem dicunt; et tamen secundum Hieronymum in secundo prologo super Genesim, et in pluribus aliis locis, pro veritate litterae habenda in scriptura Veteris Testamenti recurrendum est ad codices Hebraeorum. In hoc tamen valde cavendum est, quantum ad locos Scripturae Veteris Testamenti, qui de deitate Christi ac de consequentibus ad hoc loquuntur: quorum aliquos Judaei 30Bcorruperunt ad defensionem sui erroris, ut partim declaravi in quadam quaestione de divinitate Christi, et declarabo plenius quando loci tales occurrent, Domino concedente. In illis autem in quibus non est verisimile quod aliquid immutaverint, 30Ccum nec causam hoc faciendi habuerint, nullum videtur periculum, sed magis securum, secundum dictum beati Hieronymi, in dubiis recurrere ad textum Hebraicum, tanquam ad originale, pro veritate textus declaranda.
Sciendum etiam quod sensus litteralis est multum obumbratus, propter modum exponendi communiter traditum ab aliis: qui, licet multa bona dixerint, tamen parum tetigerunt litteralem sensum, et sensus mysticos in tantum multiplicaverunt, quod sensus litteralis inter tot expositiones mysticas interceptus, partim suffocatur. Item textum in tot particulas diviserunt, et tot concordantias ad suum propositum induxerunt, quod intellectum et memoriam in parte confundunt, ab intellectu litteralis sensus animum distrahentes. Haec igitur et similia vitare proponens cum Dei adjutorio intendo circa litteralem sensum insistere: et paucas valde, et breves expositiones mysticas aliquando interponere, 30Dlicet raro. Similiter intendo non solum dicta doctorum catholicorum, sed etiam Hebraicorum, maxime Rabbi Salomonis, qui inter doctores Hebraeos locutus est rationabilius declarationem sensus litteralis inducere. Aliqua etiam dicta Hebraeorum valde absurda aliquando, licet valde raro, interponam, non ad tenendum ea, vel sequendum; sed ut per haec appareat quanta caecitas contigerit in Israel, secundum dictum Pauli apostoli ad Romanos undecimo: propter quod etiam dictis Hebraeorum non est inhaerendum, nisi quantum rationi consonant et litterae veritati. Item omissis prologis, a principio Genesis incipiam: tum quia residuum vitae meae non credo ad expositionem totius sacrae Scripturae sufficere, et ideo nolui in exponendis dictis beati Hieronymi, vel alterius cujuscunque doctoris immorari; tum quia dicti prologi parum faciunt ad intellectum librorum sequentium, ut mihi videtur. Aliquorum tamen librorum prologos exposui, super quos scripsi, antequam 31Aa libro Genesis inchoarem. Postremo, quia non sum ita peritus in lingua Hebraica vel Latina, quin in multis possim deficere, ideo protestor quod nihil intendo dicere assertive, seu determinative, nisi quantum ad ea quae manifeste determinata sunt per sacram Scripturam vel Ecclesiae auctoritatem: caetera vero omnia accipiantur tanquam scholastice et per modum exercitii dicta. Quapropter omnia dicta et dicenda suppono correctioni sanctae matris Ecclesiae, ac cujuslibet sapientis, pium lectorem, et charitativum flagitans correctorem. Verumtamen antequam descendam ad expositionem litterae, praemitto septem regulas exponendi sacram Scripturam, quas tangit Isidorus primo libro de summo bono, capite vigesimo. Et vocantur istae regulae ab aliquibus, claves, quia per eas intellectus Scripturae aperitur in multis.
Prima est de Domino Jesu Christo et ejus corpore 31Bmystico, quod est Ecclesia: quia propter connexionem capitis ad corpus sacra Scriptura sub uno contextu, quasi sub eadem persona, aliquando loquitur de utroque; et de uno transiens ad aliud; verbi gratia, Isa. LXI: « Induit me vestimentis salutis, et indumento justitiae circumdedit me, quasi sponsum decoratum corona, et quasi sponsam ornatam monilibus suis. » Quod enim dicitur hic: « quasi sponsum, » etc., intelligitur de Christo, et quod subditur, « quasi sponsam, » etc., intelligitur de ipsa Ecclesia. Similiter Cant. 1: « Osculetur me osculo oris sui, quia meliora sunt ubera tua vino. » Cum enim dicitur, « osculetur me, » etc., verbum sponsae est frui sponso desiderantis, et quod subditur, « quia meliora sunt ubera, » etc., verbum est sponsi sponsam commendantis. Unde talibus sic connexis ratione praedicta debet lector prudens attendere quid conveniat capiti et quid corpori.
31CSecunda regula est de corpore Domini vero et simulato. Ecclesia enim, quae est corpus Domini mysticum, ut praedictum est, est quasi sagena nondum tracta ad littus: et ideo habet malos permixtos cum bonis usque ad judicium, in quo separabuntur hi ab illis; et ideo in sacra Scriptura aliquando mali commendantur cum bonis quibus sunt permixti: sicut Osee undecimo: « Puer Israel, et dilexi eum. » Et e converso aliquando boni vituperantur cum malis, sicut Isaiae I: « Cognovit bos possessorem suum, et asinus praesepe domini sui: Israel autem me non cognovit: et populus meus non intellexit. » Aliquando etiam in eodem textu exprimitur quid ad bonos pertineat, et quid ad malos, sicut Canticorum I dicitur: « Nigra sum, sed formosa, filia Jerusalem, sicut tabernacula Cedar, sicut pelles Salomonis. » Verba sunt sponsae, quae ratione malorum 31Din Ecclesia contentorum dicit: « Nigra sum; » sed ratione bonorum subdit: « sed formosa. » At quod subditur (quasi cum exemplo) sicut tabernacula Cedar, » ad malos refertur: Cedar enim fuit filius Ismaelis, ut habetur Gen. XXV, a quo descenderunt Saraceni. Quod autem subditur, « sicut pelles Salomonis, » refertur ad nos. Per Salomonem enim hic intelligitur ipse Deus, secundum expositores catholicos et Hebraeos; et ideo pelles ejus dicuntur, quibus operiebatur tabernaculum, in quo boni colebant Deum.
Tertia regula est de spiritu et littera, secundum quod accipitur sub eadem littera sensus historicus et mysticus: quia veritas historiae est tenenda, et tamen ad spiritualem intellectum est referenda; hoc modo exponitur ista regula communiter. Potest etiam aliter exponi, ut referatur ad sensum litteralem tantum sicut et aliae. Circa quod considerandum quod eadem littera aliquando habet duplicem sensum litteralem; verbi gratia, primi Paral. XVII dicit Dominus de Salomone: « Ego ero illi in patrem, et ipse erit 32Amihi in filium. » Et intelligitur de Salomone ad litteram, inquantum fuit Filius Dei per adoptionem in juventute: propter quod Nathan propheta vocavit eum amabilem Domino, ut habetur secundi Regum XII Praedicta etiam auctoritas, « Ego ero illi in patrem, » etc., inducitur ab Apostolo ad Hebr. primo, tanquam dicta de Christo ad litteram: quod patet ex hoc quia Apostolus inducit eam ad probandum quod Christus fuit major angelis; talis autem probatio non potest fieri per sensum mysticum, ut dicit Augustinus contra Vincentium Donatistam, ut supra allegatum est. Praedicta enim auctoritas impleta fuit ad litteram in Salomone, minus tamen perfecte, quia fuit Dei filius per gratiam solum, in Christo autem perfectius, qui est Dei Filius per naturam. Licet autem utraque expositio sit litteralis simpliciter, secunda tamen, quae est de Christo, spiritualis et mystica est 32Bsecundum quid, inquantum Salomon fuit figura Christi.
Quarta regula est de specie et genere, sive de parte ac toto, cum de uno transit ad aliud, et e converso, sicut Isa. XIII. Primo loquitur contra Babylonem specialiter, cum dicitur: « Onus Babylonis, » etc., et transit ad intelligendum verbum de toto mundo generaliter, per hoc quod subditur: « A summitate coeli Dominus, et vasa furoris ejus, ut disperdat omnem terram. » Postea revertitur ad loquendum contra Babylonem specialiter, cum dicitur: « Ecce ego suscitabo super vos Medos, qui argentum non quaerant, » etc., quia Darius Medus cum Cyro nepote suo cepit Babyloniam, et interfecit Balthasar regem Babylonis, ut habetur Danielis quinto.
Quinta regula est de temporibus; quae contingit quadrupliciter. Uno modo per synecdochen, quando 32Cponitur pars temporis pro toto, sicut in Evangelio dicitur, Christum tribus diebus jacuisse in sepulcro: et tamen prima dies et tertia non fuerunt integrae. Alio modo propter minutias temporis, quae aliquando in Scriptura computantur, et aliquando omittuntur: Et secundum hoc Scriptura sacra loquens de aliquo numero annorum in pluribus locis, aliquando in uno loco ponit plures annos, minutias praedictas computando; in alio vero loco ponit pauciores, dictas minutias omittendo. Tertio modo contingit in eo quod computatio annorum incipit in uno loco a priori termino, in alio a posteriori, sicut Gen. XV dictum fuit Abrahae: « Semen tuum futurum est peregrinum quadringentis annis. » Et Exod. XII de ista peregrinatione dicitur quod mansio filiorum Israel in terra Aegypti fuit quadringentorum triginta annorum, quia computatio hujus majoris numeri incipit a tempore, quo dictum fuit Abrahae, Gen XII: « Egredere de terra tua, » etc. Computatio autem minoris numeri incipit a nativitate Isaac, quae fuit triginta annis post egressum Abrahae de Aram, ut plenius videbitur infra Exod. 32DXII. Quarto modo contingit, eo quod Scriptura sacra loquitur de futuro per modum praeteriti, sicut Isa. IX: « Parvulus natus est nobis, » etc., et hoc est ad denotandum certitudinem prophetiae, cujus eventus de futuro est ita certus, sicut si jam praeteriisset. Et hoc est propter certitudinem divinae praescientiae, ex qua fit revelatio ipsi prophetae. Advertendum tamen quod talis modus loquendi non habet locum, nisi prophetiae praedestinationis, quae est quando aliquod futurum contingens revelatur prophetae, eo modo quo est in praescientia Dei, quae infallibiliter futura intuetur sicut praesentia et praeterita: in prophetia vero comminationis non habet locum, quae est quando aliqua poena revelatur prophetae infligenda populo, vel alicui personae, non secundum quod est in Dei praescientia, sed secundum ordinem causarum secundarum, ut pote secundum demerita hominum, sicut est illa prophetia Jon. III: « Adhuc quadraginta dies et Ninive subvertetur; » 33Ahanc enim subversionem meruerunt peccata illius civitatis. Verumtamen quia talis causa mutabilis est, ideo effectus aliquando non sequitur: sicut in proposito, quia Ninivitae egerunt poenitentiam, et sic Dominus non inflixit poenam comminatam.
Sexta regula est de recapitulatione et anticipatione. In sacra enim Scriptura non semper eodem ordine gesta et facta scribuntur quo fiunt: et ideo quando praeponuntur posteriora, dicitur anticipatio: quando autem fit e converso, dicitur recapitulatio, sicut Gen. X de filiis Noe dicitur: « Ab his divisae sunt insulae gentium in regionibus suis, unusquisque secundum linguam suam, » etc. Et infra eodem capite: « Hi sunt filii Cham in cognationibus et linguis et generationibus, » etc. Et postea capite XI dicitur: « Erat autem terra labii unius, et sermonum eorumdem. » Ex quo patet quod illud quod praedicitur de divisione linguarum, dicitur per anticipationem. Similiter Gen. II, postquam Moyses cap. I descripserat creationem coeli et terrae, et distinctionem, 33Bet ornatum partium mundi, dicitur: 34A« Istae sunt generationes coeli et terrae in die quo creati sunt. » Ex quo patet quod hoc dicitur per recapitulationem.
Septima regula est de diabolo et ejus corpore. Secundum enim quod dicit beatus Gregorius hom. 10, certe iniquorum omnium diabolus caput est, et hujus capitis membra sunt omnes iniqui. Et ideo propter connexionem capitis ad membra, Scriptura loquens de uno, in eodem contextu transit ad loquendum de alio. Sicut Isa. cap. XIV loquens de rege Babylonis, qui erat diaboli membrum, transit ad loquendum de principe daemonum, cum subditur ibidem: « Quomodo cecidisti de coelo, Lucifer, qui mane oriebaris? » Et Ezech. XXVIII, loquens de principe Tyri, transit ad loquendum de diabolo, cum subditur: « Tu signaculum similitudinis, plenus sapientia, perfectus decore, in deliciis paradisi Dei fuisti. » His igitur praemissis regulis seu clavibus exponendi sacram Scripturam, cum confidentia divini adjutorii descendamus ad litteram 34Bexponendam.
Prologue on the Intention of the Author
29B« I saw in the right hand of him that sat upon the throne a book written within and without. » (Apoc. V.) As was said in the preceding prologue, this book is Holy Scripture, which is said to be written without, as regards the literal sense, and within, as regards the mystical and spiritual sense. Which, although it is divided threefold 29Cin general, as was said before; and although under any member a multiplication of mystical expositions can be made in particular; all of them nevertheless presuppose the literal sense as a foundation. Hence, just as a building that leans away from its foundation is disposed to ruin, so a mystical exposition that departs from the literal sense is to be reckoned unbecoming and unfit, or at least, other things being equal, less becoming and less fit; and therefore for those wishing to make progress in the study of Holy Scripture it is necessary to begin from the understanding of the literal sense: most of all since from the literal sense alone, and not from the mystical, can an argument be made for the proof or declaration of any doubtful point, according to what Augustine says in the epistle against Vincent the Donatist.
It must further be considered that the literal sense, from which one must begin, as has been said, seems much obscured in modern days: partly by the fault of scribes, 29Dwho on account of the likeness of letters have in many places written otherwise than the truth of the text has; partly by the unskilfulness of certain correctors, who in many places have made points where they ought not to be made; and have begun or ended verses where they ought not to be begun and ended: and by this the meaning of the letter is altered, as will appear in its places in proceeding below, the Lord granting; partly from the manner of our translation, which in many places has otherwise than the Hebrew books, according to what Jerome declares in the book: on Hebrew, questions, and in many other places: and other expositors of Holy Scripture, reading or writing, say the same; and yet according to Jerome in the second prologue on Genesis, and in many other places, for having the truth of the letter in the scripture of the Old Testament recourse must be had to the codices of the Hebrews. In this, however, great caution must be used as regards the places of the Scripture of the Old Testament that speak of the deity of Christ and of what follows upon it: some of which the Jews 30Bhave corrupted in defence of their error, as I have partly declared in a certain question on the divinity of Christ, and shall declare more fully when such places occur, the Lord granting. But in those in which it is not likely that they have changed anything, 30Csince neither did they have a cause for doing this, there seems to be no danger, but rather it is safer, according to the saying of blessed Jerome, in doubtful cases to have recourse to the Hebrew text, as to the original, for declaring the truth of the text.
It must also be known that the literal sense is much overshadowed on account of the manner of expounding commonly handed down by others: who, although they have said many good things, yet have touched little on the literal sense, and have so multiplied the mystical senses that the literal sense, intercepted among so many mystical expositions, is partly smothered. Again, they have divided the text into so many little parts, and brought in so many concordances to their purpose, that they partly confound the understanding and the memory, drawing the mind away from the understanding of the literal sense. Proposing therefore to avoid these and similar things, with the help of God I intend to insist upon the literal sense: and sometimes to insert very few and brief mystical expositions, 30Dthough rarely. Likewise I intend to bring in, for the declaration of the literal sense, the sayings not only of the catholic doctors, but also of the Hebrew ones, most of all of Rabbi Solomon, who among the Hebrew doctors has spoken most reasonably. I shall also sometimes, though very rarely, insert certain very absurd sayings of the Hebrews, not for holding them, or following them; but so that through these it may appear how great a blindness has befallen Israel, according to the saying of Paul the apostle in the eleventh chapter of Romans: for which reason also one must not cleave to the sayings of the Hebrews, except so far as they accord with reason and with the truth of the letter. Again, the prologues being omitted, I shall begin from the beginning of Genesis: both because I do not believe the remainder of my life to suffice for the exposition of the whole of Holy Scripture, and therefore I have not wished to linger in expounding the sayings of blessed Jerome, or of any other doctor whatever; and because the said prologues do little for the understanding of the books that follow, as it seems to me. I have, however, expounded the prologues of certain books on which I wrote before 31AI began from the book of Genesis. Lastly, because I am not so skilled in the Hebrew or Latin tongue that I cannot fall short in many things, I therefore protest that I intend to say nothing assertively, or determinatively, except as regards those things that have been manifestly determined by Holy Scripture or by the authority of the Church: but let all the rest be taken as said scholastically and by way of exercise. Wherefore I submit all things said and to be said to the correction of holy mother Church, and of any wise man, earnestly asking for a pious reader and a charitable corrector. Nevertheless, before I descend to the exposition of the letter, I set down beforehand seven rules for expounding Holy Scripture, which Isidore touches on in the first book On the Highest Good, chapter twenty. And these rules are called by some keys, because through them the understanding of Scripture is opened in many things.
The first is about the Lord Jesus Christ and his 31Bmystical body, which is the Church: because on account of the connexion of the head to the body, Holy Scripture, under one context, as it were under the same person, sometimes speaks of both; and passes from the one to the other; for example, Isa. LXI: « He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, and with the robe of justice he hath compassed me, as a bridegroom adorned with a crown, and as a bride adorned with her jewels. » For what is said here, « as a bridegroom, » etc., is understood of Christ, and what is added, « as a bride, » etc., is understood of the Church herself. Likewise Cant. 1: « Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth, for thy breasts are better than wine. » For when it is said, « let him kiss me, » etc., it is the word of the bride desiring to enjoy the bridegroom, and what is added, « for thy breasts are better, » etc., is the word of the bridegroom commending the bride. Hence, in things so connected, for the reason stated, the prudent reader ought to attend to what befits the head and what the body.
31CThe second rule is about the Lord's true body and his feigned body. For the Church, which is the mystical body of the Lord, as was said before, is like a net not yet drawn to the shore: and therefore it has the bad mixed with the good until the judgment, in which these will be separated from those; and therefore in Holy Scripture sometimes the bad are commended together with the good with whom they are mixed: as in Osee eleven: « Israel was a child, and I loved him. » And conversely sometimes the good are reproached together with the bad, as in Isaiah I: « The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel hath not known me: and my people hath not understood. » Sometimes also in the same text it is expressed what belongs to the good, and what to the bad, as is said in Canticles I: « I am black, but beautiful, daughter [Vulg. filiae, "daughters"] of Jerusalem, as the tents of Cedar, as the curtains of Solomon. » These are the words of the bride, who by reason of the bad 31Dcontained in the Church says: « I am black; » but by reason of the good adds: « but beautiful. » But what is added (as it were with an example) as the tents of Cedar, » is referred to the bad: for Cedar was the son of Ismael, as is had in Gen. XXV, from whom the Saracens descended. But what is added, « as the curtains of Solomon, » is referred to us. For by Solomon here is understood God himself, according to the catholic and Hebrew expositors; and therefore those are called his curtains with which the tabernacle was covered, in which the good worshipped God.
The third rule is about the spirit and the letter, according as the historical and the mystical sense are taken under the same letter: because the truth of the history is to be held, and yet it is to be referred to a spiritual understanding; in this way this rule is commonly expounded. It can also be expounded otherwise, so that it is referred to the literal sense only, as the others are too. Concerning which it must be considered that the same letter sometimes has a twofold literal sense; for example, in I Paral. XVII the Lord says of Solomon: « I will be to him a father, and he shall be 32Ato me a son. » And it is understood of Solomon according to the letter, inasmuch as he was a Son of God by adoption in his youth: on account of which Nathan the prophet called him Beloved of the Lord, as is had in II Kings XII The aforesaid authority, « I will be to him a father, » etc., is also brought forward by the Apostle in Hebrews one, as said of Christ according to the letter: which is plain from this, that the Apostle brings it forward to prove that Christ was greater than the angels; but such a proof cannot be made through the mystical sense, as Augustine says against Vincent the Donatist, as was alleged above. For the aforesaid authority was fulfilled according to the letter in Solomon, but less perfectly, because he was a son of God by grace only, but in Christ more perfectly, who is the Son of God by nature. Now although both expositions are literal simply, the second nevertheless, which is about Christ, is spiritual and mystical 32Bin a certain respect, inasmuch as Solomon was a figure of Christ.
The fourth rule is about species and genus, or about part and whole, when it passes from the one to the other, and conversely, as in Isa. XIII. First it speaks against Babylon specially, when it is said: « The burden of Babylon, » etc., and it passes to understanding the word of the whole world generally, by what is added: « From the height of heaven the Lord, and the instruments of his wrath, to destroy the whole land. » Afterwards it returns to speaking against Babylon specially, when it is said: « Behold, I will stir up the Medes against you [Vulg. eos, "against them"], who shall not seek silver, » etc., because Darius the Mede with Cyrus his nephew took Babylonia, and slew Balthasar the king of Babylon, as is had in the fifth chapter of Daniel.
The fifth rule is about times; which occurs in four ways. In one way through synecdoche, when 32Ca part of the time is put for the whole, as it is said in the Gospel that Christ lay three days in the sepulchre: and yet the first day and the third were not whole. In another way on account of the fractions of time, which are sometimes counted in Scripture, and sometimes omitted: And according to this, Holy Scripture, speaking of some number of years in several places, sometimes in one place puts more years, counting the aforesaid fractions; but in another place puts fewer, omitting the said fractions. In the third way it occurs in this, that the reckoning of the years begins in one place from an earlier term, in another from a later, as in Gen. XV it was said to Abraham: « Thy seed shall be a sojourner four hundred years. » And in Exod. XII it is said of this sojourning that the dwelling of the children of Israel in the land of Egypt was of four hundred and thirty years, because the reckoning of this greater number begins from the time when it was said to Abraham, Gen XII: « Go forth out of thy country, » etc. But the reckoning of the lesser number begins from the birth of Isaac, which was thirty years after Abraham's going out from Haran, as will be seen more fully below at Exod. 32DXII. In the fourth way it occurs, in that Holy Scripture speaks of the future by way of the past, as in Isa. IX: « A child is born to us, » etc., and this is to denote the certainty of the prophecy, whose outcome regarding the future is as certain as if it had already passed. And this is on account of the certainty of the divine foreknowledge, from which the revelation is made to the prophet himself. It must be noted, however, that such a manner of speaking has no place except for the prophecy of predestination, which is when some contingent future thing is revealed to the prophet in the way in which it is in the foreknowledge of God, which infallibly beholds future things as present and past: but in the prophecy of threatening it has no place, which is when some punishment to be inflicted on a people, or on some person, is revealed to the prophet, not according as it is in God's foreknowledge, but according to the order of secondary causes, as for instance according to the demerits of men, as is that prophecy of Jon. III: « Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown; » 33Afor the sins of that city deserved this overthrow. Nevertheless, because such a cause is changeable, therefore the effect sometimes does not follow: as in the case in hand, because the Ninevites did penance, and so the Lord did not inflict the threatened punishment.
The sixth rule is about recapitulation and anticipation. For in Holy Scripture deeds and events are not always written in the same order in which they happen: and therefore when later things are placed first, it is called anticipation: but when the converse happens, it is called recapitulation, as in Gen. X it is said of the sons of Noe: « By these were divided the islands of the nations in their regions, every one according to his tongue, » etc. And below in the same chapter: « These are the sons of Cham in their kindreds and tongues and generations, » etc. And afterwards in chapter XI it is said: « And the earth was of one lip, and of the same speech. » From which it is plain that what is said beforehand of the division of tongues is said by anticipation. Likewise in Gen. II, after Moses in chapter I had described the creation of heaven and earth, and the distinction 33Band adornment of the parts of the world, it is said: 34A« These are the generations of heaven and earth in the day in which they were created. » From which it is plain that this is said by recapitulation.
The seventh rule is about the devil and his body. For according to what blessed Gregory says in hom. 10, the devil is surely the head of all the wicked, and the members of this head are all the wicked. And therefore, on account of the connexion of the head with the members, Scripture, speaking of the one, passes in the same context to speaking of the other. As Isa. chap. XIV, speaking of the king of Babylon, who was a member of the devil, passes to speaking of the prince of the demons, when there is added in the same place: « How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? » And Ezech. XXVIII, speaking of the prince of Tyre, passes to speaking of the devil, when there is added: « Thou the seal of resemblance, full of wisdom, perfect in beauty, wast in the pleasures of the paradise of God. » These rules or keys for expounding Holy Scripture having therefore been set down beforehand, with confidence in the divine help let us descend to the letter 34Bto be expounded.