TWELFTH DISPUTATION. Whether Noah's flood proceeded from natural causes alone, or whether, to bring it about, the supernatural power of God was also needed — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

TWELFTH DISPUTATION. Whether Noah's flood proceeded from natural causes alone, or whether, to bring it about, the supernatural power of God was also needed.

DUODECIMA DISPUTATIO. Utrum Noëticum diluvium ex solis causis naturalibus profectum sit, an vero ad id efficiendum etiam supernaturali potentia Dei opus fuerit.

STOICI generale totius orbis terrae, tam incendium quam diluvium, ex solis causis naturalibus fieri, et iam saepe adhuc esse factum, et in posterum saepe factum iri arbitrantur. Quinque autem causas effectrices diluvii a Seneca expositas supra commemoravimus, cum tertiam disputationem tractaremus. Laudat praeterea Berosum Seneca, huius ipsius sententiae auctorem, a quo proditum sit ex certa quadam stellarum inter se comparatione atque compositione generale mundi tam diluvium quam incendium proficisci. Berosus certe Annianus id non obscure indicat, affirmans Noë ex inspectione et observatione astrorum praesensisse venturum diluvium, et, quo id effugeret, navem sibi ad similitudinem Arcae fabricasse, octavo et septuagesimo anno ante diluvium fabricam eius Arcae aggressum.

The Stoics think that a general [destruction] of the whole world — both conflagration and flood — comes about from natural causes alone, and has already often been done up to now, and will often be done in the future. And we recalled above the five efficient causes of a flood set forth by Seneca, when we treated the third disputation. Seneca, moreover, commends Berosus as the author of this very opinion, by whom it was reported that, from a certain comparison and arrangement of the stars among themselves, a general flood as well as conflagration of the world proceeds. Berosus Annianus certainly indicates this not obscurely, affirming that Noah, by the inspection and observation of the stars, foresaw that the flood would come, and, in order to escape it, built for himself a ship after the likeness of the Ark — having undertaken the building of that Ark in the seventy-eighth year before the flood.¹

NEC displicuit haec opinio etiam scriptoribus Christianis. Henricus quidam Mechliniensis, Magni Alberti discipulus, in commentariis quos edidit in magnas Albumazaris coniunctiones, non dubitavit dicere sibi ex Astronomicis supputationibus compertum esse ante Noëticum diluvium fuisse coniunctionem quandam astrorum, quae vim habuit generalem aquarum eluvionem efficiendi: fuit autem haec coniunctio Iovis et Saturni in fine Cancri, e regione Argolicae navis, per quam etiam Noë Arca figurabatur atque significabatur.

Nor did this opinion displease even Christian writers. A certain Henry of Mechlin, a disciple of Albertus Magnus, in the commentaries which he published on the great conjunctions of Albumasar, did not hesitate to say that it had been ascertained by him, from Astronomical computations, that before Noah's flood there was a certain conjunction of the stars which had the power of bringing about a general inundation of waters: and this conjunction was of Jupiter and Saturn at the end of Cancer, opposite the Argolic ship [Argo Navis], by which the Ark of Noah too was figured and signified.²

PETRUS Aliacus constans huius sententiae propugnator et defensor fuit, siquidem is, in Quaestionibus suis in Genesim disputans super illa sententia Mosis, Cataractae caeli apertae sunt, asseveranter dixit: Licet Noë venturum diluvium divina revelatione cognoverit, idem tamen potuisse ei ex regulis Astronomicis innotescere. Praecesserunt enim diluvium certae quaedam caeli constellationes, quae non modo generalem illum cataclysmum praesignarunt, sed etiam effecerunt: non quidem ut primae causae, sed ut secundae, id est, tanquam ministrae et famulae Dei, ad eius obsequium suas omnes (quas ab eo acceperant) vires et facultates imbriferas atque diluviferas, ad inundandum et obruendum orbem terrae, conferentes.

Pierre d'Ailly was a constant champion and defender of this opinion, since he, in his Questions on Genesis, disputing upon that statement of Moses, “The cataracts of heaven were opened,” said assertively: “Although Noah knew by divine revelation that the flood would come, the same could nevertheless have become known to him from the rules of Astronomy. For certain constellations of heaven preceded the flood, which not only presignified that general cataclysm, but also effected it — not indeed as first causes, but as second [causes], that is, as ministers and handmaids of God, contributing for his service all their rain-bringing and flood-bringing powers and faculties (which they had received from him), for inundating and overwhelming the world.”³

Et has quidem Constellationes putat ille appellari a Mose Cataractas caeli, et per earum apertionem significari tempus illud quo Deus omnes inundatrices vires atque influentias eiusmodi constellationibus virtute contentas et conclusas, velut reseratis claustris, ad totius terrae alluvionem emisit. Idem porro Aliacus, in volumine De sectis et legibus, et in libro de Concordia Theologiae et Astrologiae, hoc ipsum confirmat exemplo Iridis: quam sicut Deus ad hominum securitatem signum esse voluit generalis diluvii nunquam deinde futuri, ita credere par est Deum per prognostica astrorum signa praemonstrasse diluvium futurum, ut multo ante homines ad scelerum suorum agnitionem et detestationem, agendamque (ut oportebat) poenitentiam commoverentur.

And he thinks that these Constellations are called by Moses the “cataracts of heaven,” and that by their opening is signified that time at which God sent forth all the inundating powers and influences — contained and enclosed by virtue in such constellations, as if the bars were unbarred — for the flooding of the whole earth. The same d'Ailly, moreover, in the volume On Sects and Laws, and in the book On the Concord of Theology and Astrology, confirms this very thing by the example of the Rainbow: which, just as God willed to be a sign, for the security of men, of a general flood never thereafter to come, so it is fitting to believe that God, through the prognostic signs of the stars, foreshowed the coming flood, so that long before, men might be moved to the acknowledgment and detestation of their crimes, and to doing penance, as was fitting.⁴

NEC desunt qui eam sententiam assignent etiam Gulielmo Parisiensi Episcopo, sane magni ingenii nec vulgaris doctrinae viro: propterea quod is, in Prima Parte Operis de Universo, ubi disputat de Firmamento et de aquis quae sunt super firmamentum, tractans illam sententiam Mosis de apertis caeli cataractis, ait Mosen vocasse cataractas caeli eas caeli partes quae sunt generatrices pluviarum et inundationum aquarum: qualia sunt signa aquatica, ut Cancer, Pisces, Pleiades, Hyades et Orion; inter Planetas autem, Mars, Venus et Luna. Cataractas igitur caeli apertas esse intelligimus, quia caelestes illae virtutes ad operationem pluviarum et inundationum iussu Dei relaxatae et quasi reseratae sunt.

Nor are there lacking those who assign that opinion also to William of Paris, a bishop, a man indeed of great genius and no common learning: because he, in the First Part of the Work On the Universe, where he disputes about the Firmament and the waters which are above the firmament, treating that statement of Moses about the opened cataracts of heaven, says that Moses called “cataracts of heaven” those parts of heaven which are generative of rains and inundations of waters — such as the watery signs, like Cancer, Pisces, the Pleiades, the Hyades, and Orion; and, among the Planets, Mars, Venus, and the Moon. We understand, therefore, that the cataracts of heaven were opened, because those celestial powers were, for the operation of rains and inundations, by God's command relaxed and, as it were, unbarred.⁵

VERUM enim vero, falsam esse eam opinionem, et sacra scriptura non obscure indicat, et philosophica doctrina ratioque aperte demonstrat. Etenim Mosaica narratio diluvii, quae tribus huius libri capitibus sexto, septimo et octavo continetur, perspicue ostendit praeter ordinem cursumque naturae, praeterque seriem atque textum naturalium causarum, singulari quadam voluntate et mandato Dei, in hominum eius temporis vindictam, diluvium esse fac[tum]…

But in very truth, that opinion is false, both as sacred scripture indicates not obscurely, and as philosophical doctrine and reason openly demonstrate. For the Mosaic narrative of the flood, which is contained in three chapters of this book — the sixth, seventh, and eighth — plainly shows that, beyond the order and course of nature, and beyond the series and texture of natural causes, by a certain singular will and command of God, for the vengeance upon the men of that time, the flood was ma[de]…⁶

…singulari quadam voluntate et mandato Dei, in hominum eius temporis vindictam, diluvium esse factum. Non quod nullae res naturales ad effectionem diluvii convenerint, sed quod earum rerum conventus generando diluvio per se sufficiens non fuerit; et quia modus, quo res illae ad creandum diluvium adhibitae sunt a Deo, non fuit naturalis et usitatus. Quapropter solum Deum sacra scriptura auctorem et effectorem diluvii nominat. Hoc nempe declarant illa verba Dei: Ecce ego adducam aquas diluvii super terram, ut interficiam omnem carnem in qua spiritus vitae est subter caelum, et universa quae in terra sunt consumentur. Et rursus: Adhuc et post dies septem, ego pluam super terram quadraginta diebus et quadraginta noctibus, et delebo omnem substantiam quam feci de superficie terrae. Hoc item declaravit Moses, cum, exponens modum quo factum est diluvium, dixit ruptos esse fontes abyssi magnae et apertas esse cataractas caeli: illa enim ruptio fontium et apertio cataractarum denotat violentum quiddam atque insolitum, praeterque ordinem ac vim naturae, et quod ex principio aliquo externo, potentiori quam natura sit, profectum fuerit.

…by a certain singular will and command of God, for the vengeance upon the men of that time, the flood was made. Not that no natural things concurred for the effecting of the flood, but that the concurrence of those things was not of itself sufficient for generating the flood; and because the manner in which those things were employed by God for creating the flood was not natural and customary. Wherefore sacred scripture names God alone the author and effecter of the flood. This indeed those words of God declare: “Behold, I will bring the waters of the flood upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven, and all things that are on the earth shall be consumed.” And again: “Yet, and after seven days, I will rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will blot out every substance that I have made, from the face of the earth.” This likewise Moses declared when, expounding the manner in which the flood was made, he said that the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the cataracts of heaven were opened: for that breaking of the fountains and opening of the cataracts denotes something violent and unusual, beyond the order and force of nature, and which proceeded from some external principle more powerful than nature is.⁷

IAM vero si cessatio et finis diluvii non fuit naturalis, ergo similiter principium et generationem diluvii non fuisse naturalem existimare convenit. Sed non fuisse naturalem cessationem et finem diluvii, nemini dubitare licet qui verba Mosis paulo attentius legerit: sic enim scribit: Adduxit spiritum Dominus super terram, et imminutae sunt aquae. Et clausi sunt fontes abyssi et cataractae caeli, et prohibitae sunt pluviae de caelo. Quis non videt quod dicitur de occlusione abyssi et cataractarum caeli, et de prohibitione pluviae, id evidenter arguere cessationem diluvii non ex causis naturalibus, sed ex voluntate Dei (per ministerium Angelorum supra vires ac praeter ordinem naturalem causarum operantis) esse profectam? Neque hoc non demonstrat spiritus ille seu ventus missus a Deo ad tollendum diluvium. Neque enim ventus ille siccissimus atque calidissimus in tanta super terram omnem aquarum altitudine generari ex causis naturalibus potuisset; nec, si generatus esset, vim tamen naturalem ad tantam aquarum molem tam brevi tempore siccandam et consumendam habuisset.

Now if the cessation and end of the flood was not natural, then it is fitting likewise to think that the beginning and generation of the flood was not natural. But that the cessation and end of the flood was not natural, no one may doubt who reads the words of Moses a little more attentively: for he writes thus: “The Lord brought a wind [spirit] upon the earth, and the waters were diminished. And the fountains of the deep and the cataracts of heaven were closed, and the rains from heaven were restrained.” Who does not see that what is said about the closing of the abyss and the cataracts of heaven, and about the restraining of the rain, evidently proves that the cessation of the flood proceeded not from natural causes, but from the will of God (operating through the ministry of the Angels, above the powers and beyond the natural order of causes)? Nor does that spirit or wind sent by God to remove the flood not demonstrate this. For that wind, most dry and most hot, could not have been generated, in so great a height of waters over all the earth, from natural causes; nor, if it had been generated, would it have had natural force to dry up and consume so great a mass of waters in so short a time.⁸

Ergo qui convenienter doctrinae sacrarum litterarum sentire ac loqui vult, is negare omnino debet Noëticum diluvium ex solis causis naturalibus, et secundum usitatum naturae ordinem atque cursum, esse factum. Mirus quoque hac de re Patrum omnium ac Theologorum est consensus concorsque sententia. NEC tantum illi sententiae divina scriptura contradicit, sed repugnat etiam Philosophia. Duo enim principes Philosophorum, Plato et Aristoteles, ei plane adversantur. Cum enim Plato fecerit in Timaeo incorruptibilem mundum, et mundi ordinem prorsus invariabilem (non quidem natura sua, sed voluntate Dei, quae omni tamen necessitate naturae fortior et immutabilior est), huic sententiae eius necessario consequens est generale vel incendium vel diluvium, quod universo terrarum orbi afferat interitum, esse non po[sse]…

Therefore he who wishes to think and speak in accordance with the doctrine of the sacred writings must utterly deny that Noah's flood was made from natural causes alone and according to the customary order and course of nature. And there is in this matter a wondrous consensus and concordant opinion of all the Fathers and Theologians. Nor does divine scripture alone contradict that opinion, but Philosophy also opposes it. For the two princes of the Philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, plainly oppose it. For since Plato, in the Timaeus, made the world incorruptible, and the order of the world entirely invariable (not indeed by its own nature, but by the will of God, which, however, is stronger and more immutable than any necessity of nature), it is necessarily consequent to this opinion of his that a general conflagration or flood, which would bring destruction to the whole world, cannot b[e]…⁹

…esse non posse. Idem quoque, atque ob eandem causam, sensisse Aristotelem manifestum est. Quin etiam perspicuis ille verbis extremo libro primo Meteorologicorum affirmat particularia diluvia quae huic vel illi regioni contingant (quale fuit Deucalionis in Thessalia, et Ogygis in Attica) posse effici; at vero generale diluvium, omnem terrarum orbem usquequaque inundans et obruens, nullo modo posse.

…cannot be. And it is manifest that Aristotle thought the same, and for the same reason. Nay, he affirms in plain words, at the end of the first book of the Meteorology, that particular floods, which befall this or that region (such as was the flood of Deucalion in Thessaly, and of Ogyges in Attica), can be brought about; but a general flood, inundating and overwhelming the whole world on every side, can in no way [be].¹⁰

VERUM AGE, quo magis hoc lectori probetur ac persuadeatur, nonnullis argumentis confirmemus. Ac primo quidem licet ad hunc modum argumentari: Moses narrat Deum, flagitiis hominum illius temporis vehementer offensum, misisse diluvium ad eorum hominum vindictam; at si diluvium ex solis causis naturalibus et secundum naturae ordinem factum esset, necessario evenisset sive homines illius temporis boni sive mali fuissent: quod enim naturaliter fit, id necessario fit, et sine discretione bonorum atque malorum evenit. Sterilitas enim terrae, aut pestilentia, quae ex causis omnino naturalibus accidunt, bonis aeque contingunt atque malis.

But come, that this may be the more proved and persuaded to the reader, let us confirm it with several arguments. And first, indeed, one may argue in this manner: Moses narrates that God, vehemently offended by the crimes of the men of that time, sent the flood for the vengeance upon those men; but if the flood had been made from natural causes alone and according to the order of nature, it would necessarily have happened whether the men of that time had been good or bad: for what happens naturally happens necessarily, and comes about without discrimination of the good and the bad. For the barrenness of the earth, or a pestilence, which happen from entirely natural causes, befall the good equally as the bad.¹¹

Verum responderi posset Deum ex omni aeternitate novisse eo tempore quo fuit diluvium nequissimos fore homines et extremis dignos suppliciis, simulque decrevisse punire eos homines per diluvium: quamobrem in condendo mundo ita disposuisse siderum motus, et sic ordinasse constellationes caeli, ut eo tempore quo illi homines futuri erant, vigeret ac regnaret in caelo effectrix diluvii constellatio. Nihil igitur prohibet diluvium factum esse voluntate Dei, et nihilominus tamen per solas causas naturales esse factum. Sed enim non solet divina scriptura, quae per solas causas naturales fiunt (uti est naturalis sterilitas vel abundantia, copia vel penuria imbrium, morbus vel sanitas et alia huiusmodi), miraculi loco habere, et velut testimonia divinae iustitiae ac vindictae commemorare, et tanquam ea quae supra vim et praeter modum atque ordinem naturae facta fuerit solum earum rerum auctorem et effectorem Deum agnoscere ac nominare: quemadmodum, ubicumque de diluvio loquitur, facere solet.

But it could be answered that God from all eternity knew that at that time when the flood was, the men would be most wicked and worthy of the extremest punishments, and at the same time had decreed to punish those men by a flood; wherefore, in founding the world, he so disposed the motions of the stars, and so arranged the constellations of heaven, that at that time when those men would exist, the flood-producing constellation should flourish and reign in heaven. Nothing, therefore, prevents the flood from having been made by the will of God, and nevertheless from having been made through natural causes alone. But divine scripture is not wont to hold those things which come about through natural causes alone (such as natural barrenness or abundance, plenty or scarcity of rains, sickness or health, and other things of this kind) in the place of a miracle, and to recall them as if testimonies of divine justice and vengeance, and to acknowledge and name God alone as the author and effecter of those things, as if of things done above the force and beyond the measure and order of nature: as it is wont to do wherever it speaks of the flood.¹²

DEINDE, aliqua caeli constellatio fecit Noëticum diluvium: cum verisimile sit eam ipsam constellationem iterum futuram, aut etiam fortasse iam fuisse intra hoc tempus quatuor millium annorum quod post diluvium Noëticum ad hodiernam usque diem effluxit, hinc sequeretur generale diluvium totius orbis aut iam bis vel etiam saepius esse factum, aut certe aliquando futurum: quod tamen est contra promissionem Dei, qui promisit Noë nunquam deinceps venturum generale diluvium. VERUM huic rationi dupliciter occurri posset: primum, negando eandem omnino caeli constellationem quae semel fuit iterum futuram. Censent…

Next [the second argument]: [grant that] some constellation of heaven made Noah's flood — since it is likely that that same constellation will come again, or even perhaps has already been within this time of four thousand years which has elapsed after Noah's flood up to the present day, hence it would follow that a general flood of the whole world either has already been made twice, or even more often, or certainly will at some time be: which, however, is against the promise of God, who promised Noah that a general flood would never thereafter come. But this argument could be met in two ways: first, by denying that the very same constellation of heaven which once was will come again. They think…¹³

Censent enim Astronomorum doctissimi motus caelorum et siderum esse prorsus incommensurabiles, ita ut omnia sidera ad eandem inter se comparationem et compositionem quam semel habuerunt nullo tempore iterum reverti possint. Sed esto, possit iterum eadem constellatio redire: respondebitur tamen constellationem illam effectricem Noëtici diluvii non fuisse redituram ante finem mundi. Quoniam igitur Deus sciebat ante interiturum esse mundum, aut certe in alium statum commutatum iri, quam iterum rediret illa constellatio diluvifera: propterea asseveranter et vere dixit nunquam in omne posterum tempus futurum esse diluvium.

For the most learned of the Astronomers think that the motions of the heavens and of the stars are utterly incommensurable, so that all the stars can at no time return again to the same comparison and arrangement among themselves which they once had. But be it so, that the same constellation can return again: it will nevertheless be answered that that constellation, the producer of Noah's flood, would not return before the end of the world. Since, therefore, God knew that the world would perish, or certainly be changed into another state, before that flood-bringing constellation should return again: therefore he said assertively and truly that there would never, in all future time, be a flood.¹⁴

ILLUD quoque facit ad huius rei confirmationem, mundum optime secundum omnes partes suas a Deo fuisse constitutum, et, ut maxime opus erat ad mundi firmitatem ac stabilitatem et ad ornatum eius atque decorem, ita fuisse compositum et ordinatum. Nam licet multae eius partes privatim inter se discordent ac pugnent, ad publicum tamen et commune bonum mundi tuendum et conservandum, praesertim autem ad eius incolumitatem diuturnitatemque continendam, admirabili consensu omnes inter se conspirant atque concordant. At enim, si aliqua pars caeli sive constellatio vim haberet gignendi diluvium universam terram perdens, omneque genus animalium e medio tollens, convinceretur profecto Mundum non fuisse bene constitutum et ordinatum, cum una pars mundi vim haberet pulchritudinem, plenitudinem et perfectionem ipsius mundi dissipandi ac penitus delendi.

This too serves for the confirmation of this matter: that the world was most excellently constituted by God in all its parts, and was composed and ordered just as was especially needful for the firmness and stability of the world, and for its adornment and beauty. For although many of its parts privately disagree and fight among themselves, yet for guarding and preserving the public and common good of the world — but especially for maintaining its safety and long duration — all conspire and agree among themselves with admirable consent. But if some part of heaven or constellation had the power of producing a flood destroying the whole earth and removing every kind of animal, it would surely be proved that the World was not well constituted and ordered, since one part of the world would have the power of dissipating and utterly destroying the beauty, fullness, and perfection of the world itself.¹⁵

VERUM haec ratio, secundum doctrinam Platonis et Aristotelis (qui hunc mundi statum, qui in perpetuo caelorum motu et rerum sublunarium ortu et interitu versatur, sempiternum faciunt), validissima est; non similiter tamen secundum fidem nostram et doctrinam sacrarum literarum, e quibus didicimus mundum hunc aliquando interiturum, aut certe commutatum iri in alium statum, in quo caelum a motu vacabit, nec aget in hunc mundum inferiorem per motum et lumen. Quemadmodum igitur humanum corpus optime constitutum esse dicitur a natura, quod omnes partes eius, licet inter se admodum diversae (quaedam vero etiam contrariae), omnes tamen ad eius salutem temperatae et accommodatae sint: hinc tamen non licet concludere corpus humanum fore immortale; namque illa temperies partium non in perpetuum firma est, sed ad certum quoddam tempus, post quod tempus solvitur illa temperies, et una pars praevalens aliasque corrumpens interitum affert homini.

But this argument, according to the doctrine of Plato and Aristotle (who make this state of the world — which is engaged in the perpetual motion of the heavens and the generation and destruction of sublunary things — everlasting), is most valid; yet not similarly so according to our faith and the doctrine of the sacred writings, from which we have learned that this world will at some time perish, or certainly be changed into another state, in which the heaven will rest from motion and will not act upon this lower world by motion and light. Just as, therefore, the human body is said to be most excellently constituted by nature, because all its parts — though very diverse among themselves (and some even contrary) — are nevertheless all tempered and adapted to its health: yet from this it is not permitted to conclude that the human body will be immortal; for that tempering of the parts is not firm in perpetuity, but for a certain fixed time, after which time that tempering is dissolved, and one part, prevailing and corrupting the others, brings death to the man.¹⁶

Similiter Deus, qui mundum fecerat aliquando interiturum, ita partes eius disposuit ut vim haberent conservandi mundi integritatem usque ad aliquod tempus, quo exacto, aliae partes corrumperent alias: uti eveniet in consummatione saeculi. In diluvio autem Noëtico, etsi destructus est orbis terrae, Deus tamen in Arca servavit seminarium hominum et animalium, et post unum annum diluvium sustulit, terram[que]…

Similarly God, who had made the world destined at some time to perish, so disposed its parts that they should have the power of conserving the integrity of the world up to some time, which being elapsed, other parts would corrupt others: as will happen at the consummation of the age. But in Noah's flood, although the world was destroyed, God nevertheless preserved in the Ark a seedbed of men and animals, and after one year removed the flood, and the earth…¹⁷

…terramque in priorem statum restituit.

…and restored the earth to its former state.¹⁸

CETERUM illa mihi firmior ceteris videtur ratio, et ad hoc persuadendum valentior. Aiunt isti habere vim astra efficiendi generale diluvium. Sed quaerendum ex istis esse, quemadmodum ipsi putent ex astris generale diluvium effici, utrum privative an positive (sic enim in scholis loquimur). Dicent fortasse fieri privative, hoc est, fieri ob privationem luminis et caloris eorum siderum quibus tribuitur efficientia diluvii, propter longinquum aliquorum astrorum digressum; quemadmodum propter Solis a nobis discessum exsistit hyems, et imbrium crebritas atque abundantia. Verum si ea ratione fieret diluvium, fieret quidem in iis locis terrae a quibus astra illa procul discessissent: ea vero terrae loca ad quae sidera illa proxime accessissent, quaeque directo illis astris subiecta essent, non modo diluvium non sentirent, verum etiam calore et siccitate maiorem in modum afficerentur. Namque ut solis digressus a nobis in regione nostra hyemem efficit et crebros imbres excitat, ita eiusdem solis ad alias gentes appulsus et accessus calidam et siccam in illis regionibus facit aestatem. Non igitur fieri potest ut hac ratione generale diluvium ex astris exsistat. Nimirum, cum multae sint regiones inter duos Tropicos, praesertim autem sub Aequinoctiali, quae perpetuo solis ardore vehementer arescant et ardescant, has necesse est et steriles esse vaporum, et inopes imbrium, et magnarum inundationum expertes.

But that argument seems to me firmer than the rest, and more potent for persuading this. These [astrologers] say that the stars have the power of producing a general flood. But it must be asked of them how they themselves think a general flood is produced by the stars — whether privatively or positively (for so we speak in the schools). Perhaps they will say it happens privatively — that is, that it happens through the privation of the light and heat of those stars to which the efficiency of the flood is attributed, on account of the distant departure of certain stars; just as, on account of the Sun's departure from us, winter arises, and the frequency and abundance of rains. But if the flood happened by that reasoning, it would happen indeed in those places of the earth from which those stars had departed far; but those places of the earth to which those stars had come nearest, and which were directly subject to those stars, would not only not feel a flood, but would even be affected to a greater degree by heat and dryness. For just as the sun's departure from us produces winter in our region and stirs up frequent rains, so the approach and arrival of the same sun to other peoples makes a hot and dry summer in those regions. It cannot, therefore, come about that by this reasoning a general flood should arise from the stars. For since there are many regions between the two Tropics, but especially under the Equator, which dry up and burn vehemently from the perpetual heat of the sun, these must necessarily be both barren of vapors, and destitute of rains, and free from great inundations.¹⁹

SIN autem dicant isti diluvium fieri ex astris non privative sed positive, hoc est, astra mittere in terras singularem quandam virtutem caelestem (hanc virtutem vulgato iam pridem vocabulo appellamus influentiam), quae virtus et influentia, quae una sive multiplex fuerit, naturaliter potens et efficax sit creandi generale diluvium: hoc etiam simili ratione falsum esse convinci potest. Astra enim singulares istas virtutes et influentias non indifferenter in omnia terrae loca mittunt, sed in eas tantum partes terrae quas respiciunt et quas sibi habent subiectas: quae autem extra has sunt, maxime vero quae illis directo sunt oppositae, caelestes illas influentias et effectus nequaquam accipiunt. Scilicet hanc causam reddunt Astronomi cur astrorum singulares quidam et notabiles effectus in omnibus terrae partibus aut nullo modo aut non aeque recipiantur. Aiunt enim, quae loca terrae sunt extra respectum illorum siderum, ad ea loca defluxum eorum siderum minime pertinere. Cum igitur nulla sit constellatio quae omnem terram usquequaque respicere queat, nullius constellationis effectus ad universam terram pertinere poterit: quapropter generale diluvium universam terram inundans ex astris aliisve naturalibus [causis effici non] po[terit]…

But if these [astrologers] say that the flood is produced from the stars not privatively but positively — that is, that the stars send into the lands a certain singular celestial power (this power we call by a now widely used word, “influence”), which power and influence, whether it be one or manifold, is naturally potent and effective for creating a general flood: this too can be proved false by a like reasoning. For the stars do not send those singular powers and influences indifferently into all places of the earth, but only into those parts of the earth which they look upon and which they have subject to themselves: but those which are outside these — and especially those which are directly opposite to them — by no means receive those celestial influences and effects. For the Astronomers give this cause why certain singular and notable effects of the stars are received in all parts of the earth either in no way or not equally. For they say that, [as for] the places of the earth which are outside the aspect of those stars, the influx of those stars in no way pertains to those places. Since, therefore, there is no constellation that can look upon the whole earth on every side, the effect of no constellation can pertain to the whole earth: wherefore a general flood inundating the whole earth [could] not [be produced] from the stars or other natural [causes]…²⁰

DICET fortasse quispiam posse accidere ex ea parte terrae quam aspra [astra] respiciunt, et in quam agunt, tantam extrahere vaporum copiam ut ea sufficiens sit generando diluvio, quod primo quidem eam partem operiat, deinde ad alias omnes terrae partes operiendas redundet. Sed hoc nullo modo probabile est. Ex nulla enim parte terrae tanta vaporum abundantia elici potest, unde generari queat diluvium non modo inundans omnem terram, verum etiam in tantam excrescens altitudinem ut altissimos omnium montium quindecim cubitis excederet, quale fuit Noëticum diluvium. Ad tantam enim aquarum molem generandam, non tantum unius aut aliquot partium, verum omnium etiam partium terrae vapores satis non fuissent: sed praeterea (sicut accidit in diluvio Noëtico) necesse esset magnam partem aëris in aquam converti. Maneat igitur ex solis causis naturalibus, sive caelestibus sive sublunaribus sive utrisque simul, Noëticum diluvium nec factum, nec fieri potuisse.

§73. Perhaps someone will say that it could happen that the stars draw out, from that part of the earth which they look upon and on which they act, so great an abundance of vapors as to be sufficient for generating a flood — which would first cover that part, then overflow to cover all the other parts of the earth. But this is in no way probable. For from no part of the earth can so great an abundance of vapors be drawn out, whence could be generated a flood not only inundating the whole earth, but also growing to so great a height that it exceeded the highest of all mountains by fifteen cubits — such as Noah's flood was. For to generate so great a mass of waters, the vapors not only of one or of several parts, but even of all the parts of the earth, would not have been enough: but besides (as happened in Noah's flood) it would be necessary for a great part of the air to be converted into water. Let it stand, therefore, that Noah's flood neither was nor could have been made from natural causes alone, whether celestial, or sublunary, or both together.²¹

Translator’s notes

§60. The Stoic/astrological view (a flood from natural causes/a stellar conjunction; Berosus, Seneca). Margins: the Stoics; Seneca, Nat. Quaest. bk. 3, ch. 27ff; Berosus Annianus. ↩
§61. Henry of Mechlin (a disciple of Albertus Magnus): a Jupiter–Saturn conjunction in Cancer before the Flood. Margin: Henry of Mechlin. ↩
§62. Pierre d'Ailly: the constellations as ‘second causes’ effecting the Flood. Margins: Pierre d'Ailly; Gen. 7. ↩
d'Ailly continued (the constellations = the ‘cataracts’; the rainbow analogy). Margin: Gen. 9. ↩
§63. William of Auvergne (of Paris): the ‘cataracts’ = the watery signs and planets. Margin: William of Paris. ↩
§64. Pererius's refutation begins: Scripture and philosophy both deny a purely natural Flood. Margin: “That the flood was not made from natural causes alone.” Continues on p. 322. ↩
§64 (cont.). God named as sole author; the ‘breaking’ and ‘opening’ denote something beyond nature. Margins: Gen. 6; Gen. 7. ↩
§65. The Flood's cessation was supernatural (the drying wind) — so its onset was too. Margin: Gen. 8. ↩
§66. The consensus of the Fathers, and the testimony of Plato (Timaeus). Margins: “That neither according to Plato nor according to Aristotle could a general flood occur”; Plato. Continues on p. 323. ↩
Aristotle (Meteorology bk. 1): particular regional floods are possible, but not a universal one. Margin: Aristotle. ↩
§67. First of four arguments: a natural flood would have struck regardless of human wickedness. Margins: “By four arguments it is proved that Noah's flood was not made from natural causes alone”; “First argument.” ↩
The astrologers' rejoinder (God pre-arranged the stars) and Pererius's reply (Scripture treats the Flood as a miracle, not a natural event). ↩
§68. Second argument: a recurring constellation would mean a recurring universal Flood — against God's promise. Continues on p. 324. ↩
§68 (concl.). The two replies to the ‘recurring constellation’ argument (the motions are incommensurable; and any return would be after the world's end). ↩
§69. Third argument: a flood-causing constellation would mean the cosmos was ill-ordered (one part able to destroy the whole). Margin: Third argument. ↩
§70. Qualifying the third argument: it holds on the (false) Platonic/Aristotelian eternal-world view, but our faith expects the world's end; the body-analogy. ↩
Continues on p. 325. ↩
Completes §70. ↩
§71. The strongest argument (first horn): if the Flood were caused ‘privatively’ (by stars' departure), some regions would flood while opposite ones baked. Margins: Fourth argument; “A physiological argument that a general flood cannot be caused by the stars.” ↩
§72. The same argument (second horn): if caused ‘positively’ (by stellar ‘influence’), no constellation faces the whole earth, so none could flood it all. Continues on p. 326. ↩
§73 (objection & reply). Conclusion of Disp. 12: no merely natural cause could produce a universal flood. Margins: Objection; Solution. ↩