THIRD DISPUTATION. On the heavenly bow which God established as a sign of a flood never to come; containing Eight questions — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

THIRD DISPUTATION. On the heavenly bow which God established as a sign of a flood never to come; containing Eight questions.

TERTIA DISPUTATIO. De Arcu caelesti quem statuit Deus signum nunquam futuri diluvii; continens Octo quaestiones.

NONNULLA sunt in hac disputatione utilia simul et iucunda cognitu. Sed quia nonnihil etiam difficultatis habent, non inaccuratam desiderant tractationem. Sit igitur prima quaestio: quid vocabulo Arcus hoc loco significetur, utrum arcus caelestis quem appellamus Iridem, an aliud quiddam eo vocabulo intelligi debeat. Beatus Ambrosius omnino negat arcum sive Iridem caelestem eo vocabulo denotari. Certe figurata oratione et similitudine arcus quo sagittas iaculamur, significari virtutem…

There are some things in this disputation both useful and pleasant to know. But because they have also some difficulty, they require a not careless treatment. Let the first question, therefore, be: what is signified by the word “Bow” in this place — whether the heavenly bow which we call Iris, or whether something else ought to be understood by that word. St. Ambrose altogether denies that the bow or heavenly Iris is denoted by that word. Certainly by figurative speech and the likeness of the bow with which we shoot arrows, the power is signified…¹

…tutem quandam Dei invisibilem quae severitatem divinae iustitiae rigoremque vindictae adversus hominum scelera remittit et relaxat, ad similitudinem arcus; ita ut per calamitates et res adversas quibus Deus exercet homines, terrere magis eos velit quam ferire: quemadmodum contentus arcus sed carens sagittis, speciem fortasse habeat terrendi, vim tamen vulnerandi non habet.

…a certain invisible power of God which remits and relaxes the severity of divine justice and the rigor of vengeance against the crimes of men, after the likeness of a bow; so that through the calamities and adversities by which God exercises men, He wishes rather to frighten them than to strike — just as a bow drawn but lacking arrows may perhaps have the appearance of frightening, yet has not the power of wounding.²

VERUM praestat ut Ambrosii sententiam ex propriis eius verbis lector agnoscat. Consideremus, inquit, diligenter quis sit arcus ille quem Deus in nube posuit ut signum foederis sui cum hominibus. Non enim, sicut plerique arbitrantur, arcum istum dicit quo aiunt homines pluviarum signa declarari, in quo colores diversi tanquam radiorum Solis nunc rutilantium, nunc lumine lucentium clariore figurantur: unde et pluvia futura significatur, eo quod inconstantia quaedam serenitatis versicolore specie demonstratur. Arcum hunc Iridem quidam appellant. Sed absit ut hunc arcum Dei dicamus. Iris enim per diem videri solet, per noctem non apparet, ac ne per diem quidem videtur si obductus aër tetris nubibus fuerit, ni forte cum graviores nubes se coeperint relaxare. Ergo videamus ne, quia arcus quo sagittae iaciuntur nunc tenditur nunc resolvitur, quandam extensionem ac remissionem videatur scriptura significare, per quam non penitus per nimiam intensionem universa rumpantur: sed fit quaedam mensura, et quoddam divinae virtutis examen. Est ergo virtus invisibilis Dei specie istius arcus moderans omnia, ut neque confundi nimia solutione, neque dirumpi nimia contentione patiatur. Quam ideo in nubibus dicit poni, quia tunc maxime opus est divina auxilio prudentia, quando agmina nubium in procellas tempestatesque coguntur. Quocirca non dixit, Ponam in nubibus sagittam, sed, ponam arcum. Arcus enim instrumentum est iaculandae sagittae, neque arcus ipse vulnerat sed sagitta. Ergo posuit in nubibus arcum non sagittam, id est, quod haberet terroris indicium, vulneris effectum non haberet. Sic Ambrosius.

But it is better that the reader recognize Ambrose's opinion from his own words: “Let us consider diligently what that bow is which God set in the cloud as a sign of His covenant with men. For he does not, as most think, speak of that bow by which men say the signs of rains are declared, in which diverse colors are figured as of the Sun's rays, now glowing red, now shining with a clearer light, whence future rain too is signified, because a certain inconstancy of fair weather is shown by the parti-colored appearance. This bow some call Iris. But far be it that we should call this bow God's. For Iris is wont to be seen by day, by night does not appear, and not even by day is it seen if the air is overcast with foul clouds, unless perhaps when the heavier clouds begin to relax. Therefore let us see whether, because the bow with which arrows are shot is now bent, now slackened, Scripture seems to signify a certain extension and relaxation, by which all things are not utterly broken by too great a tension, but there is a certain measure and a certain test of divine power. There is, therefore, an invisible power of God under the appearance of that bow, moderating all things, so that it suffers them neither to be confounded by too great a loosening, nor burst by too great a straining. Which He therefore says is set in the clouds, because then there is most need of prudence by divine help, when the ranks of clouds are forced into storms and tempests. Wherefore He did not say, I will set in the clouds an arrow, but, I will set a bow. For the bow is the instrument for shooting the arrow, nor does the bow itself wound, but the arrow. Therefore He set in the clouds a bow, not an arrow — that is, what would have the token of terror, but not the effect of a wound.” So Ambrose.³

SED tanti Doctoris auctoritas facere non debet ut nos hanc eius sententiam minime probabilem, minimeque cum verbis scripturae consentientem, refellere vereamur. Neque enim unius Ambrosii auctoritas pluris esse debet quam omnium aliorum — omnes dico Patres tam Graecos quam Latinos, omnesque interpretes tam Christianos quam Hebraeos — apud quos extra controversiam est hoc loco per Arcum non aliud significari quam arcum caelestem et Iridem: quam interpretationem omnino requirit vel potius exigit sententia verborum Scripturae. Quis enim est arcus qui in nubibus apparet et cernitur ab hominibus, nisi Iris? Ter autem hoc loco Scriptura ait arcum illum esse in nubibus: primum, cum inquit, Arcum meum ponam in nubibus, et erit signum foederis inter me et terram; deinde mox subiungens, Cum obduxero nubibus caelum, apparebit arcus meus in nubibus; postremo, cum ait, Erit arcus meus in nubibus et videbo illum, et recordabor foederis sempiterni. Quis obsecro est toties repetitus iste arcus in nubibus caeli apparens, nisi Iris? Adiice quod oratio haec Mosis plane historica est: narratio enim est eius quod dixit fecitque Deus. Secundum leges igitur [historiae]…

But the authority of so great a Doctor ought not to make us fear to refute this opinion of his — by no means probable, and by no means consonant with the words of scripture. For the authority of one Ambrose ought not to be of more weight than that of all the others — I mean all the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, and all the interpreters, both Christian and Hebrew — among whom it is beyond controversy that in this place by “Bow” nothing else is signified than the heavenly bow and Iris: which interpretation the meaning of the words of Scripture altogether requires, or rather demands. For what is the bow which appears in the clouds and is discerned by men, except Iris? And three times in this place Scripture says that bow is in the clouds: first, when it says, “I will set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of a covenant between me and the earth”; then, soon adding, “When I shall cover the sky with clouds, my bow shall appear in the clouds”; lastly, when it says, “My bow shall be in the clouds, and I shall see it, and I shall remember the everlasting covenant.” What, I beseech, is that bow so often repeated, appearing in the clouds of the sky, except Iris? Add that this discourse of Moses is plainly historical: for it is a narration of what God said and did. According, therefore, to the laws [of history]…⁴

…historiae, verba non figurate et parabolice, sed proprie ac secundum usitatam et vulgatam eorum significationem accipi debent: quare arcus in nubibus caeli apparens non alius intelligi potest quam qui vulgo intelligitur, id est, Iris. Quid multa? Arcum Deus illum statuit ut signum foederis sui conspicuum hominibus: at virtus illa Dei quam hic vocabulo arcus significari putat Ambrosius invisibilis est, ut ipse etiam dicit, paucisque cognita; non igitur idoneum fuisset signum apud homines divinae promissionis non futuri amplius diluvii.

…of history, the words are to be taken not figuratively and parabolically, but properly and according to their usual and common signification: wherefore the bow appearing in the clouds of the sky can be understood as no other than that which is commonly understood, that is, Iris. In short: God established that bow as a sign of His covenant conspicuous to men; but that power of God which Ambrose thinks is here signified by the word “bow” is invisible (as he himself also says) and known to few; it would not, therefore, have been a fit sign among men of the divine promise of no flood ever more to come.⁵

ALTERA quaestio exsistit, quemadmodum Iris signum esse possit nunquam futuri diluvii, siquidem Iris fuerat saepenumero ante diluvium Noëticum: neque tunc signum fuit non futuri diluvii, alioqui fallax signum fuisset, contrario scilicet eventu: similiter igitur nec post illud diluvium signum esse potuit non futuri alterius diluvii. Respondent quidam nec pluvias nec Iridem fuisse ante diluvium, sed primum esse coepisse post diluvium. Hoc significasse videtur Glossa Interlinearis in Caput secundum Geneseos, super illa verba: Non enim pluerat Dominus Deus super terram. Id certe Alcuinum sensisse refert hoc loco Carthusianus. Nec iuxta eam opinionem non etiam fuisse videtur Chrysostomus, Iridem appellans miraculum. At cur miraculum? non aliam certe ob causam, quam quod, cum ante diluvium nunquam apparuisset, coeperit apparere post diluvium, Deo eam statuente signum non futuri diluvii? Verba Chrysostomi sic habent: Etiamsi immensa vis imbrium violentaeque fiant tempestates, et si aquarum immensa exsistat inundatio, nullus tamen nobis diluvii metus accidat, ad miraculum (hoc est, Iridem signum divini promissi) respicientibus.

The second question arises: how Iris can be a sign of a flood never to come, since Iris had often existed before the Noachic flood, and was not then a sign of no future flood — otherwise it would have been a false sign, namely with a contrary outcome: similarly, therefore, neither after that flood could it be a sign of no other flood to come. Some answer that neither rains nor Iris existed before the flood, but first began after the flood. This the Interlinear Gloss seems to signify on the second chapter of Genesis, upon those words, “For the Lord God had not rained upon the earth.” That Alcuin certainly thought this, the Carthusian reports in this place. Nor does Chrysostom seem to be against that opinion, calling Iris a miracle. But why a miracle? for no other cause, certainly, than that, since before the flood it had never appeared, it began to appear after the flood, God establishing it as a sign of no future flood? Chrysostom's words are thus: “Even if an immense force of showers and violent tempests should arise, and if an immense inundation of waters should occur, yet let no fear of a flood befall us, looking to the miracle (that is, Iris, the sign of the divine promise).”⁶

VERUM qui huius sententiae fuerint auctores, non laboro; ea certe nullam fidem habet. Etenim contra naturalem cursum et ordinem naturae est, toto eo tempore quod praecessit diluvium (videlicet per annos mille sexcentos quinquaginta sex) nullam fuisse pluviam, nec unquam apparuisse Iridem: cum post diluvium nullo anno, et quidem saepius, non apparuerit. Naturale namque est Soli ex aquis et terra vapores extrahere et in mediam aëris regionem extollere; naturale est vapores illuc sublatos, et suo et loci frigore, in nubes cogi ac densari; naturale est ex densatis nubibus imbres gigni et in terras delabi; denique naturale est in nubibus modice densis atque humidis, et adversi Solis fulgore percussis, Iridem generari: hunc igitur naturalem et perpetuum naturae processum atque ordinem toto eo tempore quod praecessit diluvium non fuisse, incredibile est. Quorsum enim Deus hunc naturae ordinem toto eo tempore impedivisset? quorsum tam magno ac diuturno miraculo naturalem Iridis ac pluviae generationem prohibuisset?

But who were the authors of this opinion, I do not trouble myself; it certainly has no credibility. For it is against the natural course and order of nature that, in all that time which preceded the flood (namely through one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years), there was no rain, nor did Iris ever appear — since after the flood there was no year (and indeed often [within a year]) that it did not appear. For it is natural for the Sun to draw vapors from the waters and the earth and to raise them into the middle region of the air; it is natural that the vapors raised thither be forced and condensed into clouds by their own cold and that of the place; it is natural that from condensed clouds showers be generated and fall to the earth; finally, it is natural that in clouds moderately dense and moist, and struck by the brightness of the opposing Sun, Iris be generated: that this natural and perpetual process and order of nature did not exist in all that time which preceded the flood, is incredible. For to what end would God have impeded this order of nature throughout all that time? to what end would He have prohibited the natural generation of Iris and rain by so great and long-lasting a miracle?⁷

DEINDE, si tanto tempore nulli fuissent imbres, omnia profecto in terris nimia siccitate inaruissent atque interiissent. An saepe non vidimus hoc nostro saeculo, et in superiorum temporum monumentis legimus, ubi duorum aut trium annorum fuit penuria imbrium, ibi homines et animalia (ne quid de stirpibus dicam) tum fame tum morbis magnam partem interiisse? Aiunt isti vice imbrium id temporis fuisse fontes et flumina quae statis temporibus supereffluentia, ad similitudinem Nili, terras irrigabant ac fecundabant. Sed quaerendum ex istis esset an talis exundatio aquarum naturalis fuerit, sicut est in Nilo: si fuit naturalis, cur igitur nunc non fit? praeter Nilum enim et unum aut alterum fluvium — id est (secundum aliquos) vel Euphratem vel Gangem — in aliis eiusmodi inundatio non cernitur. Si non fuit naturalis, certe nulla ratio reddi potest cur Deus, omissa naturali via refrigerandi terras per imbres, tanto miraculo exundantium terrestrium aquarum tamdiu uti voluerit.

Next, if for so long a time there had been no rains, all things on earth would assuredly have withered and perished from too great drought. Have we not often seen in our own age, and read in the records of former times, that where there was a scarcity of rains for two or three years, there men and animals (to say nothing of plants) perished in great part both from famine and from diseases? These men say that in place of rains there were at that time springs and rivers which, overflowing at fixed times, after the likeness of the Nile, irrigated and fertilized the lands. But it would have to be asked of these men whether such an overflowing of waters was natural, as it is in the Nile: if it was natural, why then does it not now happen? for besides the Nile and one or another river — that is (according to some) either the Euphrates or the Ganges — no such inundation is seen in others. If it was not natural, certainly no reason can be given why God, omitting the natural way of cooling the lands by rains, should have wished for so long to use so great a miracle of overflowing terrestrial waters.⁸

Nos igitur ad propositam quaestionem brevissime respondeamus, Iridem non esse signum naturale non venturi diluvii, sed tantum ex Dei voluntate, qui post diluvium Noëticum, cum promissi sui de non futuro diluvio signum aliquod dare vellet hominibus possetque quodlibet aliud adhibere, prae ceteris tamen ad id delegit Iridem. Ergo Iris non ex natura, sed ex Dei voluntate ac decreto, vim habet significandi nunquam futurum diluvium. Verum hac de re proprie ac plene in ea quae proxime hanc sequitur quaestione disputandum est.

We, therefore, briefly answer the proposed question: that Iris is not a natural sign of a flood not to come, but only by God's will — who, after the Noachic flood, when He wished to give men some sign of His promise about no future flood, and could have employed any other thing whatever, nevertheless chose Iris before others for that. Therefore Iris has the force of signifying that a flood will never come, not from nature, but from God's will and decree. But about this matter we must dispute properly and fully in the question which next follows this.⁹

TERTIA quaestio: an Iris sit naturale signum diluvii? Respondeo, Iridem naturale signum diluvii nec esse nec esse posse. Atque id quidem tali argumentatione concludi potest. Si Iris est naturale signum diluvii, aut esset signum futuri diluvii, aut non futuri, aut futuri et non futuri, aut neque futuri neque non futuri. Non potest esse signum naturale futuri diluvii: tum quia generale diluvium non potest fieri ex causis naturalibus, sed tantum per Dei omnipotentiam (quare Iris non potest esse naturale signum eius); tum etiam quia Deus promisit nunquam deinceps futurum diluvium, eiusque promissi sui Iridem voluit esse signum: quomodo igitur eadem Iris esse potest secundum naturam suam signum futuri diluvii, et secundum institutionem Dei signum etiam non futuri?

Third question: is Iris a natural sign of a flood? I answer that Iris neither is nor can be a natural sign of a flood. And this indeed can be concluded by such argumentation. If Iris is a natural sign of a flood, it would be either a sign of a future flood, or of no future flood, or of a future and not-future, or of neither future nor not-future. It cannot be a natural sign of a future flood: both because a general flood cannot come about from natural causes, but only by God's omnipotence (wherefore Iris cannot be a natural sign of it); and also because God promised that there would never thereafter be a flood, and willed Iris to be the sign of His promise — how, therefore, can the same Iris be, according to its nature, a sign of a future flood, and according to God's institution a sign also of no future flood?¹⁰

NEQUE Iris est naturale signum non futuri diluvii: tum quod, cum ea saepissime fuerit ante Noëticum diluvium, nihilominus tamen diluvium evenit; tum etiam quod, si secundum suam naturam signum esset non futuri diluvii, supervacuum et incongruum fuisset eam a Deo constitui tanquam novum quoddam signum non futuri diluvii. His accedit diluvium generale non esse effectum naturalem sed supernaturalem; et fieri aut non fieri diluvium omnino pendet ex Dei voluntate; non igitur eius rei naturale signum Iris esse potest. Dicere autem Iridem esse signum diluvii et futuri et non futuri, non modo falsum, sed impossibile et absurdum est: idem enim manens idem, ut docent Philosophi, non potest aut facere aut significare contraria. Restat igitur ut Iris nec futuri diluvii neque non futuri diluvii sit naturale signum, id est, non sit naturale signum Diluvii: atque hoc demonstrare propositum nobis ab initio fuerat.

Nor is Iris a natural sign of no future flood: both because, though it existed very often before the Noachic flood, nevertheless the flood came; and also because, if according to its nature it were a sign of no future flood, it would have been superfluous and incongruous for it to be established by God as a kind of new sign of no future flood. To this is added that a general flood is not a natural effect but a supernatural one, and whether a flood comes about or not depends entirely on God's will; not, therefore, can Iris be a natural sign of that thing. And to say that Iris is a sign of a flood both future and not-future is not only false, but impossible and absurd: for the same thing remaining the same, as the Philosophers teach, cannot either do or signify contraries. It remains, therefore, that Iris is a natural sign neither of a future flood nor of no future flood — that is, that it is not a natural sign of a Flood: and this it had been our purpose from the beginning to demonstrate.¹¹

QUARTA quaestio: ut Iris non sit simpliciter naturale signum non futuri diluvii, quaeri tamen potest utrum aliquo modo sit naturale signum, habens scilicet naturalem quandam convenientiam cum eo ad quod significandum constituta est a Deo. Esse aliquo modo naturale signum non futuri diluvii sentit B. Thomas, Quodlibet 2 Art. 30, idemque opinatur Caietanus hoc loco. Id autem sic illi probant: causa generans Iridem excludit necessario causam generatricem diluvii; ergo Iris signum est non futuri diluvii: cum enim Iris apparet in aëre, non est aër ita affectus et praeparatus ut esse oportet ad generationem diluvii; siquidem ad efficiendum diluvium necesse est caelum usquequaque densissimis nubibus esse obductum et immensa vaporum copia confertum: tunc autem nullo modo Iris generari potest, quippe cum eius capax non sit nisi nubes modice densa et humida et (ut vocant) roscida. Cum igitur apparente Iride affectio aut dispositio aëris contraria sit futuro diluvio, recte sequitur apparitionem Iridis esse signum non futuri diluvii.

Fourth question: although Iris is not simply a natural sign of no future flood, it can nevertheless be asked whether it is in some way a natural sign — having, namely, a certain natural agreement with that for the signifying of which it was established by God. That it is in some way a natural sign of no future flood St. Thomas thinks (Quodlibet 2, Art. 30), and the same Cajetan opines in this place. And they prove it thus: the cause generating Iris necessarily excludes the cause generating a flood; therefore Iris is a sign of no future flood: for when Iris appears in the air, the air is not so affected and prepared as it must be for the generation of a flood; since to produce a flood it is necessary that the sky be everywhere overcast with thickest clouds and crammed with an immense abundance of vapors: but then Iris can in no way be generated, since nothing is capable of it except a cloud moderately dense and moist and (as they call it) dewy. Since, therefore, when Iris appears the disposition of the air is contrary to a future flood, it rightly follows that the appearance of Iris is a sign of no future flood.¹²

Non est tamen Iris signum nunquam futuri diluvii, sed non futuri de propinquo et cito: nam vanescente Iride, et causa quae eam generat atque continet dissoluta, potest in aëre congregari materia unde fiat diluvium; sed quia ea materia non potest brevi tempore congregari, idcirco licet Iris non sit signum nunquam futuri diluvii, est tamen signum non futuri de propinquo. Quanquam, inquit Caietanus, ex promissione Dei revelata nobis in Sacris litteris certum est nullo saeculo futurum: promisit enim Deus Noë in omni generatione apparituram Iridem futuramque signum non futuri diluvii: ergo si Iris apparens signum est non futuri tunc diluvii, apparebit autem secundum promissionem Dei in omni generatione, ergo in nulla generatione usque ad finem mundi erit diluvium, et Iris — non una quidem nec semel apparens, sed omni saeculo — futurum signum est nunquam futuri diluvii. Addunt praeterea isti, cum diluvium generale non possit fieri naturaliter sed per supernaturalem Dei potentiam, promittere Deum non esse futurum diluvium non aliud esse quam promittere se deinceps gubernaturum mundum secundum naturalem cursum eius atque ordinem, secundum quem diluvium non potest effici, nec usurum se extraordinaria sua potentia ad efficiendum diluvium. Atque haec est istorum auctorum sententia, quam sequi videtur Paulus Burgensis hoc loco.

Iris, however, is not a sign of a flood never to come, but of one not to come near at hand and soon: for, Iris vanishing and the cause which generates and contains it being dissolved, the matter whence a flood may come can be gathered in the air; but because that matter cannot be gathered in a short time, therefore, although Iris is not a sign of a flood never to come, it is nevertheless a sign of one not to come soon. Although, says Cajetan, from God's promise revealed to us in the Sacred letters it is certain that there will be none in any age: for God promised Noah that Iris would appear in every generation and would be a sign of no flood to come: therefore if Iris appearing is a sign of no flood then to come, but it will appear, according to God's promise, in every generation, therefore in no generation up to the end of the world will there be a flood, and Iris — appearing not once nor a single time, but in every age — is a sign of a flood never to come. These men add besides that, since a general flood cannot come about naturally but by the supernatural power of God, for God to promise that a flood will not come is nothing other than to promise that He will thereafter govern the world according to its natural course and order, according to which a flood cannot be produced, and that He will not use His extraordinary power to produce a flood. And this is the opinion of those authors, which Paul of Burgos seems to follow in this place.¹³

VERUM ea opinio posset his argumentis confutari. Argumentantur isti Iridem naturale signum esse non cito venturi diluvii, quod causa generans Iridem omnino excludat causam generatricem diluvii, hoc est, maximam vaporum in aëre copiam et immensam vim pluviarum. Haec argumentatio valida esset, si magna copia vaporum in aëre maximaque vis imbrium necessaria esset causa generandi diluvii, ut sine tali causa generale diluvium nullo modo esse posset: at id verum non est. Etenim diluvium non est opus naturae, sed omnipotentiae Dei, qui potest et per pluvias et sine pluviis diluvium efficere. Quanquam enim ad efficiendum Noëticum diluvium concurrit immensa vis pluviarum per quadraginta dies, sine ea tamen potuisset Deus facere diluvium, aquas marinas aliasque terrestres in tantum multiplicando et exaggerando ut omnem terram, etiam celsissimos eius montes, operirent. Nonne in exordio mundi ita creavit aquam, nullis vel pluviis vel nubibus antecedentibus, ut ea universam terram altissime obrueret? Ergo si Deus potest generale diluvium facere sine praeparatione vaporum in aëre et sine concursu imbrium, apparitio Iridis non potest esse naturale signum non futuri cito diluvii.

But that opinion could be confuted by these arguments. These men argue that Iris is a natural sign of a flood not to come soon, because the cause generating Iris altogether excludes the cause generating a flood — that is, the greatest abundance of vapors in the air and an immense force of rains. This argument would be valid if a great abundance of vapors in the air and the greatest force of showers were a necessary cause for generating a flood, so that without such a cause a general flood could in no way exist: but that is not true. For a flood is not the work of nature, but of God's omnipotence, who can produce a flood both by rains and without rains. For although for producing the Noachic flood an immense force of rains for forty days concurred, yet without it God could have made a flood, by so multiplying and heaping up the waters of the sea and other terrestrial waters that they would cover the whole earth, even its highest mountains. Did He not at the beginning of the world so create water, with no rains or clouds preceding, that it overwhelmed the whole earth most deeply? Therefore, if God can make a general flood without the preparation of vapors in the air and without the concurrence of showers, the appearance of Iris cannot be a natural sign of no flood to come soon.¹⁴

SED esto, immensa vis vaporum in aëre et imbrium sit necessario requisita ad generandum diluvium: non tamen ex hoc concluditur quod isti volunt obtinere. Namque omnem istam materiam necessariam generando diluvio potest Deus subito, vel certe quam brevissimo tempore, congregare et in aëre comparare ad generationem diluvii: quamvis igitur hodie (exempli causa) appareat Iris, et idcirco non sit in aëre materia qua opus est ad generationem diluvii, potest ea tamen vel post unam horam per omnipotentiam Dei in aëre poni; quod si fieret (ut fieri potest) Iris apparens hodie non esset naturale signum non futuri cito, vel etiam non futuri hodie diluvii.

But suppose an immense force of vapors in the air and of showers be necessarily required to generate a flood: yet from this is not concluded what these men wish to obtain. For all that matter necessary for generating a flood God can suddenly — or at least in the briefest time — gather and prepare in the air for the generation of a flood: although, therefore, today (for example) Iris should appear, and therefore there be not in the air the matter needed for the generation of a flood, yet it can, even after one hour, by God's omnipotence be set in the air; and if this were to happen (as it can happen), Iris appearing today would not be a natural sign of a flood not to come soon, or even not to come today.¹⁵

IAM vero illud Caietani dictum non fugit reprehensionem. Ait, quia Deus promisit omni futura generatione apparituram Iridem quae excludit materiam generationis diluvii, inde sequi Iridem fore signum naturale nullo saeculo venturi diluvii. Equidem non satis assequor haec ratio Caietani quam vim habeat. Vocabulum Generationis in scriptura significat spatium multorum annorum: vel enim significat idem quod saeculum, id est, spatium centum annorum, ut hoc libro Geneseos capite 15; vel aetatem cuiusque hominis totumque eius vitae tempus, quod definivit David septuaginta vel octoginta annis, auctor vero libri Ecclesiastici centum annis; vel significat spatium decem annorum, qua significatione usus videtur Baruch capite sexto; vel denique, ut multis visum est sacrarum literarum explanatoribus, nonnunquam significat aetatem hominis idoneam maturamque generandae proli, quae plurimum minor non est quindecim annis. Quocunque igitur modo sumatur vocabulum Generationis, semper eo denotatur spatium multorum annorum.

Now indeed that saying of Cajetan does not escape reprehension. He says that, because God promised that in every future generation Iris would appear, which excludes the matter of the generation of a flood, thence it follows that Iris will be a natural sign of a flood coming in no age. I, for my part, do not sufficiently grasp what force this reasoning of Cajetan has. The word “Generation” in scripture signifies a space of many years: for either it signifies the same as “age” [saeculum], that is, a space of a hundred years, as in this book of Genesis, chapter 15; or the age of each man and the whole time of his life, which David defined as seventy or eighty years, but the author of the book of Ecclesiasticus as a hundred; or it signifies a space of ten years, in which signification Baruch in the sixth chapter seems to have used it; or finally, as it has seemed to many expositors of the sacred letters, it sometimes signifies the age of man fit and mature for begetting offspring, which is for the most part not less than fifteen years. In whatever way, therefore, the word “Generation” is taken, there is always denoted by it a space of many years.¹⁶

Hoc posito, Caietani ratio plane iacet: nihil enim prohibet, cum generatio significet spatium multorum annorum, eadem generatione et apparere Iridem et fieri diluvium. Exempli causa, contineat generatio decem vel plures annos, et primo anno huius generationis appareat Iris; quid quaeso vetat, postquam defierit apparitio Iridis, post duos aut tres annos paulatim cogi materiam vaporum in aëre unde generatur diluvium? Non igitur, quia Iris apparitura est in omni generatione, idcirco naturale signum est non futurum in ea generatione diluvium. Et quis obsecro credat ea generatione vel saeculo quo Noëticum diluvium factum est, nunquam apparuisse Iridem? Sed pergamus ad alia.

This being laid down, Cajetan's reasoning plainly falls: for nothing prevents, since “generation” signifies a space of many years, that in the same generation Iris both appear and a flood come about. For example, let a generation contain ten or more years, and in the first year of this generation let Iris appear; what, I ask, forbids that, after the appearance of Iris has ceased, after two or three years the matter of vapors be gradually gathered in the air whence a flood is generated? Not, therefore, because Iris is to appear in every generation, is it on that account a natural sign that there will be no flood in that generation. And who, I beseech, would believe that in that generation or age in which the Noachic flood happened, Iris never appeared? But let us pass on to other matters.¹⁷

QUINTA quaestio: an Iris signum sit non futuri diluvii omnino voluntarium, et (ut vocant) ad placitum? Esse omnino signum ad placitum — scilicet quod ex sola Dei voluntate atque institutione significandi vim habeat — sensit Lyranus, et in Postilla huius loci scriptum reliquit: cuius sententiae confirmatio confutatio est superiorum. Si enim Iris est signum divini pacti de non futuro diluvio, ut scriptura testatur, nec est signum aut simpliciter aut aliquo modo naturale, ut supra ostensum est, relinquitur signum esse tantummodo voluntarium et ad placitum. Licet igitur Iris fuerit ante Noëticum diluvium, non fuit tamen tunc signum, sed post, quia Dei promissum et pactum de non futuro diluvio (cuius signum ipse voluit esse Iridem) non ante Noëticum diluvium, sed post, factum est. Nec videri cuiquam debet incongruum Iridem, quae res est naturalis et ab exordio usque mundi fuerat, signum fieri rei novae ac voluntariae, quale est promissum ac pactum Dei: id enim frequenter usu venit in rebus humanis. Exempli causa, saxum quod aliquo loco diu iacuit immobile statuitur ab hominibus tanquam signum divisionis agrorum et possessionum.

Fifth question: is Iris a sign of no future flood altogether voluntary and (as they call it) at will [ad placitum]? That it is altogether a sign at will — namely, which has the force of signifying from God's will and institution alone — Lyra thought, and left written in his Postill on this place: the confirmation of which opinion is the refutation of the foregoing. For if Iris is a sign of the divine pact about no future flood, as scripture testifies, and is not a sign either simply or in any way natural, as was shown above, it remains that it is a sign only voluntary and at will. Although, therefore, Iris existed before the Noachic flood, it was not then a sign, but afterward, because God's promise and pact about no future flood (of which He willed Iris to be the sign) was made not before the Noachic flood but after. Nor ought it to seem incongruous to anyone that Iris — which is a natural thing and had existed from the very beginning of the world — should be made a sign of a new and voluntary thing, such as is the promise and pact of God: for this frequently comes about in human affairs. For example, a rock which has long lain immovable in some place is established by men as a sign of the division of fields and possessions.¹⁸

SENTENTIAE Lyrani subscribit Tostatus, insuper addens: cum duplex sit diluvium, unum particulare alicuius loci vel provinciae, alterum generale totius orbis, Iridem in aëre apparentem naturale signum esse non venturi cito diluvii particularis in eo loco: affectio enim aëris qua constat Iris excludit affectionem eiusdem necessariam generando diluvio particulari, materia vero generando particulari diluvio sufficiens non potest brevi tempore cogi et comparari. Verum hoc intelligi debet de naturali generatione diluvii particularis: supernaturalis enim, quae per Dei omnipotentiam fit, longitudinem temporis minime requirit. Generale autem diluvium, cum sit effectus supernaturalis divinae omnipotentiae, eius nullo modo Iridem esse signum naturale sed ad placitum, Tostatus assentitur Lyrano, eius ratione persuasus. Haec igitur ab aliis prodita sunt in hac disputatione.

To the opinion of Lyra subscribes Tostatus, adding besides that — since a flood is twofold, one particular of some place or province, the other general of the whole world — Iris appearing in the air is a natural sign of no particular flood coming soon in that place: for the disposition of the air of which Iris consists excludes the disposition of the same necessary for generating a particular flood, and matter sufficient for generating a particular flood cannot be gathered and prepared in a short time. But this must be understood of the natural generation of a particular flood: for the supernatural one, which comes about by God's omnipotence, by no means requires length of time. But of a general flood, since it is a supernatural effect of the divine omnipotence, that Iris is in no way a natural sign of it but [a sign] at will, Tostatus assents to Lyra, persuaded by his reasoning. These things, then, have been handed down by others in this disputation.¹⁹

QUOD si nostram quoque nosse avet lector sententiam, brevi sic habeat. Videri nobis Iridem simpliciter quidem non esse signum naturale, quodammodo autem et (ut aiunt) secundum quid et esse et dici debere. Non esse simpliciter signum naturale, praeter superiora argumenta, patet hac etiam ratione. Iris per se ac primo non est a Deo constituta ut sit signum diluvii non venturi, sed ut sit signum foederis inter Deum et hominem: nusquam enim scriptura appellavit Iridem signum non venturi diluvii, semper autem appellat signum divini foederis ac pacti. Sed quia illud Dei pactum fuit de non venturo iterum [diluvio]…

But if the reader desires to know our opinion also, let him have it briefly thus. It seems to us that Iris simply is not a natural sign, but in a certain way and (as they say) in a certain respect [secundum quid] both is and ought to be called [one]. That it is not simply a natural sign, besides the foregoing arguments, is plain also by this reason. Iris of itself and primarily was not established by God to be a sign of a flood not to come, but to be a sign of the covenant between God and man: for nowhere has scripture called Iris a sign of a flood not to come, but always calls it a sign of the divine covenant and pact. But because that pact of God was about no [flood] to come again…²⁰

…iterum diluvio, idcirco Iris consequenter, et (ut dicunt) secundario signum est diluvii non venturi. Est igitur signum et foederis divini et non futuri diluvii: sed horum utrunque voluntarium est et ex beneplacito Dei omnino pendens: de foedere enim et pacto non potest esse dubium; de diluvio autem supra ostensum est: nam cum generale diluvium opus naturae esse nequeat sed solius Dei omnipotentiae, ipsum fieri vel non fieri in sola Dei voluntate positum est.

…flood, therefore Iris consequently, and (as they say) secondarily, is a sign of a flood not to come. It is, therefore, a sign both of the divine covenant and of no future flood: but each of these is voluntary and altogether dependent on God's good pleasure: for about the covenant and pact there can be no doubt; and about the flood it was shown above: for since a general flood cannot be the work of nature but of God's omnipotence alone, its happening or not happening is placed in God's will alone.²¹

QUOD autem Iris aliquo modo sit etiam naturale signum diluvii, ex paucis quae subiiciam manifestum erit. Fere signa quibus Deus usus est, vel ad significandum aliquid vel ad memoriam alicuius rei excitandam, naturalem quandam convenientiam et similitudinem habent cum his rebus quibus significandis et repraesentandis destinata sunt: exempli causa, Circumcisionem Deus dedit Abrahae et posteris eius ut signum esset promissionis suae de infinita multiplicatione seminis eius et possessione terrae Chanaan; habet autem Circumcisio naturalem congruentiam cum promisso Dei: multiplicatio enim seminis fieri debebat per carnalem generationem, cui generationi efficiendae deservit maxime ea pars nostri corporis in qua Deus Circumcisionem fieri praecepit. Idem possum dicere de Sacramentis novae legis: nempe aqua Baptismalis, etsi secundum suam naturam non habet vim abluendi peccata, habet tamen vim abluendi corpora, refrigerandi atque fecundandi, quibus rebus repraesentat spiritualem Baptismi effectum quem ipsa quoque producit, Dei verbo consecrata. Ad hunc igitur modum Iris etiam naturalem habet convenientiam cum eo quod ex institutione Dei significat: est namque secundum naturam suam aliis rebus omnibus habilior et accommodata magis ad praesignandum id propter quod instituta est; alioqui non eam prae ceteris ad id delegisset Deus.

And that Iris in some way is also a natural sign of a flood will be manifest from a few things which I subjoin. Generally the signs which God has used, whether to signify something or to excite the memory of some thing, have a certain natural agreement and similitude with the things for the signifying and representing of which they are destined: for example, God gave Circumcision to Abraham and his posterity that it might be a sign of His promise about the infinite multiplication of his seed and the possession of the land of Canaan; and Circumcision has a natural congruity with God's promise, for the multiplication of the seed had to come about by carnal generation, for the effecting of which generation that part of our body in which God commanded Circumcision to be done especially serves. I can say the same of the Sacraments of the new law: namely, baptismal water, although according to its nature it has not the power of washing away sins, yet has the power of washing bodies, of cooling and fertilizing, by which things it represents the spiritual effect of Baptism which it itself also produces, consecrated by God's word. In this manner, therefore, Iris too has a natural agreement with that which by God's institution it signifies: for it is according to its nature more fit than all other things and more accommodated to presignifying that for which it was instituted; otherwise God would not have chosen it before others for that.²²

SED quae est ista naturalis congruentia et habilitas Iridis? Sane magna et multiplex. Primum, quod ob eius insignem magnitudinem, ob eximiam pulchritudinem, et ob celsitudinem loci quo apparet, omnibus conspicua est maximeque notabilis, ob idque signum potens et efficax protinus excitandi in hominum animis divini foederis et promissi memoriam, eamque subinde renovandi et perpetuo custodiendi. Deinde, quia in nubibus generatur et apparet, et quia ex nubibus et pluviis Noëticum diluvium magna ex parte provenit, providentissime Deus voluit Iridem quae in nubibus est signum homini esse non venturi diluvii, ut inde metus discuteretur unde generatio diluvii timeri poterat. Ad haec, Iris fere signum esse solet aut futurae serenitatis, aut non magnae nec diuturnae pluviae: quamobrem, quod attinet ad causas naturales, certum signum est, ubi apparet, ibi diluvium naturaliter et cito fieri non posse. Dixi (naturaliter) quod secundum Dei omnipotentiam, cuius opus est generale diluvium, et sine ulla praeparatione concursuque naturalium causarum, et subito diluvium potest effici.

But what is that natural congruity and aptitude of Iris? Indeed great and manifold. First, that on account of its remarkable magnitude, its extraordinary beauty, and the loftiness of the place where it appears, it is conspicuous to all and most notable, and on that account a sign powerful and effective to excite immediately in men's minds the memory of the divine covenant and promise, and thereafter to renew and perpetually keep it. Next, because it is generated and appears in the clouds, and because the Noachic flood arose in great part from clouds and rains, most providently God willed that Iris, which is in the clouds, be a sign to man of no flood to come, that thence fear might be dispelled whence the generation of a flood could be feared. Besides, Iris is generally wont to be a sign either of future fair weather, or of no great nor long-lasting rain: wherefore, as regards natural causes, it is a sure sign that, where it appears, there a flood cannot naturally and soon come about. I said (naturally) because, according to God's omnipotence, whose work a general flood is, a flood can be produced even without any preparation and concurrence of natural causes, and suddenly.²³

QUAESTIO Sexta: si Iris non est signum naturale diluvii aut nunquam aut non cito futuri, quarum igitur rerum naturaliter naturale signum est? Est ne serenitatis an pluviae, ventorum an tranquillitatis caeli? Plinius eam nullius rei certum vult esse signum, ita scribens: Arcus vocamus extra miraculum frequentes et extra ostentum: nam ne pluvios quidem aut serenos dies cum fide portendunt. Idem tamen alio loco scribit Iridem, cum duplex apparet, pluviarum esse nuntiam: Arcus, inquit, cum sunt duplices, pluviam nuntiant; a pluviis serenitatem non perinde certam.

Sixth question: if Iris is a natural sign of a flood neither ever nor soon to come, of what things, then, is it naturally a natural sign? Is it of fair weather or of rain, of winds or of the tranquility of the sky? Pliny holds it to be a sure sign of nothing, writing thus: “We call rainbows frequent beyond marvel and beyond portent: for they do not even foretell rainy or fair days reliably.” Yet the same in another place writes that Iris, when it appears double, is a herald of rains: “Rainbows,” he says, “when they are double, announce rain: fair weather after rains not equally certainly.”²⁴

AT enim Seneca docet, prout varia in caeli regione Iris apparuerit, ita res varias portendere. Arcus, inquit, non easdem, undecunque apparuerit, minas affert: a meridie ortus magnam vim aquarum vehet; vinci enim non poterunt vehementissimo Sole, tantum est illis virium. Si circa Occasum refulsit, tonabit et leviter impluet: si ab Ortu circa surrexerit, serena portendit. Frequentius tamen est post pluvias apparere arcum, ex quo consecuturae indicia serenitatis non vana possunt colligi, scilicet ex tempestatum vicissitudine. Sed cur post pluvias frequentius apparent? quia tunc nubes plus habent lucis et idoneae magis sunt ad Solis lucem concipiendam, crassitudine aquarum exonerata.

But Seneca teaches that, according as Iris has appeared in a varied region of the sky, so it portends various things. “The rainbow,” he says, “does not bring the same threats, from wherever it appears: risen from the south, it will bring a great force of waters, for they cannot be overcome by the most vehement Sun, so much strength have they. If it has shone near the West, it will thunder and lightly rain; if it has risen near the East, it portends fair weather.” Yet more frequently the rainbow appears after rains, from which not vain indications of the fair weather to follow can be gathered, namely from the vicissitude of weathers. But why do they appear more frequently after rains? because then the clouds have more light and are more fit for receiving the Sun's light, being unburdened of the thickness of the waters.²⁵

LEGI apud quosdam minime spernendos auctores, pro vero narrari a nautis et agricolis, tanquam rem diligenter ab ipsis observatam, matutinam Iridem pluvias, vespertinam portendere serenitatem. Cuius rei illa fortasse causa est, quod matutinus arcus, nocturni humoris plenior, quasi vas sit futurae pluviae propter vapores crassiores; vespertinus autem, tanquam magnam partem humore per diem exoneratus, fereniorem promittat sequentis diei tempestatem.

I have read in certain by no means contemptible authors that it is related as true by sailors and farmers, as a thing diligently observed by them, that a morning rainbow portends rains, an evening one fair weather. Of which thing perhaps this is the cause: that a morning bow, fuller of nocturnal moisture, is as it were a vessel of future rain on account of the thicker vapors; but an evening one, as having unburdened a great part of its moisture during the day, promises a fairer weather for the following day.²⁶

MIRAS porro virtutes miraque Iridis effecta auctores cum primis graves memoriae ac literis prodiderunt. Aetate Aristotelis vulgo ferebatur Iride plantis incubante odoratiores reddi eas: quod an verum sit, et quando aut quomodo verum sit, disputat ipse in Problematibus. Plinius certe scribit aspalathum contactu Iridis suaviolentiorem reddi: Est, inquit, Aspalathus spina candida, magnitudine arboris modica, flore rosae, radice unguentis expetita. Tradunt in quocunque frutice curvetur arcus caelestis, eandem quae sit aspalatho suavitatem odoris exsistere, sed in aspalatho inenarrabilem quandam. Idem alio loco: Terra, inquit, cum a siccitate continua immaduit imbre in quam arcus caelestis deiecerit capita sua, tunc emittit illum suum halitum divinum ex Sole conceptum, cui comparari suavitas nulla possit. Aristoteles praeterea tradit ad generationem mellis aërei (hoc recentiores appellant manna, veteres autem mel roris nominarunt) multum conferre Iridem. Verum de his satis. Et quanquam huiusmodi tractatio philosophiae magis videtur propria quam divinae scripturae, quia tamen facit tum ad nonnullam loci huius illustrationem, tum ad eruditionem eorum qui student sacris literis, eam velut in transcursu attigisse non alienum fuerit.

Moreover, authors of the first gravity have handed down to memory and to letters the marvelous powers and marvelous effects of Iris. In Aristotle's age it was commonly reported that, Iris brooding upon plants, they were made more fragrant: whether this is true, and when or in what way it is true, he himself disputes in the Problems. Pliny certainly writes that aspalathus is made sweeter-smelling by the touch of Iris: “Aspalathus,” he says, “is a white thorn, of moderate tree-size, with a rose-colored flower, its root sought for unguents. They relate that on whatever shrub the heavenly bow is bent, the same sweetness of odor as is in aspalathus exists, but in aspalathus a certain indescribable one.” The same in another place: “The earth,” he says, “when from continuous drought it has been moistened by a shower upon which the heavenly bow has cast its ends, then sends forth that its divine breath conceived from the Sun, to which no sweetness can be compared.” Aristotle besides relates that Iris contributes much to the generation of aerial honey (this the moderns call manna, but the ancients named honey of dew). But enough of these. And although treatment of this kind seems more proper to philosophy than to divine scripture, yet because it makes both for some illustration of this place and for the erudition of those who study the sacred letters, it will not be amiss to have touched on it, as it were, in passing.²⁷

QUAESTIO Septima: an verum sit quod a nonnullis viris sanctis fertur esse proditum, per quadraginta annos ante generalem mundi conflagrationem et diem Iudicii nunquam apparituram esse in caelo Iridem. Auctor historiae Scholasticae commemorat eam opinionem his verbis: Tradunt sancti quod quadraginta annis ante Iudicium non videbitur arcus caelestis: id quod etiam naturaliter ostendet desiccationem aeris iam esse inceptam. Sic ille. Sed qui fuerint illi viri sancti eius sententiae auctores, nondum potui vel coniectura vel suspicione aliqua consequi. Sane apud nullum sanctorum Patrum quorum habemus scripta talis opinio vel ulla eius mentio reperitur. Sed quorum illa fuerit sententia, non moror: falsam esse sine dubitatione dixerim. Principio, fundamentum et firmamentum istius opinionis videtur illud fuisse, generalem orbis deflagrationem non posse fieri nisi praecedente summa aëris siccitate et immensa siccarum exhalationum copia: tantum vero materiae siccae quantum opus est ad generationem illius incendii, non nisi longissimo tempore, nec minore (ut visum ipsis est) quadraginta annis comparari posse.

Seventh question: whether it is true, what is reported by some holy men to have been handed down, that for forty years before the general conflagration of the world and the day of Judgment Iris will never appear in the sky. The Author of the Scholastic History records that opinion in these words: “The saints relate that forty years before the Judgment the heavenly bow will not be seen: which will also naturally show that the desiccation of the air has now begun.” So he. But who were those holy men, the authors of that opinion, I have not yet been able to ascertain by conjecture or by any suspicion. Indeed among none of the holy Fathers whose writings we have is such an opinion, or any mention of it, found. But whose opinion it was, I do not delay over: I would say without doubt that it is false. First, the foundation and support of that opinion seems to have been this: that the general conflagration of the world cannot come about except with the highest dryness of the air preceding and an immense abundance of dry exhalations; but that so much dry matter as is needed for the generation of that fire could be procured only in a very long time, and not less (as it seemed to them) than forty years.²⁸

SED in ista ratione sumitur ut certum quod non modo est incertum, verum etiam aperte falsum, incendium illud mundi effici debere per causas naturales, cum futurum sit supernaturale opus divinae omnipotentiae, similiter ut supra dictum est de diluvio. Deinde, par videtur ratio generalis diluvii et generalis incendii: sed praeparatio materiae ad generationem diluvii brevissimo tempore praegressa est ipsum diluvium, ut ex superiori narratione Mosis in capite septimo manifestum est; ergo ista praeparatio materiae siccae ad generationem incendii per quadraginta annos non erit necessaria, quin videtur plane commentitia.

But in that reasoning it is assumed as certain what is not only uncertain, but even openly false: that that fire of the world must be produced by natural causes, since it will be a supernatural work of the divine omnipotence, similarly as was said above about the flood. Next, the reasoning of the general flood and the general fire seems equal: but the preparation of the matter for the generation of the flood preceded the flood itself by a very short time, as is manifest from the foregoing narration of Moses in the seventh chapter; therefore that preparation of dry matter for the generation of the fire through forty years will not be necessary; nay, it seems plainly fabricated.²⁹

Ad haec, si per quadraginta annos non appareret Iris, toto igitur eo tempore nec venti essent nec pluviae humectantes, refrigerantes et fecundantes terram: quocirca multis annis ante finem illorum quadraginta annorum, omnia — stirpes dico, animalia et homines — nimia siccitate perirent; aut si non penitus perirent, certe propter maximam famem, saevissimos morbos et alia incommoda quae tanta illa siccitas ferret, omnes ubique terrarum homines in summo essent merore ac dolore, gravissimisque calamitatibus conflictarentur: at multo secus eo tempore futurum ipsemet Dominus nos docuit, cuius apud Matthaeum illa sunt verba, ad eius quod diximus confirmationem pertinentia: Sicut in diebus Noë, ita erit adventus Filii hominis: sicut enim erant in diebus ante diluvium comedentes et bibentes, nubentes et nuptui tradentes, usque ad eam diem qua intravit Noë in arcam, et non cognoverunt donec venit diluvium et tulit omnes; ita erit adventus Filii hominis. Et Paulus in prioris Epistolae ad Thessalonicenses capite quinto: Dies, inquit, Domini sicut fur in nocte ita veniet. Cum enim dixerint, Pax et securitas, tunc repentinus eis superveniet interitus. Liquet igitur ex verbis Domini et Pauli eo tempore quod proxime anteibit Iudicium et finem [Mundi]…

Besides, if for forty years Iris did not appear, then in all that time there would be neither winds nor rains moistening, cooling, and fertilizing the earth: wherefore many years before the end of those forty years all things — plants, I mean, animals, and men — would perish from too great drought; or if they did not utterly perish, certainly on account of the greatest famine, the most savage diseases, and other discomforts which so great a drought would bring, all men everywhere on earth would be in the utmost grief and sorrow and would be afflicted with the gravest calamities: but that it would be far otherwise at that time the Lord Himself taught us, whose are those words in Matthew, pertaining to the confirmation of what we have said: “As in the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man: for as they were in the days before the flood, eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day in which Noah entered into the ark, and they knew not till the flood came and took them all away; so also shall be the coming of the Son of man.” And Paul, in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, chapter five: “The day of the Lord,” he says, “shall so come as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and security, then shall sudden destruction come upon them.” It is clear, therefore, from the words of the Lord and of Paul, that at the time which shall immediately precede the Judgment and the end [of the World]…³⁰

…Mundi, futuros homines in summis gaudiis, voluptatibus ac deliciis, et in maxima pace et securitate. Hic autem tam laetus et iucundus vitae status nullo modo esse posset, si tanta et tam diuturna esset aëris siccitas: ea quippe multorum ac magnorum incommodorum et calamitatum causa esset.

…the World, men will be in the highest joys, pleasures, and delights, and in the greatest peace and security. But this so glad and pleasant state of life could in no way be, if there were so great and so long-lasting a dryness of the air: for that would be the cause of many and great discomforts and calamities.³¹

QUAESTIO octava: an haec historia Iridis memorandum aliquem habeat sensum atque intellectum mysticum? Habet sane et varium et a Patribus varie ac luculenter tractatum. B. Gregorius homilia octava in Ezechielem: In arcu caelesti, ait, color partim aquae partim ignis simul ostenditur: rubicundus enim est et caeruleus, ut utriusque iudicii testis sit, unius videlicet faciendi et alterius iam facti nec amplius faciendi. Siquidem mundus in finem igni iudicii cremabitur, qui diluvii aqua olim deletus est. Declarat quoque caelestis arcus baptismum Christi, qui fit per aquam et ignem, id est, Spiritum sanctum instar ignis intima cordium purificantem et vitia consumentem, secundum illud Domini: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto, etc. Qui arcus in nube apparet, qua Salvatoris nostri caro signatur: siquidem virtus eius in dominica incarnatione et in effusione praedicationis ostenditur, ut ad veniam corda credentium Domino parcente revocentur. Sic Gregorius.

Eighth question: whether this history of Iris has any memorable mystical sense and understanding? It has indeed one both various and variously and clearly treated by the Fathers. St. Gregory, in the eighth homily on Ezekiel: “In the heavenly bow,” he says, “the color partly of water, partly of fire, is shown together: for it is reddish and blue, that it may be a witness of each judgment — namely, of the one to be made, and of the other already made and no more to be made. For the world at its end shall be burned by the fire of judgment, which was once destroyed by the water of the flood. The heavenly bow also declares the baptism of Christ, which is done by water and fire — that is, the Holy Spirit, like fire, purifying the inmost parts of hearts and consuming vices, according to that of the Lord: Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, etc. The bow which appears in the cloud, by which the flesh of our Savior is signified — since His power is shown in the Lord's incarnation and in the pouring out of preaching, that the hearts of believers may be recalled to pardon, the Lord sparing.” So Gregory.³²

IOANNES in Apocalypsi vidit thronum Dei circumdatum Iride. Iris Dei misericordiam significat; thronus, Ecclesia eius est. Thronum igitur circumdari Iride est Ecclesiam perpetua Dei misericordia protegi ac defendi. Triplex est autem haec misericordia Dei: prima, quod non finit eam tentari supra virtutem, sed facit etiam cum tentatione proventum, ut possit sustinere; et sicut B. Petrum, ita eam finit aliquandiu fluctibus rerum adversarum iactari ac pene mergi, nunquam tamen submergi. Secunda, omni tempore suscitat in ea bonos aliquos rectores, doctores, reformatores ac defensores. Tertia, nunquam finit in ea deficere sincerum Dei verbum rectamque scripturarum intelligentiam, nec legitimum Sacramentorum usum, nec purum Dei cultum. Atque haec triplex misericordia Dei erga Ecclesiam significatur triplici colore Iridis.

John in the Apocalypse saw the throne of God surrounded by Iris. Iris signifies God's mercy; the throne is His Church. For the throne to be surrounded by Iris, therefore, is for the Church to be protected and defended by the perpetual mercy of God. And this mercy of God is threefold: the first, that He does not suffer it to be tempted above its strength, but makes also with the temptation a way out, that it may be able to bear it; and as [He did] St. Peter, so He suffers it for a while to be tossed by the waves of adversities and almost to sink, yet never to be submerged. The second, that at all times He raises up in it some good rulers, teachers, reformers, and defenders. The third, that He never suffers to fail in it the sincere word of God and the right understanding of the scriptures, nor the lawful use of the Sacraments, nor the pure worship of God. And this threefold mercy of God toward the Church is signified by the threefold color of Iris.³³

DOCENT Philosophi constare Iridem triplici substantia, terrea, aquea et aërea, et inde triplicem exsistere coloris varietatem, viridis, rubri et caerulei. Hac re insinuatur amplitudo misericordiae divinae erga hominem tripliciter: quantum ad corpus, ad animam et spiritum; quantum ad homines, in statu naturae, legis Mosaicae et Evangelicae; quantum ad bona, naturalia, humana et divina; quantum ad eos qui sunt in caelo, in terris et in inferno; denique quantum ad gratiam praedestinationis ab aeterno, iustificationis in tempore, glorificationis in aeternum.

The Philosophers teach that Iris consists of a threefold substance — earthy, watery, and airy — and thence that a threefold variety of color exists: green, red, and blue. By this thing is intimated the amplitude of the divine mercy toward man in three ways: as regards the body, the soul, and the spirit; as regards men, in the state of nature, of the Mosaic law, and of the Evangelical; as regards goods, natural, human, and divine; as regards those who are in heaven, on earth, and in hell; finally, as regards the grace of predestination from eternity, of justification in time, of glorification unto eternity.³⁴

SECUNDUM alios, Iris figura est Christi: etenim nubes corpus Christi significat; triplex color triplicem eius substantiam, carnem, animam, divinitatem: vel triplicem eius supremam dignitatem quam praedixit Isaias, Regis, Iudicis, Legislatoris. Nec vacat mysterio quod Iris…

According to others, Iris is a figure of Christ: for the cloud signifies the body of Christ; the threefold color, His threefold substance — flesh, soul, divinity: or His threefold supreme dignity which Isaiah foretold, of King, Judge, Lawgiver. Nor is it without mystery that Iris…³⁵

Iris nunquam circulum complet, aut semicirculi magnitudinem excedit. Regnum nempe Christi quasi circulus est e caelo descendens in terram, et rursus e terris remeans in caelos: constatque duplici adventu Christi, priori in humilitate ad salvandum (et hic vim habet usque ad diem iudicii), posteriori in maiestate ad iudicandum, cuius effectus in omnem durabit aeternitatem. Quoniam igitur usque ad diem iudicii virtus prioris adventus viget in terris, non autem posterioris, inde fit semicirculi figura, nec est complementum circuli, qui post diem iudicii omnino complebitur. Nunc viget quasi dimidium regni Christi: nec enim dominus omnium, uti est, agnoscitur ab omnibus; nec tam regnat in corpore quam in anima; et in animo, quantum ad tollendam culpam et peccatum, non quantum ad poenam et miseriam. At vero post diem iudicii regnum Christi plane consummabitur, tunc enim dominabitur in omnibus, et quantum ad omnia, et omnium supremus esse dominus cognoscetur ab omnibus.

Iris never completes a circle, nor exceeds the magnitude of a semicircle. For the kingdom of Christ is as it were a circle descending from heaven to earth, and again from earth returning to the heavens: and it consists of the twofold advent of Christ — the former in humility for saving (and this has force up to the day of judgment), the latter in majesty for judging, whose effect will last unto all eternity. Since, therefore, up to the day of judgment the power of the former advent flourishes on earth, but not of the latter, hence comes the figure of a semicircle, and there is no completion of the circle, which after the day of judgment will be wholly completed. Now there flourishes as it were half of Christ's kingdom: for He is not acknowledged by all to be the Lord of all, as He is; nor does He reign so much in the body as in the soul; and in the soul, as regards the taking away of fault and sin, not as regards penalty and misery. But after the day of judgment the kingdom of Christ will be plainly consummated, for then He will rule over all, and in respect of all things, and will be acknowledged by all to be the supreme Lord of all.³⁶

AT enim vero supradictam expositionem quam nos inter mysticas numeravimus, Rupertus censet esse literalem, nec foedus cuius signum Deus Iridem esse voluit fuisse putat factum cum Noë et filiis eius, sed esse foedus quod Deus in lege Evangelica facit cum fidelibus in Christum credentibus, quibus promittit non solum remissionem peccatorum, verum etiam gratiam adoptionis in filios Dei et ius capescendae hereditatis aeternae. Et suae quidem sententiae duas ponit ipse rationes: unam, quod in omni foedere seu pacto esse debet utrinque ratio dati et accepti, sine qua nullum inter homines fit pactum et foedus; talem vero rationem dati et accepti inter Noë et Deum nullam apparere. Ex parte quidem Dei apparet datum, scilicet promissum eius non futuri diluvii, sed ex parte Noë nihil exstat ab eo datum vel promissum. Altera ratio eius est, quod in futuro dixit Deus, Statuam pactum meum, non in praesenti, statuo; non obscure significans pactum illud suum non ad homines illos qui tunc aderant, sed ad eos qui longe post futuri erant pertinere.

But indeed the aforesaid exposition, which we numbered among the mystical ones, Rupert judges to be literal, and thinks that the covenant of which God willed Iris to be the sign was not made with Noah and his sons, but is the covenant which God in the Evangelical law makes with the faithful believing in Christ — to whom He promises not only the remission of sins, but also the grace of adoption into the sons of God and the right of receiving the eternal inheritance. And he sets down two reasons for his opinion: one, that in every covenant or pact there ought to be on both sides a reckoning of giving and receiving, without which no pact and covenant comes about among men; but no such reckoning of giving and receiving appears between Noah and God. On God's part indeed a giving appears, namely His promise of no future flood, but on Noah's part nothing is extant given or promised by him. His other reason is that God said in the future, “I will establish my covenant,” not in the present, “I establish”; not obscurely signifying that that covenant of His pertained not to those men who were then present, but to those who would be far afterward.³⁷

VERUM totam Ruperti sententiam nisi ex verbis eius non facile comprehendet lector. Explanans igitur verba illa Dei quae sunt hoc loco, Ecce ego statuam pactum meum vobiscum et cum semine vestro post vos, ita scribit Rupertus: Quaerere hic oportet quod aut quale sit pactum hoc Dei, neque enim apparet quae ratio dati et accepti in eo fuerit: sine dato autem et accepto pactum non solet statui. Praeterea non dixit in praesenti tempore, Ecce ego statuo, sed in futuro, Ecce ego statuam pactum meum; quaerendum igitur est quale fuerit illud pactum. Dicimus quidem pactum toties promissum sed unum tamen et semel initum — pactum, inquam, unum quo solvuntur inimicitiae quae erant inter Deum et hominem — fuisse incarnationem vel passionem Domini nostri Iesu Christi. Hinc enim citra omnem contradictionem certa est constitutio pacis cum ratione dati et accepti, dum, accepta Deus fide hominum, dat hominibus Filium suum ut salventur per ipsum. Huius pacti licet plurimae praecesserint promissiones et significationes, duo tamen praecipue fuere signa: unum Iridis datum Noë, alterum circumcisionis datum Abrahae.

But the reader will not easily comprehend the whole opinion of Rupert except from his words. Explaining, therefore, those words of God which are in this place, “Behold I will establish my covenant with you and with your seed after you,” Rupert writes thus: “It must here be asked what or of what sort this covenant of God is, for there does not appear what reckoning of giving and receiving there was in it: but without giving and receiving a pact is not wont to be established. Besides, He did not say in the present time, Behold I establish, but in the future, Behold I will establish my covenant; it must therefore be asked of what sort that covenant was. We say indeed that the covenant — so often promised, but yet one, and once entered into — the one pact, I say, by which are dissolved the enmities which were between God and man — was the incarnation or passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. For hence, beyond all contradiction, there is a certain establishment of peace with the reckoning of giving and receiving, while God, having received the faith of men, gives men His Son that they may be saved through Him. Of this pact, although very many promises and significations preceded, yet there were two chief signs: one of Iris given to Noah, the other of circumcision given to Abraham.”³⁸

…Et Iris quidem propter caeruleum colorem figurat aquam baptismi quo visibiliter abluimur; propter rubrum autem colorem significat ignem Spiritus sancti quo invisibiliter peccata nostra consumuntur, ut ab utroque hominum qui perierunt genere secernamur — et ab illis qui praeterito aqua diluvio perierunt, et ab illis qui futuro ignis iudicio perituri sunt. Et Iris quidem temporarium signum est, videlicet cum nubibus et praesenti mundi statu transiturum; at spiritualis Iris, cuius illa corporalis velut umbra est, aeternum manebit ante conspectum Patris in carne filii eius, in cicatricibus vulnerum pedum, manuum et lateris eius. Unde quia Christus est pax nostra, bene hoc signum foederis (qui est arcus caelestis) Graece dicitur Iris, id est, pax: cuius causam ignorantes curiosi mundi huius philosophi dicunt Iridem fieri casualiter ex obiectu Solis cavae nubi radios suos infundentis; sed quoquo modo fiat, opus Dei est non casu sed ratione conditum, et pro signo se exhibens divinae recordationis. Haec Rupertus.

…“And Iris indeed, on account of its blue color, figures the water of baptism by which we are visibly washed; but on account of its red color it signifies the fire of the Holy Spirit by which our sins are invisibly consumed, that we may be separated from both kinds of men who perished — both from those who perished by the past water of the flood, and from those who by the future fire of judgment are to perish. And Iris indeed is a temporary sign, to pass away, namely, with the clouds and the present state of the world; but the spiritual Iris, of which that corporeal one is as it were a shadow, will remain eternally before the sight of the Father in the flesh of His Son, in the scars of the wounds of His feet, hands, and side. Whence, because Christ is our peace, well is this sign of the covenant (which is the heavenly bow) in Greek called Iris, that is, peace: the cause of which the curious philosophers of this world, being ignorant, say that Iris comes about by chance from the opposition of the Sun pouring its rays into a hollow cloud; but in whatever way it comes about, it is the work of God, established not by chance but by reason, and exhibiting itself as a sign of the divine remembrance.” Thus Rupert.³⁹

SED Ruperti sententiae non dubitabo dicere narrationem Mosis quae est hoc loco evidenter ac vehementer adversari. Scriptura enim septies inculcat hoc nono capite Deum statuisse pactum cum Noë et filiis eius et posteris eorum et cum omnibus animantibus: quomodo igitur negari potest illud Dei pactum esse constitutum cum illis hominibus, cum id toties affirmet scriptura? Quid quod pactum illud spirituale pertinens ad Christum (de quo Rupertus etiam secundum literalem sensum interpretatur hunc locum) nullo modo attingit animantes? nimirum illa nec humani nec divini pacti capacia sunt: at scriptura hoc loco ait Deum statuisse pactum etiam cum animalibus; ergo pactum illud diversum est ab eo quod exponit Rupertus.

But I will not hesitate to say that the narration of Moses which is in this place evidently and vehemently opposes Rupert's opinion. For Scripture seven times inculcates in this ninth chapter that God established a covenant with Noah and his sons and their posterity and with all living creatures: how, then, can it be denied that that covenant of God was established with those men, since Scripture so often affirms it? What of this: that that spiritual covenant pertaining to Christ (of which Rupert interprets this place even according to the literal sense) in no way concerns the living creatures? for they are capable of neither a human nor a divine covenant: but Scripture in this place says that God established a covenant even with the animals; therefore that covenant is different from the one which Rupert expounds.⁴⁰

Nec firmae sunt duae illae rationes Ruperti quibus interpretationem suam fulcire voluit. Ad priorem enim facile respondetur, vocabulum pacti ac foederis hic non presse nec proprie esse positum, prout est in usu apud homines et prout definitur a Ruperto; tale enim pactum non potest cum animalibus statui, cum tamen illud Dei pactum etiam cum animalibus legamus esse constitutum. Ponitur igitur nomen pacti ac foederis ample, ad significandum absolutam et efficacem Dei voluntatem et immutabile promissum ac decretum eius: quod quidem promissum et decretum, sicut hic appellavit pactum, sic apud Isaiam capite 54 nominavit iusiurandum: Sicut, inquit, iuravi Noë ne inducerem ultra aquas super terram — nec tamen ulla iurisiurandi species et formula hic apparet; sed voluit Deus per duas res quae apud homines sanctissimae sunt atque inviolabiles, pacta et iuramenta, certitudinem promissi et decreti sui prorsus immutabilem declarare. Posterior ratio nullius momenti est: nam etsi Latina lectio habet in futuro, Statuam pactum meum, Graeca tamen lectio habet in praesenti, statuo vel pono, Hebraea vero in praeterito, statui vel posui. Sane apud Hebraeos abusus unius temporis pro alio frequentissimus est.

Nor are those two reasons of Rupert firm, by which he wished to support his interpretation. To the former it is easily answered that the word “pact” and “covenant” is here not strictly nor properly placed, as it is in use among men and as it is defined by Rupert; for such a pact cannot be established with animals, whereas we read that that pact of God was established even with animals. The name of “pact” and “covenant” is therefore placed amply, to signify the absolute and efficacious will of God and His immutable promise and decree: which promise and decree, just as here He called a “pact,” so in Isaiah chapter 54 He named an “oath”: “As,” He says, “I swore to Noah that I would no more bring waters upon the earth” — and yet no species or formula of oath appears here; but God willed, by the two things which among men are most holy and inviolable — pacts and oaths — to declare the certainty of His promise and decree as utterly immutable. The latter reason is of no moment: for although the Latin reading has in the future, “I will establish my covenant,” the Greek reading has in the present, “I establish” or “I set,” but the Hebrew in the past, “I established” or “I set.” Indeed among the Hebrews the misuse of one tense for another is most frequent.⁴¹

ILLUD vero quod ait Rupertus, arcum caelestem Graece dici Iridem quod Latine sonat pacem, nequaquam probabitur vel iis qui primoribus labris Graecam linguam attigerunt. Pax enim Graece dicitur εἰρήνη: inter duas autem illas voces, Ἶρις et εἰρήνη, quantum sit discrimen, nemo non videt. Illud autem quod idem subdit, casualem credi a philosophis generationem Iridis, vereor ne quis forte Peripateticorum, qui in rimandis tractandisque naturalibus causis Iridis tanta cum ingenii et doctrinae laude laboraverunt, philosophico vel supercilio contemnat vel cachinno derideat.

But that which Rupert says — that the heavenly bow is in Greek called Iris, which in Latin sounds “peace” — will by no means be approved even by those who have touched the Greek language with the tips of their lips. For “peace” in Greek is called εἰρήνη: and between those two words, Ἶρις [Iris] and εἰρήνη [eirēnē], how great a difference there is, no one fails to see. And that which the same adds — that the generation of Iris is believed by the philosophers to be casual [by chance] — I fear lest perhaps some of the Peripatetics, who in investigating and treating the natural causes of Iris labored with so great praise of genius and learning, may either despise [it] with a philosophical frown, or deride [it] with laughter.⁴²

Translator’s notes

§79. Disp. 3 (eight questions). Question 1: does ‘bow’ mean the rainbow? Ambrose denies it (taking it as a figurative ‘bow’ of war). Margin: “That the bow which God set as a sign of no future flood is not the bow or rainbow of the sky.” Continues on p. 345. ↩
§79 (cont.). Ambrose's figurative reading: the ‘bow’ = God's invisible restraining power (a bow without arrows — frightening, not wounding). ↩
§80. Ambrose in his own words: the ‘bow’ is no rainbow but God's tempering power (a bow, not an arrow). Margin: Ambrose, On Noah and the Ark, ch. 17. ↩
§81. Pererius refutes Ambrose: all Fathers, Christian and Hebrew interpreters take ‘bow’ as the rainbow; Scripture thrice says it is ‘in the clouds,’ and the narrative is plainly historical. Continues on p. 346. ↩
§81 (cont.). The decisive point: a sign must be conspicuous, but Ambrose's ‘invisible power’ could not serve as a public sign. ↩
§82. Q2: how can Iris signify no future flood, when it existed before the flood? One answer: rain and rainbow began only after the flood (the Interlinear Gloss; Alcuin; Chrysostom calling it a ‘miracle’). Margins: “How Iris can be a sign of no future flood”; “The opinion of some that neither rains existed nor a rainbow appeared before the flood”; Alcuin; Chrysostom, hom. 28 on Genesis. ↩
§83. Pererius rejects that view: it is incredible that no rain or rainbow existed for 1,656 years (against the whole natural order). Margin: “Refutation of that opinion.” Continues on p. 347. ↩
§84. A further objection: no rain for 1,656 years would have killed everything by drought; the ‘Nile-like rivers’ answer fails (such overflow is seen almost nowhere). ↩
Q2 answer: the rainbow signifies no future flood only by God's institution, not by nature. ↩
§85. Q3: is Iris a natural sign of a flood? A fourfold disjunction; not of a future flood (which needs omnipotence, not nature). Margin: “Whether Iris is a natural sign of a flood.” Continues on p. 348. ↩
§86. Nor of no future flood (it preceded the flood; the institution would be redundant; the flood is supernatural); nor of both (contradiction). So: no natural sign of a flood at all. ↩
§87. Q4: is it a natural sign in some respect? Aquinas (Quodlibet 2) and Cajetan: yes — the air that yields a rainbow excludes the saturation a flood would need. Margins: “Whether Iris is a natural sign of a flood not coming soon”; Aquinas; Cajetan. ↩
§88. So the rainbow signifies ‘no flood soon’ (not ‘never’) — but Cajetan extends it to ‘never,’ since the promise gives a rainbow in every generation. Margin: Paul of Burgos. ↩
§89. Pererius's first rebuttal: God can flood without rain at all (as at creation), so a rainbow guarantees nothing even ‘soon.’ ↩
§90. Second rebuttal: even granting the matter is needed, God could gather it in an hour — so the rainbow assures nothing even for today. ↩
§91. Against Cajetan's extension: ‘generation’ always means a span of many years (100, or 70–80, or 10, or 15). Margins: “What the word Generation signifies in Scripture”; Ps. 89; Ecclus. 18. Continues on p. 350. ↩
§91 (cont.). So a rainbow early in a generation does not bar a flood later in the same generation; surely a rainbow appeared even in the flood-generation. ↩
§92. Q5: is the sign wholly voluntary? Lyra: yes — from God's will alone (as a long-lying rock can be made a boundary-marker). Margin: “Whether Iris is a wholly voluntary sign of no future flood.” ↩
§93. Tostatus agrees with Lyra, adding: the rainbow IS a natural sign of no particular (local) flood soon — but only a voluntary sign as to a universal flood. Margin: Tostatus. ↩
§94. Pererius's own view: the rainbow is not simply a natural sign, but is one ‘in a certain respect’; primarily it signs the covenant, only secondarily the no-flood. Margin: “The author's opinion.” Continues on p. 351. ↩
§94 (cont.). Both meanings (covenant; no-flood) are voluntary, depending wholly on God's good pleasure. ↩
§95. Yet the rainbow IS a natural sign in a way: God's signs have a fittingness (circumcision to fertility, baptismal water to washing), and so does the rainbow. Margin: Gen. 17. ↩
§96. The rainbow's manifold fitness: conspicuous (so memorable); in the clouds (whence the flood came, so fear is dispelled at its source); and a natural sign of fair weather/no great rain. ↩
§97. Q6: of what is the rainbow naturally a sign? Pliny: of nothing reliably — though a double rainbow heralds rain. Margins: “Of what things Iris is a natural sign”; Pliny, Natural History bk. 2, ch. 59; bk. 18, ch. 35. ↩
§98. Seneca: the rainbow portends differently by its quarter of the sky (south = much water; west = light rain; east = fair). Margin: Seneca, Natural Questions bk. 1, ch. 6. ↩
§99. The sailors'/farmers' lore: a morning rainbow means rain, an evening one fair weather. Margins: Cardano, Exercitations 80; Scaliger against Cardano. ↩
§100. The marvelous lore of the rainbow: plants made more fragrant where it bends (Aristotle, Pliny on aspalathus; the ‘divine breath’ of rained-on earth; the rainbow aiding the ‘honey of dew’/manna). Margins: “Marvelous effects of Iris”; Aristotle, Problems sect. 13.3; Pliny bk. 12, ch. 24; bk. 17, ch. 5; Aristotle, History of Animals bk. 5, ch. 22. ↩
§101. Q7: the legend that no rainbow will appear for 40 years before the final fire/Judgment (the Scholastic History) — its source unknown; Pererius will refute it. Margins: “The opinion of some that no rainbow will appear for 40 years before the end of the World”; Scholastic History on Genesis, ch. 35. ↩
§102. Refutation: the legend wrongly assumes the final fire is natural (it is supernatural, like the flood — whose matter formed quickly). Margin: “Refutation.” ↩
§103. Third refutation: 40 rainless years would kill all by drought, but the Lord (Matt 24) and Paul (1 Thess 5) foretell men eating, marrying, in ‘peace and security’ at the end. Margin: Matt. 24. Continues on p. 354. ↩
§103 (cont.). That carefree end-time security is impossible if a great drought had gripped the world — so the legend is false. ↩
§104. Q8: the mystical sense. Gregory (hom. 8 on Ezekiel): the bow's red & blue = the two judgments (fire to come, water past); also Christ's baptism by water & fire, the cloud = His flesh. Margins: “Mystical interpretation”; Gregory. ↩
§105. The Apocalypse: the throne (= the Church) ringed by the rainbow (= God's mercy), threefold: no temptation beyond strength, good leaders raised up always, the true word/sacraments/worship never failing. Margins: “The threefold perpetual mercy of God toward the Church”; 1 Cor. 10; Matt. 14. ↩
§106. The rainbow's threefold substance/color (green, red, blue) figures the threefold amplitude of divine mercy. Margin: “The threefold color of Iris, of what thing it is a figure.” ↩
§107. Others: the rainbow figures Christ (the cloud = His body; the three colors = flesh/soul/divinity, or King/Judge/Lawgiver per Isaiah). Margin: “Iris a figure of Christ.” Continues on p. 355. ↩
§107 (cont.). The rainbow's half-circle = Christ's kingdom, now only ‘half’ (the first advent), to be completed at the Judgment. Margin: “Iris never completes a circle, and of what this is a figure.” ↩
§108. Rupert's notable view: the covenant is really the Gospel covenant with Christian believers — argued from (1) no ‘giving and receiving’ between Noah and God, (2) the future tense ‘I will establish.’ Margin: “Rupert's notable opinion.” ↩
§108 (cont.). Rupert in his own words: the one covenant = Christ's incarnation/passion, of which the rainbow and circumcision are the two chief signs. Margins: Eph. 2; Gen. 17. Continues on p. 356. ↩
§108 (cont.). Rupert: the rainbow's blue = baptismal water, red = the Spirit's fire; the ‘spiritual Iris’ = Christ's wounds; and ‘Iris’ = Greek for ‘peace.’ Margin: Eph. 2. ↩
§109. Pererius refutes Rupert: the chapter seven times says the covenant was made with Noah, his sons, and the animals — which can't share a spiritual covenant with Christ. ↩
§110. Both Rupert's reasons answered: ‘pact’ is used loosely for God's immutable decree (cf. Isa 54's ‘oath’); and the tense varies (Latin future, Greek present, Hebrew past). Margin: “Rupert is refuted.” ↩
§111. Two final jabs at Rupert: ‘Iris’ ≠ Greek for ‘peace’ (that is εἰρήνη), and the philosophers did not call the rainbow's cause ‘chance.’ ↩