exponent of his views respecting the authority and depth of Holy Scripture, and the way in which it should be studied. "Non enim solummodo in parabolis, verum etiam in multis Divinæ Scripturæ locis talis formæ locutionis divinum nectar eructat, facilemque interpretationis viam studiosis mysticorum sermonum theoriæ præstant. Non enim alio modo sanctorum Prophetarum multiplex in divinis intellectibus contextus potest discerni, nisi per frequentissimos non solum per periodos, verum etiam per cola et commata, transitus ex diversis sensibus in diversos, et ab eisdem iterum in eosdem occultissimas crebrissimasque reversiones. Sæpissime enim unam eandemque expositionis speciem absque ullo transitu in diversas figurationes sequentibus aut error aut maxima difficultas innascitur interpretandi: concatenatus quippe est Divinæ Scripturæ contextus, dædalicisque diverticulis et obliquitatibus perplexus. Neque hoc Spiritus Sanctus invidia intelligendi, quod absit existimari, sed studio nostram intelligentiam [? exercendi] sudorisque et inventionis præmii reddendi: præemium quippe est in sacra Scriptura laborantium pura perfectaque intelligentia. O Domine Jesu, nullum aliud præmium, nullam aliam beatitudinem, nullum aliud gaudium a Te postulo, nisi ut ad purum absque ullo errore fallacis theoriæ Verba Tua, quæ per Tuum Sanctum Spiritum inspirata sunt, intelligam." (p. 306).
Madvig's transposition of Juv. vi. 307, 308 is confirmed not only by three MSS. cited in Jahn's critical note, but also by an early MS. in the Library of Shrewsbury School.
The lines stand in most MSS.
Tullia quid dicat note collectea Mauræ,
Maura Pudicitæ veterem quum præterit aram.
By transposing the last two lines Madvig (Opusc. ii. p. 196 seq after Achaintre and Ruperti) has restored the sense.
