Scholastica commentaria in Primam Partem Summae Theologicae

IF the senses of Sacred Scripture were to be treated by us at present in proportion to the dignity of the subject, it would be necessary to write an entire book, and no small one. But since this argument has been taken up for discussion and elucidation by very many most learned and most diligent men in scrutinizing and observing the dogmas of the holy Fathers, and has been most amply treated, I have judged it superfluous to compose, among scholastic commentaries, a more prolix treatise on the senses of Sacred Scripture than the scholastic method requires. Nevertheless, so that scholastic theologians may begin to have some understanding of Sacred Scripture, I shall dispute and define those matters from which certain capital dogmas appear to be introductory principles for a fuller reading of the Sacred Letters. But he who desires to know all these things more exactly, let him read Driedo through the whole second book On Ecclesiastical Dogmas; let him read also the whole third book on the compendious rules for the understanding of the Sacred Letters. Let him read also the single book of Sanctes Pagninus of Lucca, of the Order of Preachers, Isagoge to the Sacred Letters, and the same author's eighteen books introductory to the mystical senses of Sacred Scripture. There are also many others among the moderns who have been not unprofitably engaged in elucidating this argument. There exist 234 rules for understanding the Sacred Scriptures, collected from the holy Fathers by the Very Reverend Father Francisco Ruiz of Valladolid, formerly Abbot of San Facundo, which were printed at Lyon in the year of the Lord 1546. You have also the book Hypotiposeon Theologicarum, or of rules for understanding the divine Scriptures, composed by Martín Martínez Cantapetrensis, Master of Sacred Theology of Salamanca, professor of the Hebrew language; which book, although before the author's death, on account of certain things less considerately asserted, by order of the fathers of the Inquisitors of heretical depravity it was for a time interdicted, yet at length, after the author's death, corrected by order of the Holy Inquisition, partly by my own work, it again came forth into the light, not without benefit to theologians.

And now I come to treat this argument in the scholastic manner.

IT IS DOUBTED therefore, first: whether it is certain according to the Catholic faith that Sacred Scripture under one letter contains several senses?

To this doubt it is briefly answered, and let this be the first conclusion: it is certain according to the Catholic faith that Sacred Scripture under one letter contains two senses.

It is proved first from the common consensus of the holy Fathers, who, with no one excepted, interpreted the Sacred Letters both in the literal and in the mystical sense.

It is proved second from the testimonies of the same Scripture, in which it is asserted in the literal sense that other passages of the same Scripture are to be understood mystically. Let this be an example: in Jn 19 it is said: «But when they had come to Jesus, they did not break his legs, that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says: You shall not break a bone of him». These words are found originally in Ex 12, and according to the literal sense they contained a legal precept concerning the rite of the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, that its bones should in no way be broken. But since by that paschal lamb Christ to be immolated was signified, therefore John says «that the Scripture might be fulfilled». And indeed it was already formerly fulfilled legally in the literal sense. But nevertheless it had not yet been fulfilled in the mystical sense, until the Lamb of God, who was to be immolated as the Pasch of the New Testament, should die, and his bones should in no way be broken.

Further, Paul in Gal 4 says: «For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the free woman and one by the bondwoman, which things are said by allegory. For these are the two testaments, etc.», as if he were saying: by those two sons of Abraham the two testaments were signified; and in 1 Cor 9 he says: «For it is written in the law of Moses: You shall not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain; is God concerned about oxen, or does he say this certainly for our sake?» Behold, the Apostle says that a legal ceremony, which was formerly fulfilled literally by the Jews, signifies the preachers of the Gospel, to whom the things necessary for life must be ministered by the faithful.

Further, the same Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, from chapter 7 through 10, teaches that very many things which were formerly fulfilled literally and historically concerning the Tabernacle, the priesthood, and the sacrifices of the Old Law were a figure of those things which are done in the New Testament; and in 1 Cor 10 he says: «I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, etc.»; and he added: «But these things were done in figure of us». And a little later: «But all these things happened to them in figure». Where the Apostle seems to transfer certain things by figure to the mystical and moral sense.

Further, in 1 Pet 3, the ark of Noah, in which a few souls were saved, is asserted to have been a figure of the Baptism of the New Law. Which, he says, in a like form now saves you, Baptism. And finally Christ the Lord himself, in Jn 3, says: «As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up». Where it is gathered that the serpent raised up in the desert was a figure of Christ. For also formerly in Wis 16 it had been said: «For he who was healed was not healed by what he saw, but by you, the savior of all». And in Mt 12 Christ says». As Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth, etc.». SECOND conclusion.

It is certain also according to the Catholic faith that all four of the aforesaid senses are found in Sacred Scripture, and were not invented by the holy Fathers: and indeed concerning the literal sense the matter is most fully established. For there are very many histories simply narrated in the Sacred Letters.

There are also dogmas of faith proposed to us in their own words. Concerning the other three senses it is proved: and first concerning the allegorical it is proved from the passage cited from Gal 4: «Which things are said by allegory. For these are the two testaments». Where let the theologian advert in passing that allegory is twofold, as Augustine teaches in bk. 15 On the Trinity, ch. 9, one in words, the other in things. Allegory in words is nothing other than a certain long and continued metaphor. An example is in Rom 13: «It is now the hour for us to rise from sleep, etc.»; and this allegory pertains to the literal sense, as also does parabolic speech, as St. Thomas teaches in the solution to the third. But the other allegory is in the things themselves done and literally signified, when the same thing signified and done again signifies another by divine institution, and an allegory of this sort pertains to the mystical sense.

Nor were there lacking even in our own times those who denied that this allegorical sense is found in the Sacred Scriptures. And when the testimony of the Apostle in Gal 4 was objected to them, asserting «Which things are said by allegory», they answered that the Apostle spoke improperly in that place. And they confirmed this from Chrysostom, who on the same passage says that the Apostle speaks typically. And they thought that the two sons of Abraham were not given to him by God in order to signify the two Testaments, but that the Apostle recalled that history in order to teach the difference between the Old and the New Testament through a certain comparison and allusion.

But a doctrine of this sort I have always judged erroneous, both because it is against the common understanding of the Saints — nor indeed is Chrysostom opposed to us, even if he said that the Apostle spoke typically. For he does not deny that the two sons of Abraham were a figure of the two Testaments. But since the Apostle said «For these are the two testaments», he spoke typically with respect to this, that he took the things figuring for the things figured. But he would not have spoken typically if he had said: these two sons of Abraham were a figure of the two Testaments. But since he said «For these are the two testaments», in this speech he spoke typically and improperly.

Then, when the Apostle recalls from the Old Testament the history of the two sons of Abraham, he surely intends to confirm the new from the Old: otherwise, if he spoke only through a certain allusion, it would be of no moment to recall the history from the Old Testament. Allusions of this sort can also be made from profane histories or fables. Which Leo the Most Holy does elegantly, although through a certain antiphrasis, in sermon 1, on the Nativity of the Apostles Peter and Paul, where he compares Peter and Paul with Remus and Romulus, the founders of the city of Rome. Further, Paul so spoke that what he said, Christ himself, the Holy Spirit himself, spoke through him. Then I ask: if Christ said to us «Abraham had two sons, etc., these are the two testaments», we would all understand that Christ, the author of the Scriptures, understands and teaches in this way, that the two sons of Abraham were instituted by God himself as a figure of the two Testaments. Further, by a similar account those who so opine would say that all the things which Paul recalls in Heb 9 concerning the adornment of the Tabernacle were not formerly instituted by God as a figure of those things which are done in the New Testament, but are certain allusions and comparisons which the Apostle prudently makes between the New and the Old Testament: which indeed to assert I judge not only erroneous but heretical. And he will agree with me who has attentively read what the Apostle teaches in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chs. 8, 9 and 10.

But let us return to that from which we digressed, and let us prove that the anagogical sense is in the Sacred Letters, from the same Epistle to the Hebrews, where the Apostle teaches that that tabernacle made by hand was a copy of the true Tabernacle which God, and not man, pitched, into which Christ entered once by his own Blood, eternal redemption having been found. But this sense we call anagogical, as it were leading the understanding upward.

Concerning the moral sense, however, all agree that it is found in the Sacred Letters, and it is gathered from what Christ said in Jn 3: «As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life». Where he seems openly to teach that just as those formerly struck by serpents, turned to the bronze serpent, were healed, so we too, turned to Christ crucified, who hung on the cross in the figure of a serpent, that is, of a sinner, although his hypostasis was God the strong, should obtain salvation from the bite of the pestiferous sin. Which was formerly figured, and pertains to our morals, and for that reason the moral sense is said to be contained in that history of the Old Testament, when Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert. Nor indeed are all things which in the Sacred Letters are directed to our morals to be said to be contained under the moral sense, as when Christ said: «Love your enemies» — for this sense is only literal; but the moral sense is then said to be present when the things which pertain to our morals are insinuated to us under the figure of things done. Just as blessed Gregory too, on the history of Job, composed his Moralia quite piously.

It must be observed, however, concerning the aforesaid conclusions, that the distinction of the words by which these four senses are explained is not the same among all the holy Fathers and Doctors, but these names are often confused. The reason for this is that the words themselves — namely allegory, anagogy, tropology — differ little according to their etymology. For allegory is said as it were spoken under another, while anagogy is said as it were a leading under or a leading up, because the mind is borne higher than the words sound; but tropology is the same as figurative speech, or speech under a figure. Wherefore the holy Fathers sometimes signify by these three names every sense other than the literal. Thus too Origen speaks, homily 11 on Numbers, and the ancient Fathers Basil and Gregory Nazianzen. Nay, even St. Augustine, in the book to Honoratus, ch. 3, and in the single incomplete book on Genesis, ch. 2, sets out a fourfold mode of expounding Sacred Scripture, namely historically, when things done are narrated; allegorically, when things figuratively spoken are understood; analogically, when the agreement of the New and Old Testament is demonstrated; and according to etymology, when the cause of the things said or done is given. So he. But do not think that in the fourfold mode of expounding the Sacred Letters he wished to signify the fourfold sense of which we have spoken in the present article, but he made express mention of the literal sense when he said «that Sacred Scripture is expounded historically». But the other three mystical senses, which we have distinguished, he included in this, that he said that the Sacred Letters are expounded allegorically. But in the other two modes, namely the anagogical and the etymological, there is no variation of the aforesaid senses. For that the New Testament be shown not to contradict the Old can be done in the literal sense. But that the cause of the things done and said in the Sacred Letters be given is something extrinsic, nor does it vary the sense of Sacred Scripture. Behold therefore how St. Augustine under the single name of allegory understood the three mystical senses. The same he also teaches in bk. 15 On the Trinity, ch. 9, where, having taught that allegory is twofold, one of words, the other of things, and having set an example of the allegory of words from Is 11: «The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard with the kid», which is nothing other than a certain metaphor which pertains to the literal sense, otherwise the prophecy would have been false. For it is not otherwise verified, except insofar as wolf and leopard are taken for the fierce nations, which were to be converted to the sheep of Christ. Then by allegory he understood [the case] when the things themselves done or to be done are a sign of other things, namely of Christ, or of the faithful soul, or of glory. Which allegory St. Jerome often in his Commentaries calls tropology, and sometimes anagogy, not distinguishing, as we moderns distinguish, individual words for individual senses. But nevertheless the usage of the scholastics has now prevailed, for the sake of avoiding confusion, that individual words be appropriated to individual mystical senses. And St. Jerome himself favors us in the Epistle to Hedibia, last question, where he divides the sense of Scripture threefold, namely according to history, according to tropology, and according to spiritual understanding. And he says that Scripture is expounded tropologically when whatever was done carnally among the carnal people we interpret according to the moral sense and turn to the profit of our soul. But spiritual understanding or theory he takes for the same as what we call the anagogical sense. An excellent example too favors us in the same St. Jerome, Ezekiel, ch. 16, where he teaches that by the name Jerusalem, according to the literal sense, that earthly city is to be understood; but according to the allegorical sense we understand the Church militant; according to the moral, the soul of a Christian man. And finally according to the anagogical sense, the heavenly fatherland is to be understood. This distinction, therefore, of things and words St. Thomas uses in this article. And concerning these four senses, whether they be signified by these names or by others, we have said that it is certain according to faith that they are found in the Sacred Letters.

IT IS DOUBTED second, whether all the things done in the Old Testament are to be explained in some mystical sense? And the reason for doubting is that the Apostle says in 1 Cor 10: «All things happened to them in figure».

To this it must be briefly answered, from the teaching of St. Augustine, bk. 16 of The City of God, ch. 2, where he says that not all things which are narrated as done in the prophetic history are to be thought to signify something, but on account of those which do signify something, even those which signify nothing are connected. The same Chrysostom teaches concerning the parabolic sense, homily 65 on Matthew. For he says that in parables one ought not to labor with excessive care that all things signify something. And he gives an example in the parable of the householder who went out early in the morning to hire laborers. In which there is no need that the equality of the denarius signify the equality of the reward. But the intention of the speaker is to be accepted, which indeed was to show that the Lord calls us freely, and as Lord of all does with his own what he wills.

But to the testimony of the Apostle it is answered, that he himself says: «Now these things happened to us in a holy figure, that we not be desirous of evil things, as they also desired». Then again he says: «Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them tempted, and perished by serpents. Neither murmur, as some of them murmured, and perished by the destroyer.

But all these things happened to them in figure: but they are written for our correction». Behold from the preceding and the following the literal sense of the Apostle: for he understands by all these things, namely, the punishments on account of the sins of the Jews; and he says that they happened to them in figure, that is, for our example, that we may make trial at another's cost: otherwise, just as they who were ungrateful for God's benefits were sharply punished, so we too will be punished much more justly, if we are ungrateful for greater benefits received. But it is pious and very useful for the edification of the Church that all things which are narrated as done in the Old Testament, if they can be fittingly and reasonably turned to a mystical sense, the Doctors of the Church, especially the preachers of the divine word, should strive to explain mystically. Of which matter examples in abundance are at hand even in the holy Doctors. See also St. Thomas in 1-2, q. 102, art. 2. But preachers must beware lest they exercise themselves too violently and sometimes ridiculously in mystical senses of this sort. I myself heard a preacher, otherwise a learned man and most acceptable to the people, asserting, in praise of the Cross of Christ, that all things made of wood which are mentioned in the Old Testament were a figure of the Cross of Christ, even the spear of Saul with the cup, which David had stolen while Saul's servants slept. Therefore the preachers of the word of God ought in mystical senses of this sort to follow the footsteps of the holy Fathers, and if they discover some other mystical sense, to take care that they speak things most like the truth and consonant with reason.

IT IS DOUBTED third, whether in the New Testament the four senses can be distinguished which St. Thomas distinguishes in this article?

To this Abulensis, q. 28 on Matthew 13, answers that the allegorical sense alone is not found in the New Testament. And he proves it. Since the allegorical sense is when things done signify something which pertains to the Church militant, or to Christ: but in the New Testament no things done are narrated which are a figure of the Church militant; therefore there is no allegorical sense. And he confirms it from St. Augustine, in the book On the Usefulness of Believing, ch. 3, where he teaches that the Old Testament is expounded fourfold, therefore that fourfold sense does not pertain to the New Testament.

Nevertheless we hold as a certain conclusion: the New Testament can also be expounded according to the fourfold sense. And it is proved in the history which is narrated in Mt 21 concerning the entry of Christ the Lord into Jerusalem. In which deed, beyond the literal sense, we understand three others to be mystically signified from the teaching of the holy Fathers; for Chrysostom says on that same passage of Matthew that the Lord so fulfilled the prophecies that he himself gave the beginning of another prophecy, which was to be signified by those very deeds. Then he says: «For to me he seems not only to have sat upon an ass, but also to have instructed us in the philosophy of living. For he provides us a rule, that we not seek for greater things than necessary use demands». And St. Jerome explains the deed of the Apostles, that they placed their garments upon the beasts, to signify that Ecclesiastical Dogmas are necessary, so that Christ may sit upon the soul. On which matter see Thomas Waldensis in the Prologue of the book «On the Sacraments». And finally St. Jerome. «Remigius and Origen say that that deed of Christ was a figure of the entry of Christ into heaven. Everywhere too the holy Fathers explain many miracles and deeds of Christ allegorically, concerning the distinction of the people of the Jews and of the Gentiles, or concerning their conversion.

But to St. Augustine in the book On the Usefulness of Believing it is answered that he does not say that only the Old Testament can be expounded according to the fourfold sense. It is true, however, that allegory is more frequent in the Old Testament than in the New. Nevertheless, since Christ was the head of both peoples, of the Jews and of the Gentiles, by his deeds and wonders he not only fulfilled the ancient things but also figured the things that were to be in the Church. Whence quite suitably many deeds of Christ are explained allegorically by the Saints.

IT IS DOUBTED fourth, what is for us the certain rule for discerning in the Sacred Letters the literal sense. On this matter see Master Cano, bk. 7 On the Places. Whence briefly gather three documents.

The first is, that that sense will be literal which is accepted by all the Saints.

The second document is, that that will be the literal sense which is gathered by necessity according to the context from the preceding and the following.

The third document is, that that will be the literal sense which is assigned ex professo by a Council, or by the Supreme Pontiff. But advert that very many passages in the Sacred Scriptures are so obscure that concerning their literal sense there are various opinions of theologians, even of the holy Fathers.

IT IS DOUBTED fifth, whether the locutions which in Sacred Scripture are attributed to holy persons, or to Prophets, or to those stirred by the Holy Spirit — locutions, I say, of this sort — are to be admitted as Sacred Scripture?

To this it is answered that for the truth of Sacred Scripture it is enough that those things be true which the author himself, the Holy Spirit impelling, affirms. But the other persons who are introduced speaking have no greater firmness and authority in their words than the sacred writer gives them, or than the things themselves which are said by them have from elsewhere. This is proved. For Scripture sometimes introduces the wicked speaking, as Wis 2: «The impious said, thinking within themselves not rightly, etc.», and in Ps 13: «The fool said in his heart: there is no God». Whose words nevertheless are blasphemous lies. Further, Scripture introduces the friends of Job speaking many things indeed true, yet erring in the conclusion. For they intended to conclude that God does not afflict the just in this life. Their opinions, therefore, which are true, are true from elsewhere, and not because they are contained in the book of Job do they immediately have the authority of Sacred Scripture. But if at some time sayings of this sort are cited by the Saints, they will indeed have the authority which the Saints themselves give them, understanding the truth in them. Further, Scripture introduces Caiaphas saying: «It is expedient that one man die»; which words, as said by Caiaphas, would have had no authority, unless the Evangelist had added: «Since he was the high priest of that year, he prophesied, not knowing what he said». Further, Sacred Scripture introduces holy men and those full of the Holy Spirit speaking. As in Acts 6 and 7, Stephen is introduced, full of grace and of the Holy Spirit. And nevertheless in the discourse made to the Jews he seems to narrate certain things from the history of the Old Testament which do not agree in all things with Sacred Scripture. Which difficulty certain men intend to solve, saying that the sacred writer, who was Luke, only affirms that Stephen spoke such things, but does not assert that Stephen's words are true in all things. For Stephen could in those least matters have forgotten, or spoken according to the opinion of the common people: although in the principal intent of his doctrine he would not be deceived, as being full of the Holy Spirit. So Master Cano explains it in bk. 2 On the Places, last chapter, and says it is the opinion of Bede and Rabanus. But in truth an opinion of this sort has always seemed harsh to me. For since the sacred writer bears witness that Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, spoke such things, he seems to have confirmed that his discourse was from the Holy Spirit. Wherefore by other most learned men the consonance of the things said by St. Stephen with the history of the Old Testament is sought and brought forward.

Finally, advert that when the sacred writer himself introduces himself speaking at another time, as Paul does in Gal 2 — he introduces himself speaking to Peter and reproving him — it is to be considered attentively from the antecedent and subsequent circumstances whether those things which he says he said, or which appeared to him, he confirms by his writing. I would note this because certain men defending the cause of Peter, [saying] that he did not sin, not even venially, by withdrawing and separating himself from the Gentiles, when it is objected to them that Paul himself says that he was reprehensible and did not walk rightly toward the truth of the Gospel, answer that St. Paul affirmed words of this sort not as a sacred writer, but reported concerning himself that at another time he had so spoken and so thought.

But however it may be with the principal question, whether Peter sinned venially or not (for it pleases me more to excuse Peter from sin; on which matter, if you please, see what we have said in 2-2, q. 1, art. 7, near the end of the commentary), nevertheless in the present matter I will by no means concede that Paul, when he introduces himself speaking or reproving, sinned in any matter or was false. For if anyone attentively considers the sequence of the second chapter to the Galatians, he confirms everything as a sacred writer. For he approves what he said and what he did toward Peter, while he introduces all those things for the confirmation of the truth intended, namely that the legal observances were not to be kept together with the Gospel. But Paul would seem blasphemous if, to confirm the truth, he used his own error or a lie, and if in that discourse the Holy Spirit had not assisted him. And therefore it seems to me an intolerable error to assert that the things which Paul writes in that chapter that he said do not have the authority of Sacred Scripture.

IT IS DOUBTED sixth, whether in obscure passages of the Sacred Letters, or even in manifest ones, it is lawful for any Christian doctor to devise a new sense?

To this it is briefly answered that it is lawful for a Christian doctor to devise a new sense in the Sacred Letters, provided it be useful for the end of charity, and be not unlike the context of the Sacred Letters, and be not contrary to the common exposition of the Saints. But we call a new sense one nonetheless founded on ancient faith and reason. This doctrine can be gathered from St. Augustine, bk. 3 On Christian Doctrine, ch. 27, where he says that every sense edifying toward charity, and not contrary to the context, was provided by the Holy Spirit. And St. Thomas, On Power, q. 4, art. 1, says that it is not incredible that it was divinely revealed even to the sacred writer that it would come about that such a new sense should occur to a reader. And although this be not so, at least the Holy Spirit understood that it would be so. So St. Thomas. I bring forward an example of a certain new sense, which, on that of Lk 1, «How shall this be, since I know not man», I heard from a certain preacher most learned in scholastic Theology. He therefore so explained that question of the Virgin, that through it she rather examined the angel than intended to learn something from him. For since the Blessed Virgin had understood the writings of all the Prophets, the Holy Spirit enlightening her no less than the Prophets, she certainly knew that the virgin who was to conceive the Son of God would not lose her virginity, but would conceive and bear by the power of the Holy Spirit; as is gathered from St. Thomas, in 3, q. 27, art. 5, ad 3. Therefore she did not ask in order to be taught, but rather to examine prudently whether the angel's message agreed with the prophecies of the Prophets. This sense, therefore, since it is useful for extolling the dignity of the Virgin, and is founded on the best theological reason, has not a vicious but rather a laudable novelty. Let there be another example, Jn 20, where the Lord said to Mary Magdalene: «Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father». Which passage seems obscure, and St. Augustine explains it in tractate 121 on John: «for not yet in your heart and your faith am I equal to the Father». But certain of the moderns so explain it, as is had in the Bible of Vatablus, that it is just as if the Lord had said: «Do not be occupied in touching me, for I am not yet departing. For I will be with you for forty whole days, during which you will be able to touch and embrace me at leisure. But rather hasten to go to the Apostles, etc.» Which sense seems very literal, and I see it to have rightly pleased all modern Catholics. Nor is it to be thought contrary to the common exposition of the Saints, some of whom interpreted that passage mystically. And advert that it is one thing for a sense to be contrary, and another for it to be distinct. Nor indeed does St. Augustine, in the place above, close the way to us for new senses, if they be good. Nay rather, he himself, in bk. 1 On Genesis according to the letter, ch. 18, says: «If we read any divine writings in obscure matters, which can, with faith safe, yield themselves to other and other meanings, let us not so cast ourselves upon any of them with precipitate affirmation that, if the truth more diligently discussed should rightly shake it, we fall: fighting thus not for the meaning of the Divine Scriptures but for our own, wishing that to be the Scriptures' which is ours, whereas rather we ought to wish that to be ours which is the Scriptures'». So Augustine. When therefore the Saints modestly and step by step elucidate an obscure passage by some interpretation, they do not close to posterity the way of interpreting the same passage with new diligence, but with veneration of the ancient Fathers. But when all the Saints assert with assurance that some passage is to be understood in this or that way, then indeed not to agree with them, and much more to oppose them, is more than rash. And this is what was decreed by the Decrees of the Councils — of Trullo, can. 19; of the Lateran under Leo X, session 11; of Trent, sess. 4 — that no one interpret the Sacred Letters contrary to the sense of the holy Fathers. On which matter see Cano, bk. 7 On the Places, ch. 3, where he teaches how far modern Christian doctors may interpret the Sacred Letters. For there are certain things which have not yet been explained by the Saints, certain others by few, and certain others interpreted under some obscurity and doubt. It is therefore lawful for us, following the footsteps of the holy Fathers, to gather some ears of grain which escaped the hands of the reapers: which was once granted to Ruth the Moabitess; and perhaps, walking humbly in this way, we shall be worthy of the royal bridal chamber of Christ, as she was joined in marriage to Boaz.

IT IS DOUBTED seventh, whether it is certain that Sacred Scripture in one letter contains several literal senses, so that the opposite is an error against faith?

It is argued first for the negative side: because scarcely or no such passage can be brought forward in which we understand two literal senses according to the Catholic faith.

Second: because the principles of Theology ought not to be equivocal; but if a passage of Scripture were given having a double literal sense, then a theological principle would be equivocal, and consequently Theology would proceed confusedly.

Third: if any passage can be expounded in two ways in the literal sense, it is rendered useless for convincing heretics; for when the theologian uses that passage in one sense, the heretic will say that the other is the literal sense.

Fourth, from the teaching of St. Thomas in the solution to the first, where he says that the multiplicity of senses does not make equivocation, because those senses are not multiplied by the fact that one word signifies many things, but because the things themselves signified by the words can be signs of other things: but all the senses are founded upon one literal sense. Therefore either no passage has a double literal sense, or St. Thomas is contrary to himself.

Fifth, against the reason of St. Thomas. For if several literal senses can be contained in one letter for the reason that the author of Sacred Scripture is God, who comprehends all things at once by his intellect, we can equally say that the sense of the whole of Sacred Scripture is one, because the whole of Sacred Scripture explains to us the one concept and understanding of God.

For the decision of this difficulty we must presuppose what we understand by the literal sense. And indeed, if we follow the teaching of St. Thomas in this place, the literal sense, properly speaking, is that which the Holy Spirit willed to signify immediately through the words or letters themselves, whether the expressions themselves be taken properly without any metaphor or grammatical figure which draws the words or expressions themselves from a proper to an improper signification or acceptance. For as St. Thomas teaches, on Gal 4, lecture 7 (which passage see in a special way for these four senses), it makes no difference whether the words be taken properly or improperly, and in the present article he says that the parabolic sense is contained under the literal. But when the things themselves done and signified by the words are again assumed for the signification of other things, that is called the mystical sense.

THIS presupposed, let this be the first conclusion: rare are the passages in Sacred Scripture which are hitherto understood by the Doctors to have a double literal sense. This conclusion can be proved inductively. For that passage is brought forward, Gen 1: «In the beginning God created heaven and earth», of which passage one sense is «in the beginning», that is, in the beginning of time. The other sense is «in the beginning», that is, before he made anything. From the former sense the error of those is refuted who say that the world has existed from eternity. From the other sense the error of the Greeks is refuted, of those asserting that the angels were created before the corporeal world. The third sense is, «in the beginning», that is, in the Son, as Augustine says, bk. 12 of the Confessions, ch. 20, and more expressly bk. 11 of The City of God, ch. 9; and Ambrose, bk. 1 of the Hexaemeron, ch. 4, because all things were made through the Son. There is another passage in Ps 2: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genuite. «Which passage the Saints interpret now of the eternal generation, now of the temporal, and the Apostle, in Acts 13» seems to explain of the resurrection of Christ, when he says: «Raising up Jesus, as it is written in Ps 2: Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee». A third passage is brought forward from Ps 8: «What is man, that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man, that thou visitest him! Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honor, etc. Thou hast subjected all things under his feet». Which Psalm seems literally to signify Adam, to whom God from the beginning had subjected all things, sheep and oxen all, etc. And further it seems literally to be explained of Christ the Lord by the Apostle, in Heb 2, when he says: «For we see not yet all things subject to him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death». Further there is another passage, Is 53: «Who shall declare his generation?» Which some interpret of the eternal generation, others of the temporal. To me indeed no other passage now offers itself to be explained in several ways in the proper literal sense. But in the parabolic and metaphorical literal sense perhaps several passages will be found to be explained in several ways. The reason of which will be that words are more determined to signify one thing than things are. Whence the Gospel parables are explained in different ways by the Saints, and this indeed in the literal sense: as for example, the parable of the householder who went out early in the morning to hire laborers is explained by some as [meaning] that God from the beginning of the world called men to the faith in the different ages of the human race. By others it seems to be signified that God calls certain men in the early morning, when they come to the use of reason, others in youth, etc. Similarly also that famous parable, «A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, etc.», which was introduced by Christ the Lord to signify that any man of any nation, to whom we can show mercy, is to be reckoned our neighbor.

And nevertheless by the Theologians it is commonly explained that that Samaritan passing by is Christ the Savior, and the man going down from Jerusalem to Jericho is the human race, which from a happy state through the sin of the first parent fell into Jericho, that is, into loss and death. SECOND conclusion. It is not found sufficiently established that it is certain according to faith that some passage of Scripture is necessarily to be understood in a double literal sense. This conclusion seems to be against Abulensis in the place above, who thinks it is certain according to faith that certain passages of Scripture are to be understood in a double literal sense. But he rests on a false foundation. For he thinks that the spiritual sense intended by the Holy Spirit is literal. For in this way we too have shown above that it is certain according to faith that there is a double sense under one letter. But we have already said that the spiritual sense is not properly called literal. The conclusion is therefore proved: because all the passages which have been brought forward by us have a solution, so that he who has opined the opposite is not condemned for an error in faith, although he deserves another censure, as we shall say at once. For the passage of Genesis, «In the beginning God created», perhaps under a single sense signifies those two things, that is, in the beginning of time, and before he made anything. For this is entirely in the beginning. And further, very many and most learned Theologians do not dare to condemn as an error in faith the opinion of the Greeks asserting that the angels were created before the corporeal world, as we shall say below, in q. 61, art. 3. But that St. Augustine and St. Ambrose explain «In the beginning», that is, in the Son, does not make the matter certain according to faith.

Then what is said in Ps 2: «Today have I begotten thee», is said by some not to have been brought forward by Paul to prove the resurrection of Christ from it, but to prove that he is the Son of God, which he had proposed a little before. So the most learned Cano thought. But concerning the temporal generation we do not have a necessary testimony such that according to faith we may establish that it is the literal sense.

Further, the things which are said in Ps 8, if anyone should say that the Apostle adduced them in the spiritual sense, because Adam was the form and figure of the second Adam, who is Christ, he will not have wandered far from the mark. And then indeed we must hold according to faith that that Psalm was written spiritually of Christ the Lord. And finally, the passage of Isaiah, ch. 53, «Who shall declare his generation?», has various explanations, but it is not necessary to confess all of them as certain according to faith. Nevertheless, let this be the third conclusion: it is rash to deny that there is any passage in the Sacred Letters which can be understood in two ways in the literal sense. This conclusion is against Adam on John, at the beginning. But it is proved: because it is the common sense of scholastic Theologians that a double literal sense, or several, can be found under one letter of Sacred Scripture. So St. Thomas teaches in this article, and commonly all our scholastics judge it to be a certain rashness to deny that that passage of Genesis, In the beginning he created, has a double literal sense, because in the chapter Firmiter, On the Supreme Trinity, from the Lateran Council, from those words a double error is insinuated as to be condemned. But on this matter we shall speak more fully below, in q. 61. In the meantime, however, if to anyone our censure shall seem harsher than it ought, I indeed, with faith safe and the soundness of doctrine, [as for] the rigor of censuring the rigor of my judgment concerning the opinion of Theologians, I will easily remit. But now it seems to me that Adam's assertion has something of rashness in it.

AND now we must answer the arguments to the contrary.

To the first argument the answer is clear from what has been said.

To the second argument, many fear to concede that there is equivocation in Sacred Scripture. But nevertheless in truth I do not know how they can answer, if they concede that there are several literal senses. Since equivocation is when a word represents its significates by different concepts. Nor does it avail to answer that those several senses are mutually subordinated and one of them is principal. For if this subordination is univocal under one formal account, there will be a single sense materially distinguished into several; as if you say 'every animal is sensitive', you understand that every man is sensitive and every horse, etc. But if one sense is principal and intended per se, while the others are [intended] on account of some likeness, then it will be a certain analogical equivocation. Further, St. Thomas never denied that there is equivocation in the multiple literal sense, but in the literal and the mystical. It must therefore be said to the argument that, just as the words and names and propositions which are found in the Sacred Letters will not be said by us to be synonyms, although they signify to us the sense of God which is one in itself, because God himself speaks to us through signs imposed by us, which signify to us by various concepts, so neither is it to be denied that there is equivocation, if one utterance signifies several things to us in the manner of several. For God speaks after the manner of men through the concepts and words of the writer. Nevertheless an equivocation of this sort does not beget confusion in the Sacred Letters, because according to either sense a theological argument can be made, more or less certain according to the necessity of understanding the letter.

To the third it is answered that if it were established that some passage of Scripture has a double literal sense, the heretic could be convinced from either: as certain men think, that the Lateran Council condemned a double error from the double sense of that passage, In the beginning he created, etc. But if the literal sense be not necessary but probable, it will be able to profit for the edification of the faithful, although it does not profit for convincing a heretic.

To the fourth it is answered that St. Thomas speaks there of the mystical senses, which are all founded upon some one literal sense, in such a way indeed that each mystical sense is founded upon some one literal sense.

To the fifth it is answered that that reason of St. Thomas does not conclude that God univocally signifies to us a double literal sense, but that, since he is the author of Scripture and of our understandings, he could intend that several literal senses occur to us. And therefore he so spoke through the sacred Writers that in certain passages Scripture would remain indifferent, so that it could be understood by us in several ways. Which is wont to happen among friends, that a friend sending a letter to a friend writes certain deliberately equivocal sentences, which can be understood in several ways according to the laws of friendship, so that the friend may exercise himself in them, held by a sweet equivocation.

IT IS DOUBTED eighth, which sense is more excellent, the literal or the spiritual?

To this I briefly answer, and let this be the first conclusion: every literal sense is more certain as regards us than the spiritual. It is proved: because only from the literal sense can we make a certain argument, as we shall say at once.

SECOND conclusion. The literal sense which at the same time has a mystical sense conjoined to it is, for the most part, inferior in dignity to the spiritual. This is proved from that of 1 Cor 9: «Is God concerned about oxen, or is it said for our sake, etc.» Where he openly signifies that formerly in that letter God more intended that the Apostles, the preachers of the Gospel, be fed by the people. Further, Origen, bk. 4 of Periarchon, ch. 2, says that the spiritual sense is like the soul, the literal like the body. And the same says St. Cyril on Leviticus, in the prologue. But I would have said for the most part, since if the literal sense contains some zealous action of Christ, through which Christ signifies that we ought to imitate him — as for example, when sitting on a lowly ass he entered Jerusalem — I would not dare to say, nor does it seem to be said, that the spiritual sense, which is the moral, is more excellent than the literal, since that very action of Christ pleased God infinitely more than all our actions.

THIRD conclusion. A certain literal sense which is about the same thing about which there is elsewhere a spiritual sense is more excellent than the spiritual, both in certitude and in utility, although the spiritual is more delightful, since it is understood under the figures of things done.

FOURTH conclusion. When in Sacred Scripture it is said in the literal sense that a certain other passage written elsewhere is to be understood spiritually, then the certitude of that spiritual passage pertains to the literal. Whence consequently.

IT IS DOUBTED lastly. Whether from the literal sense alone a certain argument can be made for confirming the things of faith?

It is answered, and let this be the first conclusion.

From the spiritual sense alone a certain argument is not fashioned from the Sacred Letters. It is proved from Augustine in epistle 48 against Vincent the Donatist, which passage St. Thomas cites in this art. 10, ad 1; and from St. Dionysius in the epistle to Titus, where he says that symbolical Theology, that is, mystical, is not argumentative. The same Jerome teaches on Mt 13.

SECOND conclusion. When the spiritual sense is certain from another literal passage of Scripture, then a certain argument can be drawn from it; since it already has certitude from the literal, as is the example from that of Dt 25: «You shall not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain»; which passage we hold from the Apostle, 1 Cor 9, to be necessarily understood spiritually.

THIRD conclusion. If all the Saints agree in the exposition of some passage of Scripture according to the mystical sense, then already, on account of the common authority of the Saints, so great an argument can be made from that passage that the opposite cannot be said without great rashness.

Finally, concerning the solution to the third argument, and the conclusion noted by us in the same place, advert from St. Augustine in bk. 8 on Genesis according to the letter, ch. 7, that it is not necessary that, if something in parabolic speech be true and other things contained in the same place be taken according to history — as for example, in that parable «A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho» — even if according to history there was truly a Jerusalem, and there was a Jericho, we are nevertheless compelled to believe that the remaining things which are narrated there happened historically. Of this sort I think there are many things in the Song of Songs of Solomon, in which you will find certain things which can be verified according to history; but many others are joined to them which by no means can be verified literally in the proper literal sense, but are verified either in the metaphorical literal sense, or certainly in the mystical sense exceeding the propriety of the metaphor. But of this at another time perhaps (if it please God) we shall say more, more distinctly. Thus far, for the sake of the scholastics, let what has been said on the senses of Sacred Scripture suffice, and consequently on the whole first and most weighty question.