Man’s sin is the cause of the deluge. Noe is commanded to build the ark.
Mans sinnes cause of the deluge. 4. Giants vvere then vpon the earth. 8. Noe being iust vvas commanded to build the Arke, 18. vvherin he vvith seuen persons more, and the seede of other liuing things vvere saued.
1And after that men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them,E avendo principiato gli uomini a moltiplicare sopra la terra, e avendo avuto delle figliuole,AND after that men began to be multiplied vpon the earth, & had procreation of daughters:Cumque cœpissent homines multiplicari super terram, et filias procreassent, 2The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose.I figliuoli di Dio vedendo la bellezza delle figliuole degli uomini, preser per loro mogli quelle che più di tutte lor piacquero.The sonnes of God seing the daughters of men, that they were faire, tooke to them selues wiues out of al, which they had chosenvidentes filii Dei filias hominum quod essent pulchræ, acceperunt sibi uxores ex omnibus, quas elegerant. 3And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.E il Signore disse: Non rimarrà il mio spirito per sempre nell'uomo, perché egli è carne: e i loro giorni saranno cento venti anni.And God said: My spirit shal not remaine in man for euer, because he is flesh: & his dayes shal be an hūdred & twentie yeares.Dixitque Deus: Non permanebit spiritus meus in homine in æternum, quia caro est: eruntque dies illius centum viginti annorum. 4Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.Ed erano in quel tempo de' giganti sopra la terra: imperocché dopo che i figliuoli di Dio si accostarono alle figliuole degli uomini, ed elle fecer figliuoli, ne vennero quelli possenti in antico, e famosi uomini.And Giants were vpon the earth in those dayes. For after the sonnes of God did companie with the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these be the mightie of the olde world, famous men.Gigantes autem erant super terram in diebus illis: postquam enim ingressi sunt filii Dei ad filias hominum, illæque genuerunt, isti sunt potentes a sæculo viri famosi. 5And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times,Vedendo adunque Dio, come grande era la malizia degli uomini sopra la terra; e tutti i pensieri del loro cuore erano intesi a mal fare continuamente,And God seing the malice of men was much on the earth: and that al the cogitation of their hart was bent to euil at al times,Videns autem Deus quod multa malitia hominum esset in terra, et cuncta cogitatio cordis intenta esset ad malum omni tempore, 6It repented him that he had made man on the earth. And being touched inwardly with sorrow of heart,Si pentì d'aver fatto l'uomo. E preso da intimo dolor di cuore,it repented him that he had made man on the earth. And touched inwardly with sorrowe of hart,pœnituit eum quod hominum fecisset in terra. Et tactus dolore cordis intrinsecus, 7He said: I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beasts, from the creeping thing even to the fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have made them.Sterminerò, disse egli, l'uomo da me creato dalla faccia della terra, dall'uomo fino agli animali, da' rettili fino agli uccelli dell'aria; imperocché mi pento d'averli fatti.I wil, saith he: cleane take away man, whom I haue created, from the face of the earth; from man euen to beastes, from that which creepeth euen vnto the foules of the ayre. for it repenteth me that I haue made them.Delebo, inquit, hominem, quem creavi, a facie terræ, ab homine usque ad animantia, a reptili usque ad volucres cæli: pœnitet enim me fecisse eos.
8But Noe found grace before the Lord.Ma Noè trovò grazia dinanzi al Signore.But Noe found grace before our Lord:Noë vero invenit gratiam coram Domino. 9These are the generations of Noe: Noe was a just and perfect man in his generations, he walked with God.Questi sono i figliuoli generati da Noè. Noè fu uomo giusto, e perfetto ne' suoi tempi, camminò con Dio.These are the generations of Noe: Noe was a iust and perfect man in his generations, he did walke with God.Hæ sunt generationes Noë: Noë vir justus atque perfectus fuit in generationibus suis; cum Deo ambulavit. 10And he begot three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japheth.E generò tre figliuoli, Sem, Cam, e Japheth.And he begat three sonnes, Sem, Cham, & Iapheth.Et genuit tres filios, Sem, Cham et Japheth. 11And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity.Ma la terra era corrotta davanti a Dio, e ripiena d'iniquità.And the earth was corrupted before God, and was replenished with iniquitie.Corrupta est autem terra coram Deo, et repleta est iniquitate. 12And when God had seen that the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth),Ed avendo Dio veduto come la terra era corrotta (perocché ogni uomo sulla terra nella sua maniera di vivere era corrotto),And when God had perceiued that the earth was corrupted (for al flesh had corrupted his way vpon the earth)Cumque vidisset Deus terram esse corruptam (omnis quippe caro corruperat viam suam super terram), 13He said to Noe: The end of all flesh is come before me, the earth is filled with iniquity through them, and I will destroy them with the earth.Disse a Noè: La fine di tutti gli uomini è imminente ne' miei decreti; la terra per opera loro è ripiena d'iniquità, e io gli sterminerò insieme colla terra.he said to Noe: The end of al flesh is come before me, the earth is replenished with iniquitie from the face of them, & I wil destroy them with the earth.dixit ad Noë: Finis universæ carnis venit coram me: repleta est terra iniquitate a facie eorum, et ego disperdam eos cum terra. 14Make thee an ark of timber planks: thou shalt make little rooms in the ark, and thou shalt pitch it within and without.Fatti un'arca di legnami piallati: tu farai nell'arca delle piccole stanze, e la invernicerai di bitume e di dentro e di fuori.Make thee an arke of timber planke: cabinets shalt thou make in the arke, and shalt pitch it within, and without with bitume.Fac tibi arcam de lignis lævigatis; mansiunculas in arca facies, et bitumine linies intrinsecus et extrinsecus. 15And thus shalt thou make it. The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits: the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.E la farai in questo modo: La lunghezza dell'arca sarà di trecento cubiti, la larghezza di cinquanta cubiti, l'altezza di trenta.And thus shalt thou make it. The length of the Arke shal be three hundred cubitts: fiftie cubitts the breadth, and thirtie cubitts the height of it.Et sic facies eam: trecentorum cubitorum erit longitudo arcæ, quinquaginta cubitorum latitudo, et triginta cubitorum altitudo illius.
16Thou shalt make a window in the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish the top of it: and the door of the ark thou shalt set in the side: with lower, middle chambers, and third stories shalt thou make it.Farai nell'arca una finestra, e il tetto dell'arca farai, che vada alzandosi fino a un cubito: farai poi da un lato la porta dell'arca: vi farai un piano di fondo, un secondo piano, e un terzo piano.Thou shalt make a windowe in the arke, and in a cubit finish the toppe of it: and the dore of the arke thou shalt set at the side belowe, middle chambers, and third loftes shalt thou make in it.Fenestram in arca facies, et in cubito consummabis summitatem ejus: ostium autem arcæ pones ex latere; deorsum, cœnacula et tristega facies in ea. 17Behold, I will bring the waters of a great flood upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life under heaven. All things that are in the earth shall be consumed.Ecco, che io manderò sopra la terra le acque del diluvio ad uccidere tutti gli animali, che hanno spirito di vita sotto del cielo: tutto quello che è sopra la terra, anderà in perdizione.Behold I wil bring the waters of a great floud vpon the earth, that I may destroy al flesh, wherin there is breath of life vnder heauen. Al thinges that are in the earth, shal be consumed:Ecce ego adducam aquas diluvii super terram, ut interficiam omnem carnem, in qua spiritus vitæ est subter cælum: universa quæ in terra sunt, consumentur. 18And I will establish my covenant with thee, and thou shalt enter into the ark, thou and thy sons, and thy wife, and the wives of thy sons with thee.Ma io farò il mio patto con te, ed entrerai nell'arca tu, e i tuoi figliuoli, la tua moglie, e le mogli dei tuoi figliuoli.and I wil establish my couenant with thee: and thou shalt enter into the arke, thou and thy sonnes, and thy wife, and the wiues of thy sonnes with thee.Ponamque fœdus meum tecum: et ingredieris arcam tu et filii tui, uxor tua, et uxores filiorum tuorum tecum. 19And of every living creature of all flesh, thou shalt bring two of a sort into the ark, that they may live with thee: of the male sex, and the female.E di tutti gli animali d'ogni specie due ne farai entrare nell'arca, maschio, e femmina.And of al liuing creatures of al flesh, thou shalt bring payres into the arke, that they may liue with thee, of the male sexe, and the female.Et ex cunctis animantibus universæ carnis bina induces in arcam, ut vivant tecum: masculini sexus et feminini.
20Of fowls according to their kind, and of beasts in their kind, and of every thing that creepeth on the earth according to its kind: two of every sort shall go in with thee, that they may live.Degli uccelli secondo la loro specie; e de' giumenti di ogni specie, e di tutti i rettili della terra secondo la loro specie: due entreranno teco nell'arca affinché possano conservarsi.Of foules according to their kind, and of beastes in their kind, & of al that creepeth on the earth according to their kind: payres of al sortes shal enter in with thee, that they may liue.De volucribus juxta genus suum, et de jumentis in genere suo, et ex omni reptili terræ secundum genus suum: bina de omnibus ingredientur tecum, ut possint vivere. 21Thou shalt take unto thee of all food that may be eaten, and thou shalt lay it up with thee: and it shall be food for thee and them.Prenderai adunque teco di tutte quelle cose, che possono mangiarsi, e le porterai in questa tua casa: e serviranno a te e a loro di cibo.Thou shalt take therfore with thee of al meates, that may be eaten, and thou shalt lay them vp with thee: and they shal be meate for thee and them.Tolles igitur tecum ex omnibus escis, quæ mandi possunt, et comportabis apud te: et erunt tam tibi, quam illis in cibum. 22And Noe did all things which God commanded him.Fece adunque Noè tutto quello che gli avea comandato il Signore.Noe therfore did al thinges, which God commanded him.Fecit igitur Noë omnia quæ præceperat illi Deus.
6:1
Haydock
Daughters. These had borne equal proportion with the males from the beginning; but here they are particularized, because they were the chief instruments in corrupting the descendants of Seth. (Haydock)
Menochius
Even the sons of these libidinous people were so effeminate, as to deserve to be called women. (Menochius)
6:2
Challoner
The sons of God. The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called Sons of God, from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men. The unhappy consequence of the former marrying with the latter, ought to be a warning to Christians to be very circumspect in their marriages; and not to suffer themselves to be determined in choice by their carnal passion, to the prejudice of virtue or religion. (Challoner)
Calmet
See St. Chrysostom, hom. 22, etc. Some copies of the Septuagint having the angels of God, induced some of the ancients to suppose, that these spiritual beings (to whom, by another mistake, they attributed a sort of aerial bodies) had commerce with women, as the pagans derived their heroes from a mortal and a god. But this notion, which is borrowed from the book of Henoch, is quite exploded. (Calmet)
6:3
Year of the World 1536, Year before Christ 2468.
Challoner
His days shall be, etc. The meaning is, that man's days, which before the flood were usually 900 years, should now be reduced to 120 years. Or rather, that God would allow men this term of 120 years, for their repentance and conversion, before he would send the deluge. (Challoner)
Calmet
He spoke therefore to Noe in his 480th year. (St. Augustine) Those who suppose, that he foretold this event 20 years later, think with St. Jerome, that God retrenched 20 years from the time first assigned for penance. The Spirit of the sovereign Judge was fired with contending; or, as others translate it, with remaining quiet as in a scabbard, and bearing with the repeated crimes of men. He resolved to punish them severely in this world, that he might shew mercy to some of them hereafter. (St. Jerome, 9. Heb.) (Calmet)
Worthington
If we suppose, that God here threatens to reduce the space of man's life to 120 years, we must say, at least, that he did it by degrees: for many lived several hundred years, even after the deluge. In the days of Moses, indeed, few exceeded that term. But we think the other interpretation is more literal, and that God bore with mankind the full time which he promised. (Worthington)
6:4
Challoner
Giants. It is likely the generality of men before the flood were of a gigantic stature, in comparison with what men now are. But these here spoken of, are called giants, as being not only tall in stature, but violent and savage in their dispositions, and mere monsters of cruelty and lust. (Challoner)
Haydock
Yet we need not imagine, that they were such as the poets describe, tearing up mountains, and hurling them against heaven. Being offspring of men, who had lived hitherto with great temperance, but now gave full scope to their passions, and the love of the fair daughters whom they chose, we need not wonder that they should be amazingly strong and violent. Nephilim, rushing on, as Ag.[Aquila?] translates. That there have been giants of an unusual size, all historians testify. Og, Goliah, etc. are mentioned in Scripture, and the sons of Enac are represented as much above the common size, as the Hebrews were greater than grasshoppers, Numbers 13:34. If we should suppose they were four or five times our size, would that be more wonderful than that they should live nine or ten times as long as we do? See St. Augustine, City of God 15:9, 23; Calmet's Dissert. etc. Delrio affirms, that in 1572 he saw at Rouen, a native of Piedmont, above nine feet high. (Haydock)
Haydock
Of old. The corruption of morals had commenced many ages ago, and some of the sons of Seth had given way to their lusts; so that we are not to suppose, that these giants were all born within a hundred years of the flood, as some might suppose from their being mentioned here, after specifying the age of Noe, Genesis 5:31. (Haydock)
6:5
Menochius
At all times. Hebrew: only evil continually. They had no relish for any thing else: as we may say of a glutton, he thinks of nothing but his belly. Yet some good thoughts would occur occasionally, and we may grant that they did some things which were not sinful. (Menochius)
Calmet
If we follow corrupt nature, and live among sinners, we find a law within us warring against the spirit; and a very powerful grace is necessary to rescue us from such a dangerous situation. (Calmet)
Worthington
Though the expressions in this place seem general, they must be understood with some limitations. (Worthington)
6:6
Challoner
It repented him, etc. God, who is unchangeable, is not capable of repentance, grief, or any other passion. But these expressions are used to declare the enormity of the sins of men, which was so provoking as to determine their Creator to destroy these his creatures, whom before he had so much favoured. (Challoner)
Haydock
God acted outwardly as a man would do who repented. (Haydock)
6:8
Worthington
Grace. Notwithstanding the general denunciation against all flesh, we see here that God will not confound the just with the guilty, in the same punishment. Noe pleased God, by observing the most perfect justice, in the midst of a corrupt generation. (St. Chrysostom; etc.) (Worthington)
6:12
Liranus
Its way, being abandoned to the most shameful and unnatural sins. (Liranus)
6:13
Haydock
All flesh. I will destroy all these carnal and wicked people, and, because all other creatures were made only for man's use, and will be useless, I will involve them in the common ruin, reserving only what will be necessary for the support of the few, who shall be preserved, and for the repeopling of the earth. (Haydock)
6:14
Calmet
Timber planks. Hebrew, "gopher wood," which is no where else mentioned in Scripture. It was probably a sort of wood full of rosin, and being besmeared with something like our pitch, was capable of resisting the fury of the ensuing tremendous storm, for a length of time. (Calmet; Haydock)
Rooms to separate the birds, various animals, provisions, etc.
Menochius
Pitch, literally: "besmear it with bitumen," which has a very strong smell, able to counteract the disagreeable odours arising from beasts confined. (Menochius)
Calmet
It might be mixed with some other ingredients, naphtha, pitch, etc. (Calmet)
6:15
Challoner
Three hundred cubits, etc. The ark, according to the dimensions here set down, contained four hundred and fifty thousand square cubits; which were more than enough to contain all the kinds of living creatures, with all necessary provisions: even supposing the cubits here spoken of to have been only a foot and a half each, which was the least kind of cubits. (Challoner)
Haydock
It is therefore unnecessary for us to have recourse, with Cappel, to the sacred cubit, which was twice as large as the common one, but which seems not to have been in use among the Jews before the Babylonian captivity. Still less need we adopt the geometrical cubit, which contains six ordinary ones, as we might be authorised to do by the great names of Origen and St. Augustine, City of God 15:27. q. in Gen. 1:4. These dimensions would make the ark as large as a city. Moses always speaks of the same sort of cubit, used probably in Egypt. Apelles and other heretics, with some modern infidels, have attempted to shew, that this account of Moses is fabulous. But they have been amply refuted by able calculators, John Buteo, Pelletier, etc. This amazing structure, for which God himself gave the plan, was divided with three stories, besides the lower part of the vessel, which might serve to keep fresh water. The different species of animals are not so numerous, as some imagine. Fishes, and such creatures as can live in water, would not need to come into the ark. Animals deprived of exercise, and allowed barely what may support nature, will live upon a very little. Even an ox, according to Columella, will live on 30 pounds of hay, or on a cubic foot, a whole day, so that 400 of these large creatures might be supported on 146,000 cubic feet. The middle story, for provisions, would alone contain 150,000 cubits. Noe's family, and the birds, would probably occupy the room above, in which was a window all around, of the height of a cubit, without glass or crystal, which were not yet invented, but defended with lattice work of wood, like our dairy rooms. (Haydock)
6:16
In a cubit. This is understood by some, of the height of the window; by others, of the roof, which would be almost flat, like the top of a coach. Menoch supposes, that the whole ark was to be measured with the cubit in every part, from the bottom to the top; and the words of it, properly refer to the ark.
Calmet
Side, or at the end, about the middle way, that the animals might be conveyed easily to their stalls. The door would open into the story allotted to the beasts, and all things might enter it by a sort of bridge, or by sloping planks. (Calmet)
Tirinus
Ordure might be thrown down into the lowest part of the ark, separated from the reservoir of fresh water, or might be brought up with ropes and buckets to the window at the top, which would easily open. (Tirinus)
6:18
Calmet
My covenant, that thou shalt be saved, amid the general ruin. This is the second covenant of God with man: the first was with Adam, the third with Abraham, when circumcision was instituted, and the last with Moses, Exodus 19. All others were only ratifications of these; and even these were only figures of that which our Saviour entered into with men, when he undertook to make satisfaction for them to his Father. (Calmet)
6:19
Calmet
Two, intended for the propagation of their kind. God afterwards specifies what more Noe should preserve for food, Genesis 7:2. (Calmet).
Haydock
Wild beasts forgot their savage nature, and became subject to the just Noe; and all came readily at his beck, in the same manner as domestic animals come when we offer them food. Yet, in all this we must acknowledge the work of God, and a sort of miracle. (Haydock)
6:2
The sons of God.... The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called sons of God from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men. The unhappy consequence of the former marrying with the latter, ought to be a warning to Christians to be very circumspect in their marriages; and not to suffer themselves to be determined in their choice by their carnal passion, to the prejudice of virtue or religion.
6:3
His days shall be, etc.... The meaning is, that man’s days, which before the flood were usually 900 years, should now be reduced to 120 years. Or rather, that God would allow men this term of 120 years, for their repentance and conversion, before he would send the deluge.
6:4
Giants.... It is likely the generality of men before the flood were of a gigantic stature in comparison with what men now are. But these here spoken of are called giants, as being not only tall in stature, but violent and savage in their dispositions, and mere monsters of cruelty and lust.
6:6
It repented him, etc.... God, who is unchangeable, is not capable of repentance, grief, or any other passion. But these expressions are used to declare the enormity of the sins of men, which was so provoking as to determine their Creator to destroy these his creatures, whom before he had so much favoured.
6:15
Three hundred cubits, etc.... The ark, according to the dimensions here set down, contained four hundred and fifty thousand square cubits; which was more than enough to contain all the kinds of living creatures, with all necessary provisions: even supposing the cubits here spoken of to have been only a foot and a half each, which was the least kind of cubits.
6:1
The professors of true religion were called the sōnes of God. the folowers of errors the sōnes of men.
6:2
2. Sonnes of God.] The progenie of Seth, professing true faith & Religion, Sōnes of God and sonnes of men was then such a distinction, as now Catholiques and Heretiks. were called the sonnes of God: and those of Cains issue and congregation, lib. 15. c. 23. ciuit. De vera relig. c. 7. con. epist. sund. c. 4 Trac. 32. in Ioan. folowing erronious and wicked opinions, were called the sonnes of men. VVhich were then the distinctiue termes of true and false Religion, as afterwardes were the termes of Iewes and Gentiles: after Christ, Christians and Paganes: and lastly true and false Christians are distinguished, by the names of Catholiques and Heretikes. As S. Augustin teacheth, in his questions vpon Genesis, & other places. VVhich is confirmed by the like iugement of S. Ciril Alexandrinus li. 9. aduers. Iulianum. S. Ambrose li. de Noe & arca. c. 4. S. Pacianus epist. ad Symphorianum. Theodoret. & manie others vpon this place.
6:3
3 An hundred and tvventie yeares.] Mans life was not here shortned to an Philo. Iosephus. Lactant. Rupert. Tostatus. hundred and twentie yeares, as some haue misunderstood this place. For after This warning and expectation of repentance sheweth freewil in mā. this diuers liued much longer, as appeareth in the genealogie of Sem to Abram in the 11. chapter of Genesis. And Abraham liued. 175. yeares (c. 25.) Isaac 180. (c. 35.) Iacob 147. (c. 47.) and Ioiadas borne 1500. yeares after, liued 130. yeares (2. Par. 24.) But 120. yeares were granted before the floud for that generation to repent in, as the Chaldee Edition expresseth more plainely: Terminus dabitur ei centum viginti annorum si sorte conuertatur. The tearme of an hundred and twentie yeares shal be geuen them, if perhaps they may conuert. And so S. Chrisostom. S. Hierom. and S. Augustin expound this Scripture. Yet whether God cut of 20. of these yeares, and brought the floud after a 100 (for Noe had his sonnes when he was 500. yeares old, & the floud came in the 600. yeare of his age) or that this warning was geuen twentie yeares before ho. 22. in Gen. Tradit. Heb. lib. 15. c. 24. ciuit. anie of his sōnes were borne, is not so easely decided by the holie Doctors. Scriptures not easie. How easie soeuer Protestants say al Scriptures are. Though vnder correction of better iudgement, it semeth more probable, that Moyses by anticipation ioyneth the birth of Noes sonnes (when he was 500. yeares old) to the rest of the geneologie of the first Patriarkes, in the former chapter, and then telleth of this admonition, geuen 20. yeares before their birth. And so God expected the peoples repentance the whole time of 120. yeares prescribed.
6:4
4. Grants vvere vpon the earth.] Some haue thought that these giantes were Erronious opinions concerning these giants. not men, nor begotten by men, but that either diuels, which fel at first from heauen, or other Angels allured with concupiscence, begate them of the daughters of Cain. Philo Iudeus in his booke de Gigantibus, writeth that those whom Moyses here called Augels, the Philosophers called Genios. Qui sunt animalia aë•ea, vvhich are liuing creatures vvith ayrie bodies Iosephus (li. 1. Antiq.) saith that Angels begate these giants. Tertullian also li. de habitu muliebri) holdeth the same error, and diuers more otherwise good authors. But S. Ciril of Alexandria (li. 9. aduer. Iulian) S. Chrisostom (homil 22. in The principal doctors proue that they were men, and begotten of men First reason Gen) S. Ambrose de Noe & arca. c. 4.) S. Augustin (li. 15. c. 23. de ciuit) S. Hierom (Tradit. Hebraic) and other most principal Doctors teach it to be vntrue, yea vnpossible, that these giants should haue bene begotten by anie other creatures then by men. For that Angels and diuels are mere spirits without al natural bodies. And if they had ayrie bodies (as they haue not) yet they could not haue such generation. For the powre or force to engender belongeth 2 to the vegatatiue soule, whose proper operations are to tuine nutriment into the substance of the subiect wherin it is, and to engender new issue or ofspring from the same, as Aristotle sheweth (li. 2. de anima, textu. 24.) And in what bodies soeuer there is vegetatiue soule, it must needes be, that the same was engendred, and must some times decay and die, and so diuels should be mortal. Moreouer if they could haue generation togeather with 3 mankind, then such issue should be a distinct species both from man and diuel, as a mule differeth both from horse and asse. Againe, if spirits had abused wemen 4 in assumpted bodies, and shape of men, yet they did not take them to 5 wiues as the Scripture saith they did, who begate these giants. Finally the holie Scripture here expresly calleth the giants men. These be the mightie ones, famous men. The modestie of Scripture terming them famous, whom our common Giants most monstruous in bodie and in minde. phrase would cal infamous being more monstrous in wickednes of mind, then in hugenes of bodie. For they were most insolent, lasciuious, couetous, cruel, and in al kinde of vices most impious.
6:5
5. Al the coigtation bent to euel.] Luther (in his 21. article condemned by Leo the tenth) would proue by these wordes, and the like folowing, Al siesh Luthers argument that al mens workes are sinnes. had corrupted his vvay vpon earth, that al workes of men are sinnes For (saith he) seeing the hartes of al men are bent alwaies to euil, and al humane actions proceede from the hart, it must needes be that the hart as the fountaine being corrupt, the streames also issuing from the same must be corrupted. Againe al flesh hauing corrupted his way vpon earth, there is not any iust man (saith he) nor any man without sinne: and with Protestantes al sinnes are mortal. But Heretikes arguments are like to that the Poëts feyne of Sisyphus laboring to Heretiks like to Sisyphus. earie a great stone to the toppe of an high hil, which when he hath brought almost to the height, it stil falleth from him, & tumbleth againe to the bottome. Euen so their arguments that make greatest shew of prouing their opinions, The sinnes before the floud very greuous in foure respects, are nothing but vaine traueling, when they come to be tried by the true sense of holy Scripture. In this place Moyses describeth the enormitie of sinne that reigned in the world before the floud, for which God sent that destruction. For it was haynous in deede, and that especially in foure respects. First the malice and wickednes was general, which is signified by those wordes, al flesh hath 1 corrupted his vvay vpon earth. Secōdly it was great malice, signified by the words 2 much, and, al the cogitations of their hart is bent to euil. For they committed al maner of wickednes in hautines of pride, in al lasciuiousnes of the flesh, in al crueltie of robbing, sacking, & murthering, in al impietie, against God & man. 3 Thirdly, it was of long continuance, and dayly iterated. For Cain once fallen into damnable sinne neuer repented, and al his progenie was exceding wicked and after that Adam and Seth were dead, and Enoch translated, manie of the faithful fel to the wicked sorte, and became worse and worse omni tempore, alwaies, or euerie day. Fourthly they were obstinate and obdurate, not repenting 4 when Noe built the arke, and preached iustice (as S. Peter testifieth) and therfore 2. Pet. 2. God saued him and his familie, bringing in the deluge vpon the vvorld of the impious. Al which maketh nothing at al for Luther. For although the malice of man, and corruption of flesh, was then verie genaral, great, of long continuance, Luthers argugument answered. & obstinate, yet was it not so vniuersal, but that God him selfe excepted Noe, saying to him I haue found thee iust in my sight in this generation, whereby it is clere that these general termes, al cogitation and al flesh, haue exceptions. As likewise other as general propositions in this same chapter, concerning the punishment threatned, comprehend not absolutly al, and euerie one, but almost al, very few excepted. I vvil cleane take avvay, or destroy man vvhom I haue created, from the face of the earth. The end of al flesh is come before me. againe, that I may destroy al flesh vvherein is breath of life vnder heauen. These are very general speaches, that al should be destroyed, and yet eight persons of mankind, that had the same natural flesh, and amongst other liuing creatures, that had breath, diuers payres were saued aliue. So that this place (nor anie other in holie Scripture) wil not Ezech. •. Luc. 1 & 2. Apoc. 22. proue that Protestants paradox, that al mens actions are mortal sinnes, or that no man in this life is or can be iust: but manie scriptures tel vs plainly that some men were iust, as Noe, Iob, Daniel, Zacharias, Elisabeth, Simeon and others Of Noe see more in the next annotation.
6:6
God who is immutable, & subiect to no passion, yet by the enormitie of sinnes semeth prouoked to wrath, and to repent that he had made man. S. Amb. li. de Noe & arca. c. 4.
6:9
9. Noe vvas a iust and perfect man] Here Noe is not onlie called iust, but also Noe iust and perfect. perfect. The hebrew word tamim of the verbe tamam (which signifieth to finish or accomplish) sheweth that Noe was a perfect or complete man doing al that he was commanded, and performing the offices of al vertues that pertained to him; and that not in a vulgar and meane sorte, but in a high degree, & heroical maner, as sundrie ancient Fathers haue gathered vpon this place. VVe shal cite some few of their sayings for example. S. Hierom (Tradit. Hebraic. in Gen.) distinguishing betwen consummate iustice (of the next life) & iustice of this generation (or transitorie life) saith: Noe the iust man vvas perfect in his generations: Noe did vvalke vvith God: that is, did folovv his steppes. S. August. (li. 15. ciuit. c. 26.) saith the like, that Noe vvas called iust in his generation, tovvit, not as the citizens of Gods citie are to be perfected in that immortalitie, in vvhich they shal be equal to Angels, but as they may be perfect in this pilgramage. And in his booke de perfectione contra Caelestium. he describeth him to be a perfect man, that runneth VVho is perfect in this life. vvithout blame tovvards perfection, voide of damnable sinnes, and is not negligent to cleanse venial sinnes, by almes, prayers, and other good workes. S. Ambrose also testifieth, (li. de Noe & arca c. 4.) that albeit the world was verie wicked, yet some were iust, saying: By the grace (or fauoure) vvhich Noe found, is shevved that other nens offence doth not obscure the iust man, vvho is praysed, not by the nobilitie of his birth, but by the merit of his iustice and perfection. S. Chrisost. most largely (ho. 23. in Gen) setteth forth the iustice and perfection of Noe. VVhere after he hath shewed that Noe deserued in deede the name of a man, because he by flying vices, and folowing vertues conserued the image of man, when others like beastes were ledde away and ruled by their wicked lustes, proceedeth thus in his commendation. Behold (saith he) an other kind of praise: Noe is called, iust, which denomination comprehendeth al vertue. For this name iust we vse to pronounce of them, that exercise al maner of vertue. And that you may lerne, how he ariued to the very toppe which was then also required of our nature, the Scripture saith, he vvas iust, being perfect in his generation. He petformed what thinges soeuer it behoueth one to doe that embraceth vertue, for such a one is perfect, he intermitted nothing, he halted in nothing, he did not wel in this thing, and sinned in that thing, but was perfect in euerie vertue, which was requisite for him to haue. Moreouer to make also this iust man more conspicuous to vs in regard of the time, and by comparing him with others, the Scripture saith, he vvas perfect in his generation: in that time, in that peruerse generation, which declined vnto euil, which would not so much as pretend anie resemblance of vertue. In that generation therefore, in those times, that iust man not only pretended, but arriued to that height of vertue, that he became perfect, and in al thinges absolute. And that which I said before, to doe wel amongst the enimies of vertue, amongst them that forbid vertue, doth alwaies testifie a greater poyse of vertue, so by this occasion the iust man got greater prayses. Neither doth diuine Scripture here make an end of praising him, but further sheweth the excellencie of his vertue, and that he Diuin⸢e⸣ calcuio. was approued by Gods owne censure, for besides saying: He vvas perfect in his generation, it addeth, that Noe pleased God. So great was the renowme of his vertue, that he deserued to be praysed of God. For Noe pleased God saith the Scripture, that you may know that he was approued of God. He pleased that eye, that can not be deceiued, by his good workes. Thus farre S. Chrisostom and much more to the same effect. S. Gregorie the great in his fifth booke of Morales, and 36. chapter vpon the third chapter of Iob, recounting certaine principal Patriarches among the rest saith: Noe for that he pleased Gods examination vvas saued aliu•in the vncleane vvorld. and after a large catalogue of other iust men in confirmation of this doctrine, that some were iust in the law of nature concludeth thus: Neither is it to be beleued (saith he) that only so manie vvere iust before the lavv vvas receiued, as Moyses contracteth in his most briefe description.
Concordance Eccl. 44, 17.
In al generations God reserued some iust. Much more in the law of Grace.
6:15
15. Three hundred cubites] Apelles an old heretike, scholar of Marcian, but after Appelles an old Heretike, that denied Christ to haue true flesh. leauing him, and amongst other new coyned heresies, reiecting the Law & the Prophetes, would by this place impugne Moyses, saying it was vnpossible that in so smale rowme, as was the arke by this descriptiō, the designed payres of al kindes of beastes, foule, & serpents, should be contained, with the eight persons, and al their prouision of meate for a whole yeare. VVherupon he concludeth that this narration (which he calleth a fable) hath no probabilitie, nor possibilitie to be true. To whom & al such calumniators it may be answered, A general answer to al calumniators of wise and learned men. that Moyses euen in an heretikes owne cōceipt, if malice obscured not his sense, must needes be thought wise ynough, if he had benne disposed to fayne fables, to frame them probable, or possible, especially when he pretended not to signific a miracle, in the smalnes of the rowme to receiue so much, as he reporteth. Origen to answer him supposeth a cubite here mētioned, to haue cō tained Origens opinion of long cubites not probable. six ordinarie cubites: and so doubtles the arke might easily containe al •o 2. in 6. Gen. thinges that are here spoken of, for so it were like to a great citie. But this opinion neither hath good warrant, that euer the Aegyptians (of whom he supposeth Moyses might haue learned it) or any other nation vsed such long cubites, neither can this measure of a cubite, be agreable to Moyses meaning, who no Moyses in other places can not be vnderstood to speake of o long cubites. doubt speaketh of the like cubites here, as he doth in other places. And in Exodus he describeth an Altar to be made fiue cubites long, fiue broade, and Exod. 27. three in height. VVhich would be by Origens measure (euetie cubite contayning six ordinarie cubites, that is nine foote at least) in length, and likewise in breadth 45. foote, and 27. foote in height. Againe (Deut. 3.) Moyses telleth of an iron bed of Og King of Basan, that was nine cubites long, & foure broad. VVhich make according to Origens measure of a cubite, fourscore and one foote in length, and in breadth 36. foote: which in deede haue no probabilitie. And therefore S. Augustin and other Doctors, supposing that Moses in al l. 15. ciuit c. 27. these bookes, written for instruction of the same people, whom he brought forth of Aegypt, speaketh of one sorte of cubites, do likewise iudge that he meaneth ordinarie & knowne cubites, which containe a foote & a halfe euerie cubite, as Vitruuius Agricola and others do proue, or a foote and three quarters of a foote, which is the greatest cubite, that semeth to be mentioned in holie Scripture, called a mans cubite, or cubite of a mans hand. And so the Arke Deu. •. was atleast in length 450. foote, in breadth 75. in height 45. or at most in length 525. foote, in breadth 87. and a halfe: in height 52. and a halfe. And either of these capacities was sufficient to receiue al the thinges here mentioned, considering the loftes & partions, that were in the whole arke.
6:22
A right example of a iust maa.
Concordance Heb. 11.
6:1
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.36.4
… of Noah He justly brought on the deluge for the purpose of extinguishing that most infamous race of men then existent, who could not bring forth fruit to God, since the angels that sinned had commingled with them, and [acted as He did] in order that He might put a check upon the sins of these men, but [that at the same time] He might preserve the archetype,
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.8
… He adds: “Because of the angels.” What angels? In other words, whose angels? If he means the fallen angels of the Creator,
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.18
… But “the spiritual wickedness” did not signify the Creator, because of the apostle’s additional description, “in heavenly places;” for the apostle was quite aware that “spiritual wickedness” had been at work in heavenly places, when angels were entrapped into sin by the daughters of men.
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Veiling of Virgins 7
… For thus does Scripture withal suggest: “And it came to pass,” it says, “when men had begun to grow more numerous upon the earth, there were withal daughters born them; but the sons of God, having descried the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all whom they elected.”
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Church History of Eusebius 2.18.4
4. And there is also a work of his On Emigration, and one On the life of a Wise Man made perfect in Righteousness, or On unwritten Laws; and still further the work On Giants or On the Immutability of God,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 15.23
… And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became the giants, men of renown.”
6:2
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.16.2
… Enoch, too, pleasing God, without circumcision, discharged the office of God’s legate to the angels although he was a man, and was translated, and is preserved until now as a witness of the just judgment of God, because the angels when they had transgressed fell to the earth for judgment, but the man who pleased [God] was translated for salvation.
Tertullian † AD 220 On Idolatry 9
… because men, presuming that we are disposed of by the immutable arbitrament of the stars, think on that account that God is not to be sought after. One proposition I lay down: that those angels, the deserters from God, the lovers of women,
Tertullian † AD 220 On Prayer 22
… Let “man” and “youth” be different, if “woman” and “virgin” are different. For indeed it is “on account of the angels” that he saith women must be veiled, because on account of “the daughters of men” angels revolted from God.
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 3.2
… agreeably to their ancient institutions, that they received oracles and predictions from those whom they accounted gods, this people alone, who were taught to view with contempt all those who were considered gods by the heathen, as not being gods, but demons, according to the declaration of the prophets, “For all the gods of the nations are demons,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 5.55
But, that we may grant to him in a spirit of candour what he has not discovered in the contents of the book of Genesis, that “the sons of God, seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to them wives of all whom they chose,”
Alexander of Lycopolis † fl. AD 300 Of the Manichæans 25
… But what the poets say about the giants is manifestly a fable. For those who lay it down about these, bring forward such matters in allegories, by a species of fable hiding the majesty of their discourse; as, for instance, when the Jewish history relates that angels came down to hold
St Alexander of Alexandria † AD 326 Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius 1.8
… but the adoption of rational sons belongs not to them by nature, but is prepared for them by the probity of their life, and by the free gift of God. And it is mutable as the Scripture recognises: “For when the sons of God saw the daughters of men, they took them wives,”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 4.15
… But if because of the Word the Man is called Son, it follows necessarily, since the ancients are called sons even before the Incarnation, that the Word is Son even before His sojourn among us; for ‘I begat sons,’ saith Scripture; and in the time of Noah, ‘When the sons of God saw,’ and in the Song, ‘Is not He thy Father
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 18
… what ought to have been given to Him, he kept to himself; what he should have kept himself, this he offered to Him; and thus the evil began even from God. For if we are God’s, much more are the first-fruits of our possessions. Again, men’s violent passion for women arose from covetousness. “They saw the daughters of men” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 29
… For “they luxuriated,” it says, “in fullness of bread.” ( Ezek. xvi. 49 .) It speaks of those in Sodom. But if “fullness of bread” wrought so great evil, what should we say of other delicacies? Esau, was not he in ease? And what of those who being of “the sons of God” (
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 8.21
… As long then as there continued that separation of the lines between them, the seed of Seth, as it sprang from an excellent root, was by reason of its sanctity termed “angels of God,” or as some copies have it “sons of God;”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret 1.3
… while the adoption of reasonable beings who are not His sons by nature, but merely on account of fitness of character, and by the bounty of God, may fall away, as it is written in the word, ‘ The sons of God saw the daughters of men, and took them as wives, ’ and so forth
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 147
… Into this error I suppose he fell through ignorance. For if he had read the divine Scripture, he would have known that the title of the Son has also been bestowed by our bountiful Lord on many. The lawgiver Moses, the writer of the ancient history, says “And the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair and they took them wives of them,”
Pseudo-Clement The Recognitions of Clement 1.29
“All things therefore being completed which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, and the human race also having multiplied, in the eighth generation, righteous men, who had lived the life of angels, being allured by the beauty of women, fell into promiscuous and illicit connections with these;
Pseudo-Clement The Clementine Homilies 20.7
… For were not angels, who are free from old age, and of a fiery substance,
6:3
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Resurrection of the Flesh 10
… You read whatever passage abases it; direct your eyes also to that which elevates it. “All flesh is grass.” Well, but Isaiah was not content to say only this; but he also declared, “All flesh shall see the salvation of God.” They notice God when He says in Genesis, “My Spirit shall not remain among these men, because they are flesh;”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Monogamy 1
… “The flesh,” saith (the apostle), “lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.” But what will the flesh “lust” after, except what is more of the flesh? For which reason withal, in the beginning, it became estranged from the Spirit. “My Spirit,” saith (God), “shall not permanently abide in these men eternally, for that they are flesh.”
Tertullian † AD 220 Five Books in Reply to Marcion 3
Who in twice fifty years the ark did weave)
St Hippolytus † AD 235 On the Psalms 1.4
… And these songs of degrees begin after the one hundred and twentieth psalm, which is called simply “a psalm,” as the more accurate copies give it. And this is the number
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 1.3.7
… Finally, also, at the time of the flood, when all flesh had corrupted their way before God, it is recorded that God spoke thus, as of undeserving men and sinners: “My Spirit shall not abide with those men for ever, because they are flesh.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 7.38
… that a Christian will not make use of “the language of the flesh,” having learnt as he has “to mortify the deeds of the body” by the spirit, and “to bear about in his body the dying of Jesus;” and “mortify your members which are on the earth,” and with a true knowledge of these words, “My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh,”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Mysteries 3
10. Take another testimony. All flesh was corrupt by its iniquities. “My Spirit,” says God, “shall not remain among men, because they are flesh.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 12
… Nature, see p. 365). And besides this, it does not appear that he has anywhere called the law of nature a commandment. But this he calls as well a commandment, and that “just and holy,” as a “spiritual law.” But the law of nature was not given to us by the
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 13
… And this mode of speaking is to be met with in many parts of the Old Testament also, to signify by flesh the gross and earthly life, which is entangled in pleasures that are not convenient. For to Noah He says, “My Spirit shall not always make its abode in these men, because they are flesh.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 1 Timothy 13
Such as these the Scripture calls men without souls. “My Spirit (it is said) shall not always abide in these men, because they are flesh.” (
St Jerome † AD 420 Against Jovinianus 1.22
… But we who fight under Joshua our leader, even to the present day know not where Moses was buried. For we despise Phogor, and all his shame, knowing that they who are in the flesh cannot please God. And the Lord before the flood had said
St Jerome † AD 420 Against Jovinianus 2.10
… but only the fruits of trees and the produce of the crops, and herbs and vegetables were given him for food, that even when an exile from paradise he might feed not upon flesh which was not to be found in paradise, but upon grain and fruit like that of paradise. But afterwards when
St Jerome † AD 420 To Pammachius against John of Jerusalem 28
… to Thomas, ‘Put thy finger into My hands, and thy hand into My side, and be not faithless, but believing.’ Similarly after the resurrection we shall have the same members which we now use, the same flesh and blood and bones, for it is not the nature of these which is condemned in Holy Scripture, but their works. Then again, it is written in Genesis:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 20.21
… and all the earth shall be judged with His fire and sword, we do not understand the spiritual and holy to be included, but the earthly and carnal, of whom it is said that they “mind earthly things,” and “to be carnally minded is death,” and whom the Lord calls simply flesh when He says, “My Spirit shall not always remain in these men, for they are flesh.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 13.12
… but in that it is said to him whilst still living, “Dust thou art,” it is shown that the whole man was changed for the worse. For “Dust thou art” is much the same as, “My spirit shall not always remain in these men, for that they also are flesh.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.18
… of divine excellence, they have ceased to be angels, yet retain the name of angels, and always esteem themselves as angels, though, being released from the service of God, they have passed from the likeness of their character into the army of the devil, as the great God declares, ‘My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh.’
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 4.10
… for sometimes it stands for the whole man, i.e., for that which consists of body and soul, as here “And the Word was made flesh,” and “All flesh shall see the salvation of our God.” Sometimes it stands for sinful and carnal men, as here “My spirit shall not remain in those men, because they are flesh.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
Eran. —It calls them that are the slaves of flesh, flesh. For “God,” it is written, “said my spirit shall not always remain in these men, for they are flesh.”
Pseudo-Clement The First Epistle of the Blessed Clement, the Disciple of Peter the Apostle 8
… For it does not submit itself to the law of God; for it cannot do so ,” because it is in the flesh, “in which dwells no good,” because the Spirit of God is not in it. For this cause justly does the Scripture say regarding such a generation as this: “My Spirit shall not dwell in men for ever, because they are flesh.”
6:4
Tertullian † AD 220 Five Books in Reply to Marcion 3
The horde of robber-renegades, ) to flee
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Thessalonians 8
… Were these things a threat? were they not a fact? Then will not He, who then brought punishment upon them so suddenly, much more inflict it now also? For the things that are committed now are not less than the offenses of that time. How?—because then, it says, “the sons of God went in unto the daughters of men” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 10.1
… Afterwards sin gradually grew more and more virulent, till the ungodliness of the giants
6:5
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 6.58
… And God meditated in His heart, and said, I will destroy man, whom I have made, from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air, because I am grieved that I made them;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 5
… xiv. 2 ), that is, accurately acquainted Himself with all things; and again, “I will go down, and see whether they do altogether according to the cry of them” ( Gen. xviii. 21 ); and again, “God cannot endure the evil ways of men” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 15.24
… And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth; both man and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air: for I am angry that I have made them.”
Anonymous A Treatise Against the Heretic Novatian by an Anonymous Bishop 4
… as said Moses, “And the Lord God saw that the wickednesses of men were overflowing upon the earth, and that all of them were remembering for evil from the beginning of their days; and He said, I will destroy man whom I have made from off the face of the earth, from man even unto cattle, and from the creeping thing even unto the fowls of the air.”
6:6
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 16
… the ends of the world are come.” In this way it was that even then He knew full well what human feelings and affections were, intending as He always did to take upon Him man’s actual component substances, body and soul, making inquiry of Adam (as if He were ignorant), “Where art thou, Adam?” —repenting that He had made man, as if He had lacked foresight;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 14.11
… for God’s foreknowledge had anticipated both,—that is to say, both how evil the man whom He had created good should become, and what good He Himself should even thus derive from him. For though God is said to change His determinations (so that in a tropical sense the Holy Scripture says even that God repented
Pseudo-Clement The Clementine Homilies 3.39
… And in his saying respecting Adam, ‘Let us drive him out, lest he put forth his hand and touch the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever;’ in saying Lest he is ignorant; and in driving him out lest he should eat and live for ever, he is also envious. And whereas it is written that ‘God repented that he had made man,’
6:7
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Two Homilies on Eutropius 2.7
… These words are human, but they have a meaning which becomes the nature of God. How is God jealous? “I am jealous over you with the jealousy of God.” Is God wroth? “O Lord reproach me not in thine indignation.” Doth God slumber? “Awake, wherefore sleepest thou, O Lord?” Doth God repent? “I repent that I have made man.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 1.1.2
… as, for instance, “I the Lord thy God am a jealous God;” and, “It repenteth me that I have made man.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Catechising of the Uninstructed 19
… yet, nevertheless, as the building of the ark went on for the space of a hundred years, the wrath of God which was to come upon them was certainly preached to them:
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 1
… But if he hears the word man simply, he does not fix his mind on the individual, but bethinks him of the Indian, the Scythian, and the Massagete, and of all the race of men together, and we learn this not only from nature, but also from Holy Scripture, for God said, we read, “I will destroy man from the face of the earth,”
6:8
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Apparel of Women 1.3
… If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself; and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather’s “grace in the sight of God,”
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 28
XVIII. Thus Enos “hoped to call upon the Name of the Lord.” Hope was that for which he is commended; and that, not that he should know God, but that he should call upon him. And Enoch was translated, but it is not yet clear whether it was because he already comprehended the Divine Nature, or in order that he might comprehend it. And Noah’s
6:9
Tertullian † AD 220 An Answer to the Jews 2
… For what wonder if He extends a discipline who institutes it? if He advances who begins? In short, before the Law of Moses, written in stone-tables, I contend that there was a law unwritten, which was habitually understood naturally, and by the fathers was habitually kept. For whence was Noah “found righteous,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Three Homilies Concerning the Power of Demons 3.1
… and he went his whole way contrary to them, like some traveller, pursuing his way while the great multitude is being borne along vehemently. On this account he did not simply say “Noe was just, perfect,” but added “in his generation”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 15
… stand between two combatants, take part with the wronged, not with the wrong-doers [that you may learn] whether you shall not see the victory on your side, whether you shall not get splendid crowns.—See, how God is insulted, and how He answers; how gently, “Where,” saith He, “is Abel thy brother?” and what saith the other: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Thessalonians 1
… For “the word of the Lord,” it is said, “was precious in those days; there was no open vision.” ( 1 Sam. iii. 1 .) If these men, therefore, stood before Me, they would profit nothing. And of Noah He says, “Noah was a righteous man, and perfect in his generations.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 29
… Was it not from affliction? And, if you will, let us enumerate them from the first and from the very beginning: Abel, Noah himself; for it is not possible that he, being the only one in that so great multitude of the wicked, should not have been afflicted; for it is said, “Noah being” alone “perfect in his generation, pleased God.” (
Pseudo-Clement The Recognitions of Clement 4.12
… while the rest, who were so ungrateful that they could not be amended and corrected even by labours and tribulations, were condemned to a terrible death. Yet amongst them also He found a certain one, who was righteous with his house,
6:12
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 24
… And again, what would be corruption in the case of a house? Its dissolution. And so, universally, corruption is a change which takes place for the worse, a change into another state, to the utter extinction of the former one. For hear what the Scripture saith, “All flesh had corrupted his way” (
6:13
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 43.70
… Enoch was translated, attaining to his translation as the reward of a little piety (for the faith was still in shadow) and escaped the peril of the remainder of life, but Basil’s whole life was a translation, and he was completely tested in a complete life. Noah was entrusted with the ark,
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3.1
… Yet, notwithstanding all this, in His pity, God, Who gave him his being, and Who in His graciousness bestowed on him a life of happiness, did not disregard man . But He first trained him in many ways and called him back, by groans and trembling, by the deluge of water, and the utter destruction of almost the whole race
6:14
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Duties of the Clergy 1.25
121. How wise also was Noah, who built the whole of the ark!
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 87.3
… This building now cries from your hearts; that you may be built up into its fabric, the hand of God, as of an artificer, worketh even through my tongue. Nor was it without a meaning that Noah’s ark was made of “square beams,”
6:15
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 1.18.4
… the number, too, of the apostles; and, in fine, every event which embraces in it the number twelve ,—set forth their Duodecad. And then the union of all these, which is called the Triacontad, they strenuously endeavour to demonstrate by the ark of Noah, the height of which was thirty cubits;
6:16
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Duties of the Clergy 1.18
78. Is not nature herself then a teacher of modesty? Following her example, the modesty of men, which I suppose is so called from the mode of knowing what is seemly, has covered and veiled what it has found hid in the frame of our body; like that door which Noah was bidden to make in the side of the ark;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 120.2
… That blood was shed for the remission of sins; that water it is that makes up the health-giving cup, and supplies at once the laver of baptism and water for drinking. This was announced beforehand, when Noah was commanded to make a door in the side of the ark,
6:17
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 78.9
… my own, or God’s? For I hear thy words, and am still perplexed by this ambiguity. For when the word “spirit” is used, it is used sometimes of the spirit of a man, and of cattle, as it is written, that “all flesh which had in itself the spirit of life, died by the flood.”
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.9
For from the beginning the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters , and anew the Scripture witnesseth that water has the power of purification . In the time of Noah God washed away the sin of the world by water
6:18
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 1.18.3
3. Further, they declare that the arrangement made with respect to the ark in the Deluge, by means of which eight persons were saved,
Tertullian † AD 220 An Answer to the Jews 2
… while He accepted what he was offering in simplicity of heart, and reprobated the sacrifice of his brother Cain, who was not rightly dividing what he was offering. Noah also, uncircumcised—yes, and inobservant of the Sabbath—God freed from the deluge.
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.24
Noah when he was commanded to enter the ark and was entrusted with the preservation of the seed of the world received this command, Go in , saith the Lord, thou and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives
6:19
Tertullian † AD 220 On Monogamy 4
… Once more, “two (joined) into one flesh” undertake (the duty of) “growing and multiplying,”—Noah, (namely), and his wife, and their sons, in single marriage. Even in the very animals monogamy is recognised, for fear that even beasts should be born of adultery. “Out of all beasts,” said (God),
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 15.27
… For Noah did not catch the animals and put them into the ark, but gave them entrance as they came seeking it. For this is the force of the words, “They shall come unto thee,”
6:22
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Catechising of the Uninstructed 22
39. “Five ages of the world, accordingly, having been now completed (there has entered the sixth). Of these ages the first is from the beginning of the human race, that is, from Adam, who was the first man that was made, down to Noah, who constructed the ark at the time of the flood.
6:1
6:2
2. AND THE SONS OF GOD SEEING THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN, THAT THEY WERE FAIR. -- You will ask, who are the sons of God, and who are the daughters of men? First opinion. Some respond that the sons of God are angels, for angels are corporeal, and here first committed their sin of lust in a body, on account of which they were cast down from heaven. Thus Josephus, Philo, in the book On Giants; Justin, Apology I; Clement, III Stromata; Tertullian, in the book On the Dress of Women (where he teaches that demons here taught women to make stibium, bracelets and other cosmetics); Lactantius, book II, chapter xv. Nor is it surprising that they thought this: for even in this age Cajetan thought it probable that angels have their own bodies. Second opinion. Secondly, others respond that the sons of God (namely as to nature) are demons, who from themselves and their own nature and body generated offspring in the manner of men, as the Platonists wished, and Francis George, tome I, problem 74; or rather, as Burgensis and Francis Valesius, Sacred Philosophy chapter VIII, are demons, first succubi, who received most potent seed from most powerful men, which then the same demons as incubi transferred into most vigorous women, and thus generated giants. For although Pererius doubts whether man can be generated in this way from incubus demons, and Cyril denies this very thing, nevertheless Cardanus, Cajetan, and Delrio well prove this very thing, in book II Inquiry into Magic, question XV. Third opinion. But I say: "Sons of God" are called here the sons of Seth, first, on account of their holiness, justice, temperance and other virtues, through which the image of God in them, as in his sons, shone forth. Thus St. Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Rupert and Hilary, in Psalm CXXXII. Secondly, as Oleaster says, it is a Hebrew phrase: for the Hebrews call all things strong, great, excellent, things of God: as mountains of God, cedars of God, are called the highest and greatest cedars and mountains. Thus "Sons of God" are called the sons of Seth, because robust; because distinguished in strength, form, beauty, stature: on the other hand the sons and daughters of Cain are called "sons and daughters of men," first, because they were perverse and attached to the earth; secondly, because they had weakened and diminished the strength, form and stature of the body. Whence, as Pererius notes, the Cainites are said to have generated, not sons, but daughters, because the power of generation, weakened by excessive lust, was able to generate not sons, but almost only daughters. They add thirdly, Theodoret and Suida, that Seth from piety and wisdom was said to be God: hence his sons are called sons of God. Fourth opinion. Fourthly, "Sons of God" can be taken as "sons of the powerful," as Symmachus, the Chaldean and Pagninus translate it, so that "daughters of men" are called plebeian women, whom the powerful abused through power and tyranny. For since God, as Damascus testifies, is said to be named from providing and foreseeing; hence rulers and the powerful, whose office it is to provide for others, are called gods. Whence that word of God to Moses: "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh." Thus Molina. But the prior sense, as it is plainer and more common, so also is it truer.
6:3
3. NOT REMAIN. -- In Hebrew it is lo iadon, which Symmachus, Arias and others derive from the root dun and translate as, shall not judge, shall not contend, as if God said: I will not suffer this dispute between my mercy and my justice to last so long; again, I do not wish to contend any longer with the stubbornness of men. It wearies me, grieves me and torments me that such conflicts of opposing affections persist: therefore I will end the dispute and utterly destroy men who are incorrigible and wholly given over to the flesh. God speaks anthropopathically. Thus also St. Jerome reads in the Questions, or Traditions, on Genesis: "In the Hebrew," he says, "it is written: My spirit shall not judge these men forever, because they are flesh, that is, because the condition in man is fragile, I will not keep them in eternal torments, but here I will repay them what they deserve. Therefore it sounds not severity, as is read in our codices, but clemency of God, when the sinner here is visited for his crime." Secondly, better do Pagninus and Cajetan with St. Chrysostom, for iadon with other pointing read iiddon, from the root neden, that is, sheath, as if to say: My spirit shall no longer remain in man's body, as in a sheath; I will unsheathe, or draw forth the soul from the body. Whence the Syrians call the body nidne, because it is as it were a sheath of the soul. Thirdly and most plainly, it can be said with Leo Castrio, book III of the Apology, that in the Hebrew for iadon should be read ialon, from the root lun, that is, remained, stayed, lodged; for both the Septuagint and the Chaldean, as well as our translator, render it, "shall not remain," namely the spirit in the body, as in its lodging. MY SPIRIT. -- The soul and life breathed into man by me, Genesis II; hence our breath, life and soul God holds in his hand, Daniel V, verse 23. FOREVER. -- For a long time, such as men had from Adam until now, because, as follows, after 120 years I will destroy all by the flood. BECAUSE THEY ARE FLESH. -- Because carnal, and cast down into the vices of the flesh by their own fault. Thus St. Chrysostom and Ambrose. AND THE DAYS OF THEM SHALL BE A HUNDRED AND TWENTY YEARS. -- Some think that here God fixed a term of life for individual men, as if each man thereafter would live only 120 years. Thus Josephus, Philo, Rupert, Abulensis. But they are mistaken: for it is established that after these times men lived not 120, but 400 years, as appears in Genesis XI. I say therefore that God here fixed a term of life for the whole human race, as if to say: Carnal men have most grievously offended me: I could destroy them this instant; but because I am merciful, I give them time for repentance, and that a generous time, namely 120 years: if they neglect it, after 120 years I will utterly destroy all by the flood, which I will bring upon the world. Thus the Chaldean, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Augustine in book XV of the City of God, chapter XXIV. Therefore, as St. Augustine and Salvian rightly note, in the book Antikimenon from Genesis, God spoke these words in the year of Noah's age 480, 20 years before the birth of Shem, which occurred in the year of Noah's age 500, as the flood occurred in year 600: although St. Jerome, Chrysostom and Hugh wish these words to have been spoken in the year 500 of Noah's age, 100 years before the flood: thus indeed so that from these 120 years, God on account of the crimes of men cut off and shortened 20. Here therefore God fixed for the world a time of repentance of 120 years, and revealed it to Noah, so that he himself might make it known to the world. Whence it follows that Noah was here implicitly appointed by God as a herald of repentance and of the threat of the flood: that he performed this faithfully and diligently among men is beyond doubt, and that he had as colleagues in this his grandfather Methuselah and his father Lamech is very probable. Whence Berossus the Chaldean, in book I, thus says: "Then many were preaching and prophesying, and were carving on stones concerning the destruction of the world that was to come; but indeed those accustomed to it mocked all things, the wrath and vengeance of the heavenly powers pressing upon them, on account of impiety and crimes." Morally, note here that impiety and wickedness extinguish families, even the most ancient and noble, as appears in Cain and the giants: thus piety and virtue perpetuate them, as appears in Seth and Noah; this is what is said in Psalm XXXVI: "But the just shall inherit the land: and the wicked shall perish, and the remnants of the impious shall be destroyed together." Symbolically, the Cabbalists, and from them Peter Bungus, in the tract On the Mysteries of Numbers, in the six-thousandth, take these 120 years as great and Mosaic years, namely jubilees, so that each year here comprises fifty common years: and consequently these 120 make six thousand common years (for multiply 120 by fifty, you will have six thousand), for which this world will last, and the life and age of men, concerning which I spoke in chapter II, verse 2.
6:4
4. NOW GIANTS WERE. -- From the word "were" it appears that giants existed already before: yet in such a way that at this time they were multiplied, from the mixture of the sons of God with the daughters of men. Whence the Hebrew for "for after" have "and also after"; and the Septuagint clearly thus translate: "Giants were upon the earth in those days, and after that, after the sons of God entered in to the daughters of men." Thus St. Augustine, Vatablus and others. Note: Giants in Hebrew are called nephilim, that is, falling ones (from the root naphal, that is, he fell), actively, as it were rushing in, oppressing, and prostrating all things like a storm, and driving to fall and ruin: whence Aquila translates, "those violently rushing in"; hence that passage Job XVI, verse 15: "He rushed upon me as a giant." For giants were indeed vast, very tall, very strong and very violent men. These same, from their parents Rapha and Enac, are called Raphaim and Enakim: in Greek they are called giants, as it were gegenes, that is, born from the earth, as it were sons of the belly and earth, as St. Ambrose and Philo say. Burgensis thinks giants were demons clothed in human form: Valesius thinks giants were sons of incubus demons; Philo thinks most wicked men are called giants. But it is certain that giants were men of monstrous stature, remarkable for strength, robberies and tyranny. Whence giants, through their crimes, were the greatest and principal cause of the flood, as is evident from Wisdom XIV, 6; Job XXVI, 5. Moses hints at the same thing here: for on that account, about to describe the flood, he sets forth giants, as it were the cause of the flood. Thus interpreters teach everywhere. From this place again, and rather from the construction of the tower of Babel, of which cap. XI, the Gentiles took the fable of giants and Titans, as after St. Ambrose and Eusebius, lib. V of Preparation for the Gospel, cap. IV, Pererius teaches. For antiquity believed giants to be men of the most lofty stature, and with the feet of dragons, brought forth by an angry earth for the destruction of the gods, so that namely they might wage war against the gods, and cast Jupiter from the possession of heaven, but rashly and in vain: for they were crushed by Jupiter, which Ovid thus touches upon in a few verses: They say giants sought to seize the kingdom of heaven, / And piled up high mountains heaped together to the stars. / Then the Father almighty shattered Olympus with a thunderbolt sent, / And shook off Pelion subjected beneath Ossa. FOR AFTER, -- that is, Especially after. Note: Giants were chiefly generated from the sons of Seth (for these are called sons of God), who were of the most perfect strength, and already degenerating from their primeval integrity, wholly inflamed with the utmost love and ardor of lust, wholly cast down to earth and belly, they clung to the daughters of Cain (for these are called daughters of men), as being most beautiful. For lust caused nature in them to exert all its force and the extreme of its power, and thus vast and very strong men were born. Thomas Fasellus, On Sicilian Matters, lib. I, decade 1, cap. VI, brings forth many examples of giants of this nearly present age, of whom some had 18, others 20, others more cubits in height. See here how strength equally as virtue, or the vice of parents is poured into offspring. Rightly the Poet: The brave are born of the brave / There is in young cattle, there is in horses the virtue of fathers, / Nor do fierce eagles / Beget an unwarlike dove.
6:5
5. ALL THOUGHT. -- Hebrew kol ietser machsebot, every figment of thoughts; for ietser is a figment, or the potter's clay. Whence Illyricus raves, while from this, or rather from his monstrous pottery, he forms and fashions that original sin is not an accident, but a substance and substantial form of man. For such a substance, he says, is the potter's clay. But he himself does not notice that this figment is not of God, but "of thoughts"; but human thought does not paint and fashion the substance, but an image of the substance loved to itself: but this image is an accident, not a substance. Whence Calvin translates all imagination. For just as the potter his idols, so imagination and concupiscence of man fashions its species, as it were idols for itself (concerning which matter see Cyprian in the prologue of the book On the Works of the Cardinals), and feeds itself on them and delights itself, not by force, but freely, and therefore is deservedly punished, as these were punished by the flood. WAS INTENT UPON EVIL. -- Calvin infers, therefore all our works, even holy ones, are stained by some hidden sin of concupiscence, indeed are wholly filthy. For the Hebrew texts add rac, that is, only intent upon evil. I answer, the word rac neither the Septuagint, nor the Chaldean, nor Our translation rendered, because they saw it added in the Hebrew by pleonasm and amplification, and sufficiently included in what is said, "all thought and at all times intent upon evil." I answer secondly, Scripture here does not speak of the just, but of sinners, on account of whom the flood was brought. For immediately it excepts the just Noe, verse 8, whose almost all thought was intent, not upon evil, but upon good. I answer thirdly, there is here a hyperbole; for sinners, however great, nevertheless do some good things, while they obey parents, help neighbors, keep faith with others, etc.; "all" therefore, that is, most and very frequent, "thought." Thus we commonly say: This man dreams of nothing else (that is, often thinks of nothing else) but his belly. A similar hyperbole is in Psalm XIII, 3; Romans III, 12. Add, that Moses properly speaks of sinners, not all, but only those who were in the time of Noe, and were most wicked and criminal: whom although we should grant did nothing good, but all evil, and that from their free malice, yet from this it does not follow that they could not have acted otherwise, nor also that other sinners, who live in other times, do nothing good, but perform all evil. From this place Pererius probably thinks, that at that time only Noe with his descendants was just, all others were impious, and therefore, as in the waters of the flood, so also in hell they were submerged, except however infants, who were reborn by the sacrament of that time and were drowned. But the contrary is more probable, namely that some even adults, when they saw themselves wrapped in the waters and gradually overwhelmed, repented, were justified and saved. St. Jerome and Rupertus teach this, and St. Peter sufficiently hints at this very thing, epistle I, chapter III, verse 19; for thus in the dangers of shipwreck, even the most criminal of all, with great affection of piety flee to God, promise amendment, seek and obtain pardon, so that the body perishing the soul may be saved.
6:6
6. IT REPENTED HIM. -- The Septuagint, he reconsidered. For he whom his deed repents, often turns over and reconsiders it: Why did I do this? would that I had not done it! It repents a man when he recalls with sorrow, and retracts his words or deeds, on account of a sad outcome which he had not foreseen, which followed from them. God foresaw all things, and cannot grieve; therefore properly nothing repents him: yet he is said anthropopathically to repent and grieve, when on account of the crimes of men, he determines and decrees to revoke his gifts and graces; when he kills and punishes sinners created by him and affected by his benefits, on account of their sins. Whence Symmachus translates, he turned away; it repented God therefore, that is, God being angry and indignant at the sins of men decreed to retract and destroy man, whom he had created.
6:7
7. I WILL DESTROY MAN, etc., DOWN TO THE BEASTS. -- Note: The sin of the whole universe dissolves the harmony, because it not only defiles man, but also the elements and all creatures and distorts them. I will show this through the individual works of the individual days of creation: on the first day, light was created: sin puts to flight and darkens this. Hence Jeremiah says, chapter IV: "I beheld the heavens, and there was no light." On the second day, the firmament and the celestial orbs were created: now on account of sins "the heavens shall be folded together as a book," says Isaiah, chapter XXXIV, verse 4, namely lest sins and sinners cover and conceal them. On the third day, plants were brought forth: concerning these hear Jeremiah, chapter IV: "I beheld the earth, and behold it was empty and nothing." On the fourth day, the sun was made: sin eclipses this, as Isaiah teaches, chapter XIII, verse 10. On the fifth day fish and birds were produced: concerning these Jeremiah says, chapter IV, verse 25, that on account of sin every flying thing departed. On the sixth day beasts and man were created: sin takes these away from the mountains and forests, as appears in Hosea, chapter IV, verse 3. All things therefore are punished with sinning man, because they serve him for sin: or rather man himself is punished in all things, while he is deprived of all things which he has abused.
6:9
9. "NOE A JUST MAN." -- "Noe," says St. Ambrose, in the book On the Ark and Noe, chapter IV, "is praised not by lineage, but by justice: for the lineage of approved men is the stock of virtue; because just as men are the race of mankind, so virtues are the race of souls." Hence, with the world perishing, Noe alone is preserved, as an uncorrupted stock, so that he might be the origin of the new world and the seed-bed of new men, as St. Ambrose says. True nobility, praise and glory therefore consist in justice, religion and virtue. Thus the ancient Christians, the noble and the Martyrs, judged. Thus the Roman Martyr, when Galerius the Emperor and Asclepiades, prefect of Antioch, attacked the Christians, beaten with scourges and leaden weights, refused to spare himself on account of the name of nobility: "God forbid," he said, "that the blood of my parents or the law of the senate should make me noble: the generous following of Christ ennobles men." Asclepiades therefore ordered his sides to be cut with sharp points; then he said: "I give you thanks, O prefect, because you have opened wider passages for my mouth, by which I may preach Christ: behold, so many mouths praise him as there are wounds:" Prudentius testifies in the hymns of the Peristephanon. Thus also St. Agatha, when Quintianus the prefect objected: "Are you not ashamed, born of a noble family, to live the humble and servile life of Christians?" answered: "Much more excellent is Christian humility and servitude than the riches and pride of kings." B. Gregory of Nazianzus, oration 11: "True nobility," he says, "is the preservation of the divine image, and the imitation of the archetype, which reason and virtue effect." "PERFECT." -- In perfection, not of country, but of life, which excludes all sin, not venial, but mortal, and which consists in the constant study and progress of virtues. See St. Augustine, in the book On the Perfection of Justice. Hence the Sibyl sings of Noe, book I: He alone among all was most just and truthful, / Noe most faithful and devoted to good works; and Ecclesiasticus chapter XLIV, verse 17: "Noe was found perfect, just, and in the time of wrath he was made a reconciliation." And Paul, Hebrews XI, 7: "By faith Noe, being warned of things not yet seen, moved with fear, framed the ark for the saving of his house, by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the justice which is by faith." "IN HIS GENERATIONS." -- Among the men of his age and time, and therefore before the men of his age. An abstract is put for a concrete, namely "his generations," for the men born in his age. Thus the Wise man says, Ecclesiastes I, 4: "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh," that is, one age and offspring of men passes away, soon another of sons and grandsons succeeds it. Thus also the Blessed Virgin is said to be blessed among women, that is, before all women. Whence some gather that Noe also was more perfect than Enoch himself, and than all his ancestors, who lived in that first age. But this is not necessary to say; for it is not necessary to extend Noe's age to Enoch, who had already been taken up into paradise six hundred years before; and even if we extended Noe's age to him, it suffices for the truth of these words to say that Noe was more perfect than Enoch himself, nor than all men absolutely, but than many. Secondly, Delrio understands by generations actions; for these are as it were children, which the soul brings forth; stock and nobility is virtue. a man throughout the whole space of his life, that is to say, throughout the whole course of his life, in his actions Noe was perfect. This sense is narrower and more subtle. The former sense therefore is more plain, simple and genuine. "HE WALKED WITH GOD" -- as Enoch, of whom I spoke chapter V, verse 22. Excellently Hugo of St. Victor, book I On the Cloister of the Soul: "Just as," he says, "there is no moment in which man does not use or enjoy the goodness and mercy of God: so there should be no moment in which he does not have him present in memory. For every time in which you do not think of God, count that as lost." St. Basil, being asked, who frequently grows angry? who is sluggish to good works? who does not promote the glory of God? answered this one thing to each: "He who does not always think that God is the inspector of his actions. For this one remembrance, if it were constant, would provide a remedy against all vices."
6:10
10. "SEM, CHAM AND JAPHET." -- "Sem," in Hebrew, says St. Cyril here, homily 3, signifies perfection, or planting; "Cham," craftiness; "Japhet," amplification. More truly "Sem" in Hebrew signifies the same as name, or fame; "Cham," heat and blackness; "Japhet," amplitude, as will be clear chapter IX, verse 26. Now abstracts are put for concretes: name and fame, that is, named and famous; heat and blackness, that is, hot and black; amplitude, that is, ample.
6:11
11. "The earth was corrupted." -- The inhabitants of the earth were so corrupted that they seem to have polluted and corrupted the earth itself by their crimes: this is metonymy with amplification. 12. "ALL FLESH" -- all mankind: this is synecdoche; for flesh is the same as man; and hyperbole, for all is the same as most: for righteous Noah with his own are excepted. "HAD CORRUPTED HIS WAY" -- his manner of living: thus the ways of man are called the works, conduct, and custom of man; the ways of God are called the works of God, Prov. VIII, 22. St. Ambrose notes, in the book On Noah and the Ark, cap. V, that the flood of flesh brought forth the flood of waters. "Flesh, he says, was the cause of corrupting even the soul, which is as it were a certain origin and place of pleasure, from which as from a fountain there burst forth rivers of desires and evil passions, and spread far and wide; by which the soul's rowing is submerged, as it were with the helmsman cast off, when the mind itself, as if conquered by certain storms and tempests, yields from its place." And cap. IX: "Corruption of the flood is the cause: when it has crept in, the waters are opened, all the fountains of desires boil up, so that the whole body is submerged in so great and so deep a flood of vices." Just as therefore Noah, shutting himself up with the animals in the ark, escaped the flood: so also do you restrain your senses and passions within the rule of the mind, and you will be able to free yourself and yours from all danger of the flood.
6:13
13. "THE END OF ALL FLESH HAS COME BEFORE ME" -- the day decreed by Me for the destruction of men and animals is at hand; I have determined now to end and destroy the world by a flood: this is clear from what follows. "BEFORE THEIR FACE" -- through them, from them. Thus the Septuagint. The Chaldee renders it, on account of their evil works.
6:14
14. "MAKE THYSELF AN ARK." -- The Hebrew תבה teba signifies that the form of the ark was not in the manner of a ship, whose keel is curved, and whose top either is open or is vaulted; but in the manner of a chest closed on all sides and rectangular, which is flat underneath and equal in all directions, but on top is flat, yet so that it rises moderately into a ridge and a slight slope. Thus St. Augustine, lib. XV On the City of God, cap. XXVII; and this is sufficiently gathered from its dimensions, which Moses adds in the following verse. "OF SQUARED TIMBERS." -- In Hebrew, of gopher wood, which the Septuagint renders as squared; our version renders it as squared, that is, hewn and polished, both for a more suitable and tight joining, and for elegance, and so that it might be more conveniently coated with bitumen. Oleaster renders it, of pine wood; the Chaldee, likewise Aben Ezra, and the Rabbis render it, of cedar wood. For cedar abounds in Syria, and is incorruptible, and yields very long planks, and those light and buoyant. That the ark was made of cedar is also taught by St. Ambrose, lib. On the Ark, cap. VII, and St. Augustine, tract. 6 in John. St. Jerome renders it, of bituminous wood (as if gopher were the same as copher), that is, bituminous, that is, resinous: for bitumen is broadly taken for resin; and pine and cedar are resinous, and thus all these versions would agree into one. "YOU SHALL MAKE NESTS IN THE ARK." -- The Hebrew and Septuagint, you shall make nests in the ark, that is, you shall divide and distribute the ark into small stalls, so that not only birds, but other animals, might have their separate dwellings. Whence our version clearly explained these nests through mansions. Symbolically St. Ambrose, lib. On Noah, cap. VI: "Our whole body, he says, is woven together like a nest, so that the vital spirit penetrates all parts of the viscera. Certain nests are our eyes, into which sight inserts itself. Nests are the sinuses of our ears, through which hearing pours itself. A nest is the nostrils, which draw odor to itself. A nest is the fourth, larger than the others, the opening of the mouth, in which taste is nourished until it grows, and from which voice flies forth, in which the tongue lies hidden. The spirit which we draw in and by which we are nourished is a nest, the lung; but a nest of blood and spirit is the heart. The bones also, being stronger, have nests. For they are hollow within, in certain openings there is marrow. In the viscera themselves, which are softer, nests of desire or pain are. " And soon after: "There is now in this body a nest of chastity, in which there was a nest of irrational desire." "WITH BITUMEN." -- Pitch would have been more apt than bitumen, for gluing together and consolidating the planks, and for dispelling the stench arising from the dung of so many animals.
6:15
15. "THE LENGTH OF THE ARK SHALL BE THREE HUNDRED CUBITS, THE BREADTH OF IT FIFTY CUBITS, AND THE HEIGHT OF IT THIRTY CUBITS." -- A cubit contains a foot and a half, or six palms; formerly, just as the feet of men and palms were larger than they are now, so also cubits were larger. Origen understands the cubit here not as the common cubit, of which I have already spoken, but as one which contains six common and ordinary cubits. Isidore Clarius and Delrio follow Origen. For in this way all animals could dwell in the ark not tightly and compactly, but loosely and healthily. But in this way the vastness of the ark would have been so immense that it could scarcely be joined together into one structure, and could scarcely be sustained and moved by the waters. Add to this that elsewhere Scripture takes cubits not as geometric, but as common, as when it says that Goliath was six cubits and a span in height; for who would believe that Goliath was thirty-six common cubits tall? Therefore here too common cubits ought to be understood. Thus Torniellus. Note: The length of the ark was tenfold to its height and depth; for such is the proportion of 300 to 30; for ten times thirty is three hundred. Again, the length of the ark was sixfold to its breadth; for such is the proportion of 300 to 50; for six times 50 is 300. The same is the proportion of the dimensions in a well-formed human body, namely that its length, which is measured from the crown to the feet, is sixfold to its breadth, which is measured from the right side to the left, going through the middle of the chest. Again, the length of the human body is tenfold to its depth, which is measured from the chest, and penetrating through the chest to the back. Thus St. Augustine, book XV of The City of God, chapter XXVI, and St. Ambrose, book On the Ark, chapter VI. From this it follows that the capacity of the ark internally was 450,000 cubits. For if you geometrically multiply 300 cubits of the length of the ark by fifty of its breadth, you will have fifteen thousand square cubits; which if you again multiply by 30 cubits of the height of the ark, you will have the aforesaid 450 thousand solid cubits. This therefore was the dimension and capacity of the ark internally, which was indeed immense and sufficient for all the animals and things contained in the ark; so that it is not necessary, with Origen, to understand cubits here as not common, but as geometric: for in that way the ark would have been sixfold greater and more capacious.
6:16
16. "A WINDOW." -- One principal window, larger and transparent, made of glass, crystal, or stone of mirrors (for this is what the Hebrew צהר tsohar means, and the Greek diaphanes ["transparent"], as Symmachus translated it). Nothing therefore prevents other smaller windows around the third story, made to receive light everywhere. This window could be opened: through it Noah sent forth the dove and the raven. "AND IN A CUBIT SHALT THOU FINISH THE TOP THEREOF." -- That is to say, you shall make the height of it, namely of the window, of one cubit. Thus Vatablus, Oleaster, Delrio. Secondly, Torniellus explains it thus, that is to say, Keep always at hand and apply the measure of a cubit, so that according to it you build each part of the ark to the measure prescribed by me. Thirdly and genuinely (as is evident from the Hebrew), "of it," namely of the ark, you shall make the top or height of one cubit, that is to say, You shall make the roof of the ark not entirely, but almost flat, in such a way that it rises slowly and gently only to the height of a cubit: so that this cubit is the middle height of the peak of the ark throughout its entire length. Thus John Buteo and Pererius according to the common opinion of the Doctors; for Moses here describes the roof of the ark and its arched form at the peak. Four Stories of the Ark "BELOW THOU SHALT MAKE THREE STORIES." -- Read and join these thus, not as if you were to refer "below" to the door which preceded. Now the sense is, that is to say, Below one story, or floor under another you shall construct, says Delrio. Secondly, more aptly to the Hebrew: "below," that is, the lowest floors; "stories," that is, the middle floors: for in these stories are usually made; and the third story, that is, the third or uppermost floor, you shall make in the ark. For the Hebrew has lower, second and third stories; and the Chaldean, lower, second and third dwellings in it. Whence it is clear that the ark had three stories, or floors; these are called by the Greeks tristega, in which partly animals, partly food and other furnishings were stored and distributed. To these add a fourth lowest one, for the bilge. Now John Buteo describes and distributes each part thus exactly, in his book On the Ark. In this lowest part was the place for ballast, or sand, which is necessary for a ship, so that in the waters it does not float, does not incline to this side or that, but by its own weight as it were and just balance stands straight in the waters; in this also was the bilge which would receive filth from the upper floors through channels, and would send it out through latrines, or holes into the waters. These holes, however, were not in this lowest part (for this entire part was under the waters), but in the following, or second story, into which water and filth were raised from the lowest part by a pump: unless you prefer to say with Torniello that the filth was raised by ropes to the first and uppermost floor, to the window of the Ark, so that through it, being large, it would be cast out. In the second story, or floor, was the place for all animals both creeping and walking through cells, in very many (Delrio counts 300) cells, or small dwellings, larger or smaller, according to the size of the animals, distinguished on both sides: in the cells were mangers and other vessels containing food and drink; in the floor of the cells were small windows, through which the filth of the animals would be sent down to the bilge; in the middle of the cells on both sides was a passage, or way, by which men with lamps would run to each cell, so that they might inspect them, and provide each animal with necessities. In this floor was the door of the ark, of which in verse 16, and it was large and spacious, as through it elephants, camels and all animals were brought into the ark. In the third floor were distinct storerooms, containing both provisions for animals and men, namely hay, straw, apples, grain, seeds, legumes; and jars of fresh water, for drinking and for washing. From this third floor, through holes and tubes, food and drink were sent into each manger of the second floor: here also was stored all furnishings, both urban and rural, to be used after the flood. On the fourth and highest story, there was a place for men and birds. First, therefore, there was here a bedroom of Noah and his sons, distinct from the gyneceum, or dwelling of women (for St. Ambrose, Rabanus, Anselm of Laon, St. Jerome in Zechariah XII, Delrio and others teach that men abstained from them during the flood); a window of the ark supplied light to this. Second, there was here a kitchen with a chimney and hearth; third, an oven, bakery and hand mills; fourth, a wood-store with wood and charcoal; fifth, a pantry of provisions both of food and drink. On the other side were cages and nests of individual birds, with their own food. In these upper rooms were ladders, by which they ascended and descended from one to another. Furthermore, as Buteo teaches, in this fourth story there were air-holes for receiving and renewing the air. These air-holes were like certain chimneys, which extended up to the top of the ark, so that through certain small openings, on both sides properly constructed under the projecting eaves of the roof (so that they might be protected from rains and removed from the waves of water), foul odors could be exhaled and the enclosed air could transpire, lest the animals themselves be infected and killed by the stench of filth. Over all these was placed a roof, flat but somewhat sloping and rising to the height of a cubit (as was shown before), so that it would shed the rain that fell upon it outward from the ark, into the waters. Now Buteo divides the thirty cubits of the height of the ark thus through the four stories already mentioned, so that the bilge had four cubits of height; the second story, in which were the animals, had nine cubits of height; the third, of provisions, had eight; the fourth, of men and birds, had nine cubits of height. Furthermore, Noah, being directed by God, in the ark, just as he most wisely distinguished the dwellings and places of animals, lest they could harm one another in any way: so also with wonderful judgment he placed and arranged all the burdens within the ark in such a manner that the ark itself, as if balanced with just weights, could stand and be carried upon the waters in an upright position. All profane writers remembered this ark and the flood, as Josephus testifies, lib. I Antiq. cap. IV, where he also adds that in his own time the remains of the ark were accustomed to be shown among the Armenians. Allegorical Interpretation Allegorically, the ark is the Church, Noah is Christ the savior and consoler of the world; the clean and unclean animals in it are the just and the impious; whoever is outside this ark of Christ, namely a heretic and infidel, will perish when the flood reigns, says St. Jerome. Thus also St. Augustine, lib. XV On the City of God, XXVI, and St. Gregory, homil. 16 on Ezekiel, where among other things he says: "In one cubit the ark is completed, because there is one author and redeemer of the holy Church without sin, toward whom all progress who have known themselves to be sinners." See Ferus here, at the end of the chapter. Tropological Interpretation Tropologically, the ark is a holy soul, hewn by crosses and labors with vices cut away, squared and balanced on every side. Again, the ark is the secret of conscience; Noah is the mind; the length of the ark is faith; the width, charity; the height, hope, likewise prayer and contemplation; the inundation of waters is the assault of temptations; the mountains of Armenia on which the ark rests is the rest of the soul in contemplation of divine things; the birds of the ark are heavenly thoughts; the animals are works and cares concerning earthly things; the raven sent out and not returning signifies false Christians, who rejoice outside in the fluctuation of temporal things and do not return to the rest of the mind; the dove returning signifies good Christians, who sent out to works of charity, soon return to the rest of the mind, but with an olive branch, because they have completed works of mercy. All these things are found in Hugh of St. Victor, lib. Allegor. in Gen. cap. XVIII, and Origen here.
6:18
18. "THOU SHALT ENTER THE ARK, THOU AND THY SONS, THY WIFE, AND THE WIVES OF THY SONS." -- Men are here separated from women, to signify that in the ark the use of marriage was to be abstained from, as being a time of the flood, that is, of mourning and penance, to appease the Deity. Hence no one is read to have been born in the ark, and Moses hints at this saying cap. X, 1: "And sons were born to them after the flood." And cap. XI, 10: "Sem begat Arphaxad two years after the flood." Damascene gives the reason, lib. IV On Faith, cap. XXV: "He separated," he says, "them from their wives, so that with chastity they might avoid the sea and that common shipwreck." Wherefore the Hebrews and St. Jerome in cap. XII of Zechariah, at those words: "The family of the house of David apart, and their women apart;" and Abulensis here in cap. VII, and Remigius, cap. II of Joel at those words: "Let the bridegroom go forth from his chamber," think that during the whole time in which the flood lasted and the universal destruction of the world, neither Noah nor his sons applied themselves to procreation, because it was a time for mourning and praying and appeasing God.
6:19
19. "AND THOU SHALT BRING IN TWO OF EVERY LIVING CREATURE." -- Understand this of terrestrial creatures; therefore also wild beasts, such as lions, wolves, tigers, were brought in two by two into the ark, which at that time, tamed as it were, like mild lambs, obeyed Noah, a most innocent man, just as they obeyed Adam in paradise. See St. Chrysostom, homily 25. But no fish entered the ark, nor amphibians, because these live continually both in waters and on land. Therefore in vain and rashly do some, following Hugo, book I On the Moral Ark, chapter III, assign cavities or nests to these amphibians, which Noah might have made for them outside on the outermost wall of the ark, which faced the waters; for if there are any amphibians which cannot lack land for so long, either on account of food, or because they lodge on land at night, these were received and preserved within the ark together with the others. Again, animals which arise from putrefaction, such as mice, worms, bees, scorpions, were not brought into the ark; nor those which are born from the congress of diverse species, such as a mule from a mare and an ass. Therefore of terrestrial animals which entered the ark, Arias Montanus, in his book On the Ark, counts 450 species, excepting serpents. Now Pererius counts 23 species of serpents and reptiles. Wherefore universally there would have been about 175 species of terrestrial animals in the ark; among which only six are larger than a horse, few equal to it, many smaller even than sheep. All these terrestrial creatures Pererius equates to 250 oxen, and he does not think they occupied more space in the ark than 250 oxen would occupy. You will scarcely find 150 species of birds in Gesner and Aldrovandus; among which few are larger than swans, most are smaller than them. Therefore this ark could easily contain all these, since its capacity was 450,000 cubits, as I said in verse 15.
6:20
20. "THEY SHALL ENTER WITH THEE." -- In Hebrew יבאו אליך iabon elecha, they shall come to thee, namely of their own accord, even if they be wild, and this either by the instinct of God, or by the impulse of angels, as previously they were brought to Adam, chapter II, 19. Thus St. Augustine, book XV On the City of God, chapter XXVII. Therefore Noah did not seek out these animals and bring them to the ark, as Philo wishes; nor did the animals themselves, as the flood grew stronger, flee by swimming to the ark, as Hugo Victorinus wishes according to Buteo.
6:21
21. "OF ALL FOODS THAT MAY BE EATEN." -- In Hebrew, "of all food which is wont to be eaten," namely both by man and by beasts. Whence it is more true what John Buteo asserts (although Pererius holds the contrary opinion), namely that carnivorous animals in the ark ate not herbs, but meats, which Noah placed in the ark for this purpose (for a lion, for example, feeds only on flesh).
Machine translation from the Latin, not reviewed.
6:1
v. 4 « Cumque coepissent homines multiplicari super terram et filias procreassent »,
Arg. — Fragmentum hoc in Introd. declarabamus, primitus fuisse capiti individua narratione contextum. Recenset illud duo divina decreta : prius 6,1-3 occasione nefandorum coniugiorum editum et centum viginti annorum moram indicens; alterum depravatis funditus hominibus imminens diluvium praenuntians. v. 8 patriarcham Noe demon- Strat, semznzs electi unicam spem et salutem. Cap. VI
6:2
v. 9 « videntes filii Dei filias hominum quod. essent pulchrae, acceperunt sibi uxores ex omnibus, quas elegerant », i. e. uxores , quascunque elegerant. nx v. 1 evidenter significat homznes universim, non solos Cainitas, licet contextus utique efficiat primarie intelligi Cainitas. Ergo etiam Q'Nn nn23 v. 2. eodem sensu intelligendae sunt suntque eaedem atque r3 v. 1. Sed contextus v. 9 expressionem de se universalem limitat, cum reliquis hominibus opponat aliquam classem ///ios Dei hincque sensus evadat hic : videntes filii Dei filas . ceterorum hominum. Habes expressionem omnino analogam Ier. 32,920 DTN219»N302,in [sraeletin ceteris hominibus. Iam in ea expressione loco ox"v* scribe terminum omnino synonymum 5xqw* «x2, et habebis expressionem GN bx *32, quae omnino parallela est eius, quam ex nostro v. 1. 2 colligis, 2*N1 mmu *z2, filii Dei ceterique homines. Ergo fit? Dei nomen sit gentilicium oportet, quale fi/z? Israel. Quae autem alia gens eo nomine intelligi poterit, nisi Sezhztae? Quorum modo cap. 4 explicabatur genealogia et 6,8 continuabitur historia. gelos sed Sethitas. Sufficiat nominasse Ephr., Chrys., Theodoret., Aug., Proc., Rup. etc. « Omittamus igitur », ait Aug., « earum scripturarum fabulas, quae apocryphae nuncupantur, eo quod earum occulta origo non claruit patribus, a quibus usque ad nos auctoritas veracium scripturarum certissima et notissima successione pervenit. In his autem apocryphis etsi invenitur aliqua veritas, tamen propter multa falsa nulla est canonica auctoritas ». Convellenda nobis supersunt praecipua sententiae, quae filios Dei angelos interpretatur, argumenta. contextus docet eximi Beniaminitas, quin liceat inferre Beniaminitas Israe litas non fuisse. Profecto contextus angelos excludit. Angelos veneri indulgere in universa scriptura est inauditum; imo sexu illos carere affirmat Christus Matth. 22,30. Qualescunque fuisse supponantur, at certe specie, imo genere ab hominibus differebant : at quae specie differunt creaturae, si infandum in modum commisceantur, non mutua pulchritudine (v. 2) pelliciuntur, sed bruta venere aguntur. Velsi tum reapse mulierum forma angelos illexit, qui fit, ut inde a diluvio iam nihil audiamus de angelis mulierum venustate deceptis? Merito monet Ke:, "UN np» secus constanter praedicari non de abominandis commerciis, sed de veris permanentibusque connubiis, qualia non poterant esse inter angelos et mulieres; estque ille expressionis usus tam evidens, ut illum Del. et Dilim. adversarii concedant. Eundem expressioni h. ]. sensum competere et per se est evidens, et aliqua etiam ratione confirmari potest e verbis Christi Matth. 24,38 (cf. Luc. 17,27) : « Sicut enim eraní in diebus ante diluvium comedentes et bibentes, nubentes et nuptui tradentes, usque ad eum diem, quo intravit Noe in arcam etc. ». Monet porro CArys., non angelorum referri peccatum, effici etiam inde, quod hominum tantummodo, non angelorum narretur secuta punitio; ubi conferas 3,14 sq. poenam serpenti indictam. — . Aliunde contextus suggerit agi de Sethitis. Eorum genealogiam auctor produxerat usque ad Noe, sub quo magna aliqua morum corruptio diluvio uleiscenda non alios solum homines sed etiam Sethitas, excepta Noe familia, omnes invaserat. At in ea corruptione efficienda insignes necesse est fuisse Cainitarum partes. Quorsum secus cap. 4 eorum traditur genealogia? quorsum traditur non ad diluvium, sed ad septimam tantummodo generationem usque? Quorsum nomina recensentur Iabel, Iubal, Tubalcain, maxime vero omnium Noemae? quid eam mulierem famosam effecit? nonne forma muliebresque artes? Aenigma manet istud Noemae nomen insolubile, nisi illud cum 6,2 de filiabus hominum dictis componas. Fuit igitur Noema una ex illis filiabus hominum, ceteris uti videtur procacior; nupsit uni filiorum Dei. At qui isti filii Dei? num angeli? at quid tum Noemae cum ruina Sethitarum commune? Recensendum fuerat non Noemae nomen, sed earum e filiabus Sethitarum nomina, quae Sethitis infandi commercii auctores exstitere. Ubi primum autem filios Dei interpreteris Sethitas, facile omnia componuntur. Nomine appellatur Noema sine dubio, quod principi cuidam Sethitarum fuerit nuptui tradita. Producitur Cainitarum genealogia ad illud usque punctum, quoad Cainitae Sethitis iniquis coniugiis misceri coepere. Aequo alveo fluit narratio. Tandem secundum, explicationem a nobis traditam, 4,26 tempore Enos nata scribitur filiorum Dei appellatio. Textui vero ei tenebras offudit traditionis ille emendator, qui nomini Q'n5x substituit nomen mn.
6:3
v. 3 « Dixitque Deus : Non permanebit spiritus meus tin homzne in aeternum, quia caro est, eruntque dies illius centum viginti annorum ». Intelligitur homo idem atque v. 1, ergo homines universim, tam qui v. 2 filii Dei, quam qui filii hominum audiunt. Idem est spiritum non permanere, et dies hominis limitari ad centum viginti annos. Ergo spiritus meus est spiritus a me ad imaginem meam fíactus (Rup.), anima humana quae Iob. 27,3 appellatur n'5N n, quaeque 2,7 processerat spiratione ex ore Dei. Haec est praecise ille « spiritus Dei », illud « spiraculum omnipotentis », quod Iob 33,4 et Ps. 103 (104), 29 hominem vivificat (Lamy), cum illud sit anthropomorphismi proprium, ut distinctiones divinum inter et humanum minus clare exprimat. Vocem £n aeternum bene Rup. comparat cum 3,92 : « Nunc ergo, ne forte mittat manum suam et sumat etiam de ligno vitae et comedat et vivat in aeternum ». Reapse sententia ib. lata inculcatur magisque restringitur : ergo n aeternum non exprimit, quod vult Per. , aeternitatem stricte dictam. Etiam in paradiso non fuisset hominis vita stricte aeterna, sed ob vigorem eximium vitalem repetitumque fructus vitae esum ad longissimum fuisset tempus producenda. Post Adae peccatum homo ill» fructu privatus non iam poterat aeque diu vitam producere, tamen perseverante nativo: vigore priores quinque patriarchae produxerant vitam quodammodo a5y^5, i. e. ad nongentos circiter annos. Idem haud dubium facturi fuerant patriarchae praeter Henochum reliqui, nist intercessisset diluvium. Atdiluvio secundum Sam. exstincti sunt paüriarchae tres diu ante, quam annum attigissent nongentesimum : Iared natus annos 847, Mathusala 720, Lamech 653. In his certe non perseveravit spiritus vitae 25y5; idemque de eorum aequalibus diluvio oppressis erit dicendum. Videmur nobis in hoc novam deprehendere confirmationem numerorum, quales Sam. scribit, dum secundum Hebr. LXX Iared et Mathusala annos vivunt 962 et 969, 1. e. longissimas omnium patriarcharum vitas, etiam Adae et Noe. — Additur autem ratio, cur abbrevianda sit hominis vita, sc. quia caro est, quia eius opera - carnalia sunt (CArys.). | Duo &zab Aevópeva versus habet. n reddunt versiones permanebit, praeter Symm ., Ps. Ion. et Targ. Hier., qui illud a 1*7 repetunt significatione iudicandi; cf. item S. Hier. Ad radicem 111 etiam revocatur 2 Reg. 21, 20 (keri) T1133 extensio, qui sensus e permanendi significatione sat facile derivatur. Temere supponet quis, versiones principales omnes casu in permanendi significationem conspirasse, aut omnes pariter aliquid à tT? diversum legisse : tutius erit admittere, versionum auctores novisse, quae nos latet, radicis 11" significationem. Neque lubet h. 1. discutere, sintne Iu et T7 unica radix, cuius significatio sit morari, dominari , iudicare, — Q31U23 versiones uno ore reddunt quia, quorum consensus non est spernendus. Explicabant Rabbini vocem esse contractam ex Q3 *UN23; 1UN23 reapse Gen. 39, 9.23 legitur significatione quia; V) pro 1XUN nequit dici a recentionibus tantum Hebraeis fuisse usurpatum, cum in libro Iudicum identidem legatur; tamen in Pentateucho habetur nunquam, ut reapse improbabilis videatur illa explanatio rabbinica. Dein in hac explanatione Q3 trahendum esset ad sequentia, ergo : quia etiam ipse, quia vel ipse caro est. At quocum h. 1l. comparetur homo, non perspicitur. Neque vertere licet quia profecto caro est ipse, tum enim mutandus erat ordo verborum «t1 v3 203. — Alii Q392 derivant à A3U, eo praeprimis nisi argumento, coniunctionem Q3 ornandam fuisse signo non kamez sed patach. Leviuscula haec ratio : facile poterant Masor. exprimere longam vocalem pro brevi. Vertunt igitur illi variis modis, prout varie iungunt. Ges. suggerit : in errore eorum (angelorum?) ipse est caro. At quomodo errore angelorum factus est homo caro? Keil : in suo errore homines sunt caro. At dura est enallage numeri QN23, DQ31U23, "!2*. Alii : non permanebit spiritus meus in homine propter errorem eorum; caro est. Sed monet Budde p. 25, minus commode invicem excipere tres expressiones adverbiales QN23, noy», DQ302; fuisse scribendum Qava3 p" Nb *T etc. Contra has similesque versiones illud est, 33V in Pentateucho (Lev. 5, 18; 4. 2. 27; Num. 15,27) semper scribi de peccato indeliberato, quale nostro textu intelligi nullo pacto potest; item Iob. 6,24; 19, 4; Prov. 19, 27; Ps. 118 (119), 10. 67; et licet Ps. 118, 21. 118 vox usurpatur sensu nonnihil latiore, tamen h. 1. ineptissime adhiberetur, quod proprie peccatum indeliberatum exprimat. — De vocis 302 interpretatione vix non desperans incidi in J. B. Zenner S. I. (Zeitschrift für Kath. Theologie, Innsbruck 1893, p. 173) corrigentem Q'Y2 : caro eorum ipsa est caro; tota quanta est caro, nihil quam caro; — emendatio tam obvia, apta et facilis, ut mireris eandem tot sagacissimos viros latuisse. Eadem versionibus etiam satis est consona. Extrema v. 3 pars duplici ratione explicatur. Ios., Philo (de Gigant.), Lact. (Div. instit. II. 13; M. 6,325), Proc. etc. censuere eum esse sensum, annos vitae hominum post diluvium iam limitari ad 1920, quod tamen videtur pugnare cum Gen. 11, ubi e patriarchis postdiluvianis ad Abraham usque quatuor numerant annos plus 400, quatuor plus 200, unus vel fortasse duo plus 140. Quae pugna potuit esse ratio, cur moderni et maxime rationalistae conferto agmine ei se iunxerint sententiae : quo plures quippe in s. textu deprehendunt discordias, eo plura sibi fas esse putant discernere varia documenta. E contra Ephr., Chrys., Hier., Aug. eti catholici communiter, item Ps. Ion. et Targ. Hier. lenent, verbis textus hominibus, qui erant ante diluvium, concedi 120 annos, quo male actorum poenitentes impendentem averterent ruinam. « Non igitur humana vita ut multi errant, id centum viginti annos contracta est, sed generationi illi centum viginti anni ad poenitentiam dati sunt » (Hzer.). Ergo haec prima poenae annuntiatio facta est anno mundi 1187, aetatis Noe 480. - Hunc autem esse genuinum verborum sensum, docet contextus. Agitur de iis hominibus et quidem in v?tzs eorum puniendis, qui v. 1 sq. narrabantur deliquisse : ii minime puniebantur, si innocentis Noe posterorum vitae decurtarentur; puniebantur vero, si ad nongentos, uti primi patriarchae, annos pertingere ipsi prohiberentur. Obiicit Len. I. 375 sq., haud posse admitti nonnisi 120 ante diluvium annis coepisse coniugia filiorum Dei cum filiabus hominum. Sed hoc neque sequitur ex dictis. v. 3 docet, Deum ob illa coniugia et post illa comminatum esse interitum iteriectis 120 annis secuturum : at non comminatus est, ubi primum ea coniugia fieri cocperunt, sed diu post, 47 annis post pii Enos obitum, 300 annis post translatum Henoch. - Primum fuere primorum patriarcharum piorum admonitiones adhuc superstitum, secuta cst praedicatio Henoch et annis bene multis praedicatio Noe : ubi tot media effectu caruere, ubi solus tandem Noe iustus superfuit, tum indicti 120 poenitentiae anni, tum brevi post iussus Noe eos tres filios generare, qui tamquam nova creatura cum ipso forent salvandi. Postquam auctor v. 1-3 unam causam infligendi interitus, infanda connubia recensuit, v. 4 sq. alteram indicat heroum ex iis connubiis prognatorum licentiam, hineque v. 7 divinam interitus sententiam magis explicite repetit. Nihil vetat statuere, divina decreta v. 3 et T diversis temporibus esse pronuntiata.
6:4
v. & « Gigantes autem » — copulam legunt Vulg. LXX Sam. Syr. — « erant super terram in diebus lis ». Bene Len. 1. 3*1 sententiam comparat similibus 12,6 ; 13,7 : « Chananaeus tum erat in terra » etc., quibus regionis incolae describuntur. a*523 articulum habet, i. e. noti illi gigantes, quos, uti aliarum gentium mythi, ita Hebraeorum traditiones commemorabant. Eos autem explicite gigantibus Graecorum los. comparat. Sed perperam idem, Ephr., Ambr. aliique horum gigantum nomine initio versus putant venire illos solos, qui e commerciis filiorum Dei cum filiabus hominum nati sint. Verius Aug. censet affirmari , fuisse tum universim homines proceriores, tam filios hominum quam imprimis filios Dei. Id exigit Hebr. continuans versum voce 231, idemque clare exprimit LXX. Neque dissonat istud a traditionibus gentium, quae cum deorum osores gigantes describunt, ipsos utique deos suggerunt illis neque mole neque robore fuisse inferiores. & Esdr. 5,52 sqq. statuitur axioma, humanum genus decursu saeculorum statura sensim decrescere ; neque incredibile est, qui per tot saecula vitam produxerint, patriarchas etiam corporis mole et robore eis, qui nunc sunt, praestitisse. m523 vertere Gigantes Vulg. LXYX Theod.; Chald. xY123 uti altera versus parte, itemque Syr. ; Symm. lavi. Etymologiam nominis quod spectat, iam Aqg., Ps. Ion., Targ. Hier. illud derivabant a oj cadere, consentitque Hier. Est tamen haec deri- . vatio minime certa. Derivationes ex lingua assyra tentavere Len. I. 343 sqq., Schrader KAT II. 293 : adhuc sub iudice lis est. — At significatio vocis indubie constat primum ex lingua chald. et fontibus rabbinicis (cf. Len. 1. c.), dein ex Num. 13, 34: « Ibi vidimus monstra quaedam ( DpIIS PIE DN) filiorum Enac de genere giganteo (mbi T3) quibus comparati quasi locustae videbamur ». Ubi sapienter monet Len. DQ'?53 esse nomen non gentilicium, sed commune designans gigantes, ideoque gratuito auctores aliquos effingere gigantes Num. 13 fuisse posteros gigantum Gen. 6. Homines ante diluvium fuisse gigantes, etiam alias tradit scriptura : Iudith 16, 8; Sap. 14, 6; cf. 3 Mach. 2, 4. « Postquam enim ingressi sunt filii Dei ad. filias hominum illaeque genuerunt, isti sunt potentes a saeculo, viri famosi ». Aliter cum praecedentibus iungit Heór. vvx 1» *^nw ax, cf. LXX Syr., estque vertendum : Gigantes autem erant super terram in. diebus siis, a mundo condito ad diluvium; et etiam postmodum, quando ingressi sunt etc., quando gigantes filii Seth commixti sunt maledictae stirpi Cain , non ideo degeneres robore et statura prognati sunt filii, sed alii gigantes, qui, quod robore ad violentiam et rapinam abuterentur, magnum sibi nomen in mundo compararunt : : sli sunt heroes antiqui, vir? famosi. « Ce sont là ces hommes qu'on appelle les héros de l'antiquité, et sur lesquels on fait tant de récits » (Len. I. 335^). Isti ethnicorum heroes contemnendi exhibentur, quod nullis fuerint partibus suis aequalibus meliores et ex nefandis coniugiis orti. praecedenti genuerunt, ad prolem sc. illarum mulierum. — Hanc prolem et ipsam fuisse giganteam, recte asserit Cai. implicite textu affirmari, explicite idipsum pronuntiatur Baruch, 3, 26 sqq., tamen vox 123 de se non dicit gigantem, sed heroem. Ita dicitur *133 David 2 Reg. 17, 10; Alexander Dan. 11, 3; leo Prov. 30, 30, qui nequaquam erat animal maxime procerum Hebraeis notum. Speciatim o 123 dieuntur viri aliqui ceteris fortiores (Iud. 6, 12; 11, 1; 3 Reg. 11, 28), lecti milites (1 Par. 7,5. 11. 40; 2 Par. 13,3;17,16;2 Esdr. 11, 14), magnates (4 Reg. 15, 20), imo viri divitiis magis quam fortitudine insignes (Ruth 2, 1). Dicuntur autem h. l1. heroes, qui a, saeculo, seu heroes antiqui et quasi heroes zaz' &£oy:jv, quo ab heroibus posterioribus omnibus distinguantur, qui tam clarum nomen non sunt assecuti. Baruch 3, 26 sqq. : « Ibi fuerunt gigantes nominati illi, qui ab initio fuerunt, statura magna, scientes bellum. Non hos elegit Dominus neque viam disciplinae invenerunt; propterea perierunt. Et quoniam non habuerunt sapientiam, interierunt proptersuam insipientiam ».
6:5
v. 5 « Videns autem. Deus, quod multa malitia hominum esset in terra, et cuncta cogitatio cordis intenta esset ad malum omni tempore »,
6:6
v. 6 « poenituit eum, quod hominem fecisset in terra ». « Annis ad poenitentiam concessis isti multiplicavere peccata » (Ephr.). Describitur perversitas longe maior ea, quae v. 2 condemnabatur. Ibi sola reprehendebantur vetita coniugia , ob quae homo dicebatur caro. Hic malitia primum dicitur fuisse mu//a extensive. Dein eiusdem intensitas demonstratur : non in exterioribus ea haerebat, sed pertingebat ad imaginationes consiliorum cordis, easque cunctas et omni tempore, quae erant omnzno malae. Hinc reapse crediderim hoc alterum v. 6 sqq. divinum reprobationis decretum re et tempore fuisse diversum a priore illo v. 1-3, prodiisse intra illos 120 annos, fortasse 100 circiter ante diluvium annos, quando etiam geniti sunt
6:8
v. 8 « Noe vero invenit gratiam coram Domino ». Feliciter Vulg. v. 6 addit zntrinsecus; agitur sc. v. 7 de interno Dei decreto, quod v. 13 sqq. Noe communicatur; ergo v. 13 sqq. non est mera v. 1 repetitio. Quaestione crz&ca in Introductione expedita, eas, quas de diluvio recentiores agitant quaestiones, ad unam omnes de diluvii wunversalilate disputationem revocamus. Ubi advertas, aliquam veri nominis universalitatem textu exprimi, negari a viro sensato haud posse : quid enim aliud sensu nativo expressiones « universa terra », « omnis caro » et aliae similes edicunt, nisi veram aliquam universalitatem? Sed distinguitur universalitas absoluta et relativa. Universalitate absoluta intelligenda erit terra tota quanta, nullis exceptis tractibus aut montium cacuminibus, diluvio esse submersa ; homines ad unum omnes, exceptis qui se in arcam recepissent exstincti. Heíatve universale dicendum erit diluvium, si terra intra certos limites spectata supponatur esse submersa tota, v. g. quatenus narratori sacro tum erat nota; si homines supponantur exstincti universi, quorum sc. fata s. auctor describenda susceperit aut habuerit comperta. Hine percipies concipi etiam posse tertiam aliquam universalitatem, quam non inepte mzxtam appellaveris : ut sc. homines affirmentur diluvio obruti esse absolute universi, quotquot exsistebant, terra autem esse submersa tantum relative universa, quatenus sc. ab hominibus tum incolebatur. Hinc tria examinanda veniunt systemata : systema universalitatis absolutae , quod est ceteris antiquius; systema universalitatis mixtae , quod est praecedente recentius; systema unzversalitatis relativae , quod est recentissimum. Evidens est, posse textus Gen. 6-9 exponi sensu universali absoluto : quaestio est, debeantne ita exponi, an possint etiam sensu universali relativo accipi. Et erunt disputationis duae partes, ut primum quaeramus de /erra et animalibus , secundo de hominibus. terrae superficies constat, indubia diluvii in sacris paginis relati argumenta. Ita Aug. (De Civ. Dei XV. 9; M. 51. 448) : « Vidi ipse non solus, sed aliquot mecum, in Uticensi litore molarem hominis dentem tam ingentem, ut si in nostrorum dentium modulos minutatim concideretur, centum nobis videretur facere potuisse. Sed illum gigantis alicuius fuisse crediderim ». Anno 1739 A. Scheuchzer typis edidit ossa quaedam Oeningae in strato miocaeno reperta, quae ipse inscribebat « homo diluvii testis », postea vero Cuvier demonstravit esse non hominis sed salamandri cuiusdam, cui inde nomen inditum « andrias Scheuchzeri ». | Demonstravere autem et alia viri docti, quae magis essent ad rem, conchas sc. marinas vel in ipsis montium verticibus frequentes (cf. Tert. De Pall. 2; M. 2. 1033), ut tandem inde ab exeunte saeculo decimo octavo rerum naturalium peritissimi quique ct imprimis Cuwer certissimum in his conspici arbitrati sint argumentum submersi aliquando universi subita inundatione orbis. Ideoque ea. strata dz/uvit (geologici) nomine insignivere. Mansit nomen, argumento dudum exploso. Sc. inde à G. Buckland 1836 constat apud omnes, diluvium illud geologicum neque simul ubique, neque violento aquarum impetu, neque unico quem Genesis habet anno esse efformatum, sed lente ut plurimum et leniter diversisque temporibus. Illud scientia rerum naturalium sat probabiliter demonstratum habet, homine iam in terris exsistente magnam aliquam obtinuisse orbis concussionem, quae vastos Europae tractus glacie opplevit, regiones pridem florentes aquis mersit, alias ex 1mo mari sublatas extraxit, Asiae orientalis litora et insulas, itemque Americam, terrae motibus prorumpentibusque e montium lateribus flammis concussit, discidit atque mutavit. Quam concussionem auctores quidam cum diluvio biblico comparavere, ut quo tempore regiones illae omnes commoverentur, eadem regio, in qua patriarchae residerent, submergeretur. Totam autem simul terram post creatum hominem aquis esse submersam, nullis geologicis argumentis confirmatum habemus : imo affirmant geologi, testimonio stratorum illud stabiliri, diluvium absolute universale nequaquam obtigisse. Quibus permotus J. B. Iaugey (ib. p. 66 sqq. 107 sqq. 170 sqq. 307 sqq.) eo processit, ut affirmaret frustra in stratis diluvii vestigia requiri, quod probabilius miracula nulla in rerum natura vestigia relinquant; nullum certe diluvii, transitus Maris Rubri, solis a Iosue sistere iussi hucusque repertum esse vestigium. Cui opinioni unus accessit Lamy (ib. 313 sqq.), merito eandem reprobavere aut ignoravere reliqui. Opinio solido fundamento omnino caret. Demus, nullum adhuc cuiusquam biblici miraculi repertum esse vestigium : num inferre fas est, nullum exsistere aut unquam repertum iri? Obstat utique Sap. 10, 7 affirmans portenti Sodomis facti perseverasse vestigium aliquod et « testimonium nequitiae ». Urgent illi auctores, vestigia haec non esse illorum eventuum, ut erant miracula, ex illis vestigiis non patere eventus Dei immediato interventu esse effectos. At idem omnino dicendum quoad diluvium, cuius non ea quaeruntur vestigia, quae illud miraculo faetum demonsirent, sed quae ostendant totam terram reapse aquis fuisse mersam. Tandem neque illud praeter omne dubium constat, quod in hac disquisitione adversarii constanter supponunt, diluvium fuisse miraculum. Fuit certe supernaturalis futuri diluvii per Noe facta praedictio : at ipsum diluvium potuit fieri ex legibus naturae. Celebratur in scriptura tamquam insigne divinitus inflictum flagellum : sed eiusmodi flagellum non oportebat necessario esse miraculum. Quid ergo, si homines omnes audita futuri diluvii comminatione poenitentiam egissent? Potuit Deus omnes servare constructis, quot sufficerent, arcis; potuit educere in regionem dissitam, ad quam inundatio reapse non pertingeret; potuit miraculo cohibere diluvium naturaliter eventurum. Non est .igitur plane certum, diluvium fuisse miraculum. Sententia autem Iaugey et Lamy merito in : Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie, XII. 749, Innsbruck 1888, vocatur « novum desperatis rebus effugium ». Neque solum contra ipsum diluvii factum difficultates movent rerum naturalium periti, sed contra eiusdem facti circumstantias. Cf. opus de hac re recenter editum a M. /'Ab6é Thomas : Les temps primitifs et les origines religieuses, II. 231 sqq. , Paris, 1890. simulque demissis continentibus tota aquarum vis ex illis in has devolvi, Ubi supposuere aliqui terrae axin violenter tum esse inclinatam, ut alio penitus angulo a plano eclipticae divergeret, mariumque aquae ingenti impetu in continentes protruderentur. At, num tantae concussionis non debuere in stratis plurima relinqui vestigia? Dein, si profunda maris fuere elevata et montes submarini nudati, iam non sensu stricte literali accipiuntur verba Gen. 7, 19 : « opertique sunt omnes montes excelsi sub universo coelo ». Verum, si expressionem « sub universo coelo » liceat latiori sensu interpretari, non apparet ratio, cur expressiones « omnis terra » , « omnis caro », « omnis substantia » necessario sint accipiendae sensu strictissimo. Tandem in hypothesi axis terrae inclinatae non potuere aquae diluvii perseverare centum quinquaginta diebus, sed, uti ingenti impetu in continentes irruperant, ita eodem mox impetu debuerunt recedere. Quarum difficultatum una fingi potest solutio, rem totam m?raculis esse actam : creatam aquam aut portento nescio quo coactam, adducta divinitus aut per angelos animalia; miraculo eadem in arca , uti pisces in aquis, praeservata ; infusam patriarchae scientiam vasti eius vivarii sapienter administrandi. Verum miracula tum tantum fas est affirmare, quando aut clare in textu asseruntur, aut res sine miraculis explicari nullatenus potest. Iure merito igitur h. l. disquisiere auctores, possitne s. textus alia ratione et sine miraculis exponi. Tota vero ea quaestio unice est de textus sensu literal? , qui 1n textu historico semper est primarius neque unquam negligendus. Sed alius est sensus literalis , proprius, alius translatus, alius hyperbolicus; in assertionibus speciatim universalibus modo latior est, modo restrictior, pro personae asserentis fine et circumstantiis et pro totius sermonis contextu. Quaestio tandem est tota quanta exeget?ca. In qua duo interpreti catholico sunt pensanda : primum , an liberiorem explicationem admittat textus; secundum an eandem ferat ea, quam revereri tenetur interpres, catholica traditio. | 1. Inundatio ad partem orbis restringi potest salvo textu sacro. 1) Probatur e vocibus ^N et »'218, quibus duplex aequo iure significatio competit £errae et regionis : substitue hanc alteram et facillime fluet narratio eritque de inundatione relative tantum universali. Ea significatione suscepta , expressiones universales omnos per eandem limitantur. « Universa caro », « omnis substantia » intelliguntur caro et substantia omnis, quae intra regionem inundatam reperiebantur. « Omnes montes excelsi sub universo coelo » intelliguntur eiusdem regionis montes, qui suberant universo eiusdem regionis coelo. — Dixerit aliquis, ante cap. 6 VON et '137N universam terram designare : ergo item in narratione diluvii. Non cogit ratio, et praeterea eaedem voces cap. 4 sq. optime exponuntur de particulari regione, itemque cap. 10 sq. In sola Cosmogonia voces necessario latius sumendae sunt, sed inde non cogimur per totam bibliam, imo neque per totam Genesin, voces latius accipere. Cosmogonia minus individue sequenti narrationi connectitur, quam eius narrationis partes inter se. 2) Expressiones universales in scriptura saepe accipiuntur sensu relative tantum universali, nihilque prohibet, quominus etiam h. 1. ita accipiantur. multi magistri putant, tantum terram Israel castigaverat. Sed moris cst scripturarum, ut illam provinciam, de qua dicunt, omnem terram indifferenter nominent ». Eodem loquendi modo utebantur aliae nationes antiquae, cf. Vigourouz, (Bible II. 47) : « La terre entiére est un des noms les plus'ordinaires de l'Égypte ». — Rationem aliquam expressionum universalium de diluvio restringendarum cernit, Brucker (L'universalité du déluge p. 28) in ramo olivae virente Gen. 8, 11 : nam inundatione absolute universali debebant plantae omnes destrui. Alteram cernit Motais (Déluge p. 95 sq.) Gen. 8, 9, ubi, postquam v. 5 iam apparuerant cacumina montium, tamen dicitur columba esse reversa, quia c aquae erant super universam terram » : ergo ciusmodi expressiones universales etiam in reliqua narratione non sunt premendae. 3) Probatur idem ex narrationis ?ndole. Biblicae de diluvio narrationis cum traditionibus populorum , imprimis Babyloniorum, concordia demonstrat, vel ante gentium in campo Sennaar dispersionem exstitisse communem de diluvio traditionem, non ab aliis quam ab eiusdem testibus immediatis derivatam. Idipsum confirmat narrationis sacrae indoles vivida et ad minima quaeque descendens. Quando vero testis immediatus loquitur de iis, quae in tota terra, in cunctis montibus, sub universo coelo, in omni carne et substantia facta sunt, censetur de his rebus loqui, quatenus ipsi notae sunt. Qui in arca servati sunt, eventum posteris narravere qualem oculis ipsi conspexerant : totam quam ipsi norant terram inundatam, altissimos quos ipsi compertos habebant montes submersos, universam quam ipsi scirent carnem exstinctam. Si quis ante repertam Americam, inquit J. B. Pzanciani S. I. (Civiltà Cattolica Ser. V. vol. IV p. 32, 1862), aliqua affirmasset de omnibus animalibus, aut ante inventum telescopium de omnibus stellis, oppido perspiceremus eius verba non referri ad ea animalia , quae solam Americam incolunt, neque ad eas stellas, quae oculis cerni nequeunt. Verba intelligenda sunt ex mente auctoris; eaedem vero voces sensum induunt modo arctiorem modo latiorem , prout loquens res exprimendas novit imperfectius aut penitius. Idem in ore narratoris Noachidae sonat expressio « omnis terra », atque apud Romanos « orbis terrarum », apud Graecos oixouuévr, terrae ambitum cuique notum. Cf.. Vigourouz : Manuell. 460. sqq.; S. F. Smith : The Month 1888, I. 347 sq. 4) Confirmatur idem ez /ine inflicti diluvii, ut sc. delerentur homines peccatores Gen. 6,5 sqq. 13 : ergo, ni textus aliunde cogat, sufficit diluvium ad eas orbis partes restringere, quas illi tum incolebant. Sed textum ipsum non debere necessario exponi de diluvio absolute universali, supra demonstratum habes. vatio. At, si diluvium restringatur, species nulla adhibita ope extra arcam conservabantur, in iis sc. regionibus, ad quas diluvium non pertingebat. Respondeas, verba illa non necessario intelligenda esse de conservandis speciebus, sed de conservandis individuis. Providebat Deus, ut Noe arca egressus continuo secum haberet omnia illa animalia, quae illi usui essent futura (etiam ad sacrificia 8, 20), neque cogeretur exspectare, donec species aliunde immigrarent. Si ferae etiam in arcam convenerant, quod textus quidem non ita clare habet, id sane factum est ad peccatores vividius percellendos. Cf. quae scripsimus : Stimmen aus Maria-Laach 1879 p. 168 sqq. — Urgebis, si tcrra non sit tota submersa, superfluam videri arcae aedificationem, cum tam Noe quam animalia potuerint salvari alio migrantes. Respondeas, Deum non tam in eo fuisse ut medium seligeret facillimum, quippe cui nihil omnino sit difficile, sed efficacissimum ad convertendos Noe aequales. Hi vero efficacius sollicitabantur Noe apud illos perseverante, Dei minas inculcante, arcam exstruente, quam siis primum praedicasset tantum, postea cum suis alio commigrasset. 2. Inundattoni ad orbis partem restringendae non adversatur veri nominis traditio. Negare supervacaneum est, antiquitus in Ecclesia, quando rationes limitandi diluvii perspicerentur nullae, leges naturae imperfecte admodum noscerentur, argumenta universalitatis absolutae in summis ubique montibus demonstrarentur conchae, communem exstitisse opinionem, quae diluvium omnino universale fuisse proclamaret. Invaluitque ea opinio tanto facilius, quod pauci tantummodo auctores quaestionem de diluvio, paucissimi quaestionem de eiusdem universalitate ex professo tractaverint. a non paucis paradisus, sive is in altissimo monte collocaretur, sive non; eximebatur locus, quicunque is demum fuisset, in quo secundum sequiorem LXX lectionem Mathusala supervixit diluvio. Cf. Aug. De gratia Christi et de peccato originali II. 27; M. 44. 391 sq. Meminit item Aug. (De Civ. Dei XV. 27; M. 41. 474) quorumdam, qui Olympum eximerent; quibus, cum rationem praeter fabulosam montis altitudinem proferrent nullam, merito S. D. non est assensus. Alii « nonnulli » diluvium restringebant ad ea loca, « quae tunc homines incolebant ». Quorum opinionem nonnisi dubitanter reiiciebat Ps. Iustin. (Quaest. ad orthod. 9. 34; M. 6. 1281) : « Vcrum esse non videtur », inquiens, « non in omni loco diluvium exstitisse. nisi forte demissiora fuerint loca, in quibus diluvium exstitit, ceteris terrae locis ». Eandem illam opinionem tuebatur Theod. Mopsv. (ap. Io. Philoponum citatum ab O. Zockle I. 291). Sententiam de Olympo et aliis quibusdam altissimis montibus cximendis resuscitavit Cai., verba Gen. 7, 19 « sub universo coelo » de iis solis montibus inlerpretatus, qui essent sub coelo aereo, in quo generantur nubes. Quae sententia inde ab eius tempore a reliquis interpretibus tolerabatur. Tost. censet, textu Gen. 7, 19 nos non cogi defendere omnes omnino montes esse submersos, quod vox omnis in scriptura non sit ita premenda, quod certe excipiendus sit mons paradisi, in quo salvatus sit Henoch ». « An aquae diluvii », inquit, « ascenderunt Olympum. non est certum; sed potius est tenendum , quod ascenderint. Neque est in hoc dubitatio faciendaà, nam eodem modo dubitaremus de aliis montibus altissimis Thessaliae e Macedoniae, quibus non sunt aliqui montes in toto orbe aequales, ut ait Solinus in Polyhist... De montibus tamen aliis nulla dubitatio esse debet, quin ascenderit aqua super illos, quia non subest causa dubitandi ». Similiter M. Mersenne O. Minim. (Quaestiones celeberrimae in Genesin, Paris. 1623) : « omnis terra », inquit, « potest intelligi de illa solum, quam tunc homines cognosccebant; sicut in scriptura Saepissime omnis terra pro ea, in qua quis habitat, vel quae uno intuitu videri potest, intelligitur ». Postea etiam ipse, quominus diluvium limitet, cohibetur illa de « montibus excelsis sub universo coelo » expressione; cuius tamen eadem omnino est ratio, atque alterius expressionis « omnis terra », imo formula « sub universo coelo » aliis textibus hyperbolice usurpatur. Sed istud auctores illi non attendebant. Longis nonnisi intervallis ii, quos recensuimus, testes se excipiebant neque ulla de diluvii universalitate tum exsistebat controversia. Quae primum nata est saeculo decimo septimo, postquam I. La Peyrére , prolato 1655 in medium Praeadamitarum systemate, diluvium ad solam Palaestinam limitaverat. Contra quem scribens IJ. Vosszus protestans diluvio defendebat omnes omnino homines esse absorptos, terram concedebat non necessario totam , sed eam tantum, quae tum incoleretur, partem esse submersam. In quem talia concedentem acriter invecti sunt protestantes alii, ceteris acrius G. Horn. cum ipso fere sentiebat, S. Bochart (Op. III, p. 1058, Leydae 1707) : « Est enim homo indoctus simul et arrogans, ac proinde ad labendum turpiter ac passim pronus et obnoxius, quod satis demonstrant ipsius scripta. Pauca quidem legi, sed quid possit eius ingenium, inde me satis habere compertum arbitror ». Vossius respondit libro : Castigationes ad obiecta Georgii Hornii. Omnia animalia affirmabat non potuisse sine miraculo sub uno coelo ct in una arca vivere, expressiones in scriptura universales quandoque strictius accipi. Secutus est Horn : Defensio dissertationis de vera aetate mundi contra eastigationes Isaaci Vossii. Dein Vossius : Auctarium castigationuin adscriptum de aetate mundi. Cui respondit Horn : Auctarium defensionis pro vera mundi aetate. In his potissimum de chronologia LXX agebatur, paucis de diluvio interiectis. Si advertas haec omnia scripta uno 1659 anno in lucem prodiisse, fateberce non segniter auctores rem egisse. Vossio consensit A. Colvius literis datis, ad quas respondit Vossius 1659 opusculo : Ad Andream OColvium epistola, qua refelluntur argumenta, quae diversi scripto de aetate mundi opposuere. Sententiam suam tamquam probabiliorem defendit, difficultates et miracula adversae sententiae demonstrat. Tandem Colvius 1667 edidit opus posthumum, 1633 concinnatum soceri A. Vander Mil : De origine animalium et migratione populorum. E legibus physicis universalitatem diluvii impugnat, Americam et Oceaniam ab illo eximit. Item 1667 itemque Gebennae prodiit auctoris anonymi (G. G. Kirchmayer) liber : De diluvii universalitate dissertatio prolusoria. Universalitas restringitur. Ceterum hi duo auctores fere negligebantur, dum pluribus innotescebant Vossius et Hornius. Quibus viris primaria controversia de diluvio nequaquam fuerat, sed de chronologia, de qua Vossius edidit 1661 : De Septuaginta interpretibus et eorum translatione; et anno nescio quo : Chronologia sacra ad mentem veterum Hebraeorum. Censebat autem chronologiam LXX, postposita textus Hebraei (ideoque item Vulgatae) chronologia, omnino esse praeferendam. Qua cum disputatione, uti facile perspicitur, quaestio dc diluvii ambitu vix connectitur : cum enim Vossius homines universos diluvio absorptos defenderet, chronologia immutata perstat, sive tota terra sive eius tantum pars submorsa dicatur. Plus viginti anni ab editis Vossii et Hornii libellis effluxerant, cum üi ad Indicis Congregationem delati sunt. lamque trium Consultorum auditis votis proscripserat Congregatio nullo tamen edito decreto, opusculum « De Septuaginta interpretibus », cum advectus Romam doctissimus IJ. B. Mabillon creatus est eiusdem Congregationis Consultor et votum de libellis proferre rogatus. Praestitit id ipse 29. Ian. 1686 pronuntiavitque, non esse cur Vossii de diluvio opinioni ullam Congregatio inureret notam. quod contra fidem aut mores impingat; illud unum in animo habere, ut impiorum contra scripturam obiectiones efficacius dilueret; tolerasse Patres etiam diversas eiusdem textus interpretationes; posse narrationis biblicae expressiones generales strictiori sensu accipi; catholicorum nullum Vossii sententiam impugnasse, inter acatholicos fervere litem, quam spectare potius deceret ecclesiam catholicam, non vero in arenam descendere neque opem ferre Hornio, qui contumeliis ecclesiam impetivisset. Si tamen S. Congregationi videretur decretum esse ferendum, praestare ut simul cum Vossii etiam Hornii opuscula proscriberentur, ne hic ecclesiae romanae conviciator videretur Congregationis decreto victor renuntiari. Mabillonii votum , qui aderant, effusis laudibus probaverunt ; 2 Iulii decretum sanxere, quo simul et decem Vossii et duo Hornii opuscula in Indicem referebantur. Hornii merito mirabere non primum opus « Dissertationem » esse proscriptum, sed « Defensionem dissertationis » et « Auctarium defensionis », cum tamen easdem omnia quaestiones pertractent. Crediderim primum opus ideo solummodo non esse damnatum , quod non fuerit a quoquam ad Congregationem delatum. Vossii primum damnatum est, quod iam ante sine decreto damnatum fuerat, opus « De Septuaginta interpretibus », et alterum eidem affine de « Chronologia sacra », in quibus nihil de diluvio erat; dein opuscula quinque, in quibus etiam de diluvio agebatur, sc. « Dissertatio etc. », « Castigationes », « Auctarium », « Ad A. Colvinum epistola » et « Responsio ad obiecta Christiani Schotani »; tandem alia tria a diluvii controversia prorsus aliena, « De lucis natura et proprietate » 1662, « De Sibyllinis aliisque etc. oraculis » 1680, « Epistolae genuinae S.Ignatii » 1646. Cf. H. Reusch : Der Index der verbotenen Bücher, II. 115 sq., Bonn 1885. De hoc decreto dissentiunt auctores, fueritne illo proscripta opinio de diluvio restringendo, necne. Etsi quis defendat proscriptam tum fuisse, nullum inde detrimentum ea nunc patitur, cum 1am ab ecclesia omnino toleretur sitque, uti ostendetur, apud interpretes omnino communior. Dicendum ergo erit, aut opinionem illam a Congregatione non esse damnatam, aut esse damnatam non tam opinionem ipsam, quam modum ecclesiae iniuriosum, quo a Vossio defendebatur, aut perperam esse opinionem damnatam, quod in decretis Congregationis Indicis quandoque fieri apud omnes constat. doque proscribantur et ratio dilatae proscriptionis ea esse potuit, quod nullus ante liber eam opinionem defendens ad Congregationem [fuerit delatus. Merito autem damnatam crediderim eam opinionem, quae non solum parem LXX cum aliis textibus concederet auctoritatem , sed illam universim, et speciatim totam eius chronologiam Hebraeo et Vulgatae anteferret. | Alii igitur censent illo Congregationis decreto opinionem de diluvio limitando dici haud posse esse damnatam. Ita, praeter alios apud Mangenot p. 236 sq. citatos, D. Ruinart (Vita Mabillonii; initio operis Vetera Analecta, p. 15); R. Massuet (I. Mabillonii vitae synopsis; in Annales O. S. B., V. p. XVIII); de Bose (Éloge de Mabillon; in Mémoires de l'Académie des inscriptions I. 360); R. P. Tassin (Histoire littéraire de la Congrégation de S. Maur p. 267 sq.); V. Thuillier (CEuvres posthumes de Mabillon I. p. VIII sq.); I. B. Glaire (Les livres saints vengés, 29 éd. Paris 1874, I. 279); H. Reusch (Bibel u. Natur p. 297); A. Bosizio S. I. (Die Geologie u. die Sündfluth, Mainz 1877, p. 104 sq.); F. Vigourouz (Manuel I. 461). Hac explicatione conciliantur, quaecunque de Mabillonio hac in re tradita sunt, sc. et Congregationem eius Vossii defensioni applausisse et eius accessisse sententiae. Quomodo enim credetur eam ipsam proscripsisse opinionem, cuius modo excusationem plaudens audisset? Sententiae vero Mabillonii eatenus accessit, quatenus Vossium non sine Hornio damnavit. | Inde a Vossio et Mabillonio sententia de diluvio ad partem orbis revel apud rerum naturalium peritissimos invalescebat opinio, ubique in stratis conspici monumenta inundationis cuiusdam simulianeae, non erat ulla interpretibus ratio Vossii sentenfiae propugnandae. Verum ubi illa opinio geologica repudiata est, quod factum est apud exegelas nonnihil serius quam apud naturalistas, illico coepere sententiam a Mabillonio tam eloquenter defensam suam facere novisque argumentis communire, ut eadem hodie merito asseratur interpretum esse communis. | Verum superfluum est omnia auctorum recensere nomina, qui inde ab anno 1870 eidem sententiae accessere, cum numerus eorum sit legio. Sufficiat cum A. Mota:s (Le déluge biblique p. 225) notasse, hodie eam sententiam non in doctis tantum voluminibus, sed vel in illis doceri compendiis, quae ad usum omnium eduntur. Cf. inter alia J. B. Glaire (Dictionnaire universel des sciences ecclésiastiques, Paris 1868, art. Déluge), F. H. Schouppe S. I. (Cursus Scr. S., Bruxelles 1870, 1. 178), Salmon (La Sainte Bible, ancien et nouveau Testament. Récit et Commeníaire. Paris 1878), F. Vigourouz (Manuell. 460 sqq. ; liber primum editus est 1879), Fr. Lorznser (Das Buch der Natur, Regensburg 1871,1I. 249), H. Rault (Cours élémentaire d'Écriture Sainte, 4* éd., Paris 1882, I. 172 sq.), H. I. Crelier (La Sainte Bible; la Genése, Paris 1889). — Discutitur iam altera opinio, fuerintne omnes homines diluvio absorpti, quae tota quanta nititur suppositione non totam terram aquis esse submersam. Quam qui impugnant opinionem, non eam suppositionem in dubium vocare audent, sed illud demonstrare unice nituntur, dato etiam non totam terram esse submersam , non tamen probari non omnes homines esse exstinctos. Qua ipsa argumentandi ratione patescit , sententiam , quae tenet non totum orbem diluvio esse submersum, communi iam interpretum consensu censeri vere et solide probabilem. Unius verba adscribimus, qui plus ceteris contra illam opinionem, non omnes homines diluvio interiisse, conscripsit, J. Brucker S. I. (L'universalité du déluge, in : Revue des Questions scientifiques 1886 II, p. 126). Ex eius verbis disce, quomodo reliqui item, qui ex eius parte stant, auctores diluvium limitare quoad ambitum permittant. « Cum plerisque », inquit, « nostrae aetatis interpretibus et apologetis concedimus nos textibus biblicis non adigi, ut totum orbem diluvio submersum .aut animantia universa destructa affirmemus; sed illud credendum proponi diluvium pertigisse ad eas omnes regiones, quae tum ab hominibus incolebantur, ut omnes destruerentur homines et quotquot penes ipsos essent animalia ». Illi ipsi auctores nostrates rari nantes in gurgite vasto, qui diluvium defendunt absolute universale, ultro admittunt sententiam diluvium restringentem et a pluribus interpretibus catholicis defendi et impune defendi posse. essc erthodoxorum consensum nunc, quam anteactis saeculis fuerat, nequc omnium vota posse in unam ollam coniici. Tum siquidem, ignoratis aut vix perspectis diffieultatibus physicis textuque, ut plurimum, secundum Vulg. LXX accepto, uno ore universale diluvium profitebantur orthodoxi; nunc vero, illis difficultatibus rite perpensis textuque hebraeo comparato, uno item ore, qui nunc sunt, orthodoxi eam textus interpretationem, quae diluvium quoad locum nonnisi relative universale fuisse explicat, declarant esse legitimam. Iudicio vero Ubaldi aliorum duorum bonae notac auctorum iudicia opponimus. « Vix ullum. iam superest dubium », inquit P. Schanz (Apologie des Christenthums, Freiburg i. B. 1887, I. 347), « quin diluvium non totam terram oppleverit. Quam antiquatam opinionem ille solus defendet, qui interpretationis serviliter literalis unice studiosus praeter eam admittat nihil ». Et Vigouroux p. 460 sq. « Haec opinio », inquit, « universim admittitur a recentioribus iis, qui scripturae cum scientiis naturalibus concordiam demonstrare studuerunt »; p. 464 : « Omnes praeoccupat obiectiones, quae hac in re contra narrationem sacram moveri consueverant ». Dictorum summa haec est, sententiam, quae tenet textum Geneseos exponi posse de inundatione relative tantum universali, hoc iam tempore esse sententiam simpliciter communem. AV si textus ita exponi potest, quin ulla veri nominis traditio negligatur, tum adest gravis eius interpretationis amplectendae ratio. Etenim consentientibus universis ea interpretatio vastam praecidit segetem objectionum , quae intricatae simul sunt et partim ridiculae, et antiquiores interpretes in omnis generis hypotheses pellexere, minus efficaces et quandoque absurdas. Hinc factum est, ut sententia, quae tenet textum de inundatione relative tantum universali intelligi non solum posse sed etiam debere, apud interpretes nunc evaserit non quidem sententia simpliciter communis, at certe sententia communtor. | Ex dictis satis patet, quid sit sentiendum de systemate universalitatis absolutae. B. De universalitate diluvii quoad homines. Haec jam quaestio agitatur inter patronos systematum universalitatis mixtae et relativae. Constat apud omnes, posse diluvium quoad locum et animalia salvo textu limitari; potestne idem limitari quoad homines? Negant defensores universalitatis mixtae, affirmant patroni universalitatis relativae. Uti primum universalitas absoluta in dubium vocari coepta est propter geologiae obiectiones, ita aliarum scientiarum obiectiones ansam dedere vocandae in dubium universalitatis mixtae. Primum principales recensemus obiectiones. sic in India tribus Dravidicae Arios praecessere, Medos in Media et finitimis provinciis populi quos Protomedicos aliqui appellant, Cuschitas et Semitas in Chaldaea Accadii, Chananaeos in Palaestina variae tribus, quas infra textus discutientes recensebimus. Harum gentium plures antiquitus arte cudendi metalla excellebant (cf. Gen. 4, 22). Has obiectiones indicatas tantummodo apologetis discutiendas relinquimus. Minime censemus eas esse probatas; dubia sunt, non axiomata. Nos vero s. textum interpretaturi lectorem monemus, plures hic considerandas venire quaestiones esseque tractandas singulas seorsim et independenter. Valet quippe etiam hic illud philosophorum axioma : bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quolibet defectu. Sane, ut universalitas relativa toleretur, debebit ea ostendi neque scripturae adversari neque traditioni. At, ut reprobetur, non est necesse ut utrique fidei fonti repugnet, sufficit ut ab alterutro dissonet. Ergo, etiamsi constiterit textui Geneseos satisfacere universalitatem relativam, i. e. Noe narratorem de hominibus solum illis, quos ipse norat, locutum esse, non ideo sequitur eandem illam sufficere aliis V. et N. T. textibus, qui de diluvio agunt. Si universalitas relativa demonstretur nulli textui sacro certe adversari, non inde etiam illud habes, a traditione non reprobari. Sed singula seorsim examinanda sunt et definienda. Ceterum sequentibus non illud intendimus, ut quaestionem , de qua acris inter auctores est controversia , nostro privato judicio dirimamus , vel recentiorum sententiae prae altera lectorum animos conciliemus , aut eam vere probabilem asseramus : sed , quo loco disputatio sit, recensitis utriusque partis et patronis et argumentis , demonstrare adnitmur. 1. Systema universalitatis relativae comparatur cum textu Genesis. Qui universalitatem relativam tuentur Geneseos interpretes, iisdem omnino nituntur argumentis, quibus non totam terram diluvio submersam affirmari demonstrabant. 1) Uti, assumpta pro vocibus v*x et a7N non terrae sed regionis significatione, expressiones universales « omnia animantia », « omnis substantia », « omnes montes » contextu limitantur, ut iam non omnia totius orbis, sed solius eius regionis animalia, substantiam , montes designent : ita aiunt eodem contextu eadem ratione limitari expressiones « omnis caro », « universi homines », ut iam non omnes homines, sed solos eiusdem regionis incolas designent. Illam autem significationem vocibus vw et moTN tribui posse, et lexica docere et communi nostrates consensu fateri. Neque maiorem 6, 177 difficultatem facere expressionem « omnis caro, in qua spiritus vitae est subter coelum », quam alteram 7, 19 « omnes montes excelsi sub universo coelo ». Contra quae monet Brucker l. c. p. 126 sqq., expressiones « omnis terra », « omnia animalia » limitari contextu; totam sc. terram, quod puniatur ob hominum peccata, intelligendam esse terram habitatam, animalia describi, « quae sint in terra, i. e. in terra habitata, quoad homines vero textum excludere limitationem, cum DQ'iN'1 semper significet aut primum hominem aut totum genus humanum, et etiam Gen. 6,5-8 habeatur explicita allusio ad creationem totius generis humani 1, 26 sq, ' Contra haec advertunt alii significationem regionis vocibus VON et "TN (et hinc expressioni « omnis terra ») competere non limitatione ulla, sed nativa vi. Eam sc. significationem iis vocibus aeque proprie, aeque immediate competere atque alteram terrae significationem. Imo dici posse magis nativam, cum iis vocibus homines primitus utique expresserint terram, quatenus eorum oculis subiiciebatur, i. e. regionem, a qua strictiore significatione voces extensione ad dlteram latiorem transierint, ut iam non solam terrae partem notam designarent, sed terram totam quantam, notam et ignotam. Brucker strictioris admittendae significationis unieam rationem assignat punitionem hominum, vim argumenti pro restringendo diluvio primarie repetit ex ciusdem fine, quod sc. suffecerit terram ab hominibus habitatam mergi, quia homines essent puniendi : de quo dicetur infra. Allusionem, quae Gen. 6, 5-8 habeatur ad 1, 26 sq., non hominis solum sed animalium item creationem respicere advertit Robert (Revue des questions scientifiques 1887 I. 142); ergo non magis omnes homines, quam omnia animalia diluvio oppressos demonstrari. 2) Si secundum eam, quae nunc sententia communis est, fas sit expressiones unzversales « omnes montes », « omnis substantia », « cuncta animantia » sensu sumere relative tantum universali, haud perspici urgent universalitatis relativae defensores, quo in eadem narratione iure expressiones « omnis caro », « universi homines » sumantur sensu absolute universali. Quae iam contra Vossium urgebat IJ. Le Pelletier : Dissertation sur l'arche, Rouen 1700. Quin potius debere eas item expressiones de omnibus et solis eius regionis hominibus exponi, nisi aliud suadeat narrationis contextus aut diluvii finis. 3) Idem probant ex narrationzs 2ndole : esse eam sc. ab ipsis diluvii testibus immediatis derivata m. Quando vero testis immediatus referat ea, quae omnibus hominibus, universae carni facta sint, censeri eum de his loqui, quatenus ipsi innotuerint; nullam autem esse rationem supponendi, illos testes immediatos omnium, qui tum vixissent, hominum fata didicisse. et multiplicamini et replete terram », decima generatione in tot iam effloruerit nationes (Gen. 10), haud credideris eandem ante diluvium 1, 28 benedictionem tam paucos produxisse. Suggerat quis, omnes tandem ante diluvium homines in duas illas filiorum Dei et filiorum hominum nationes fuisse divisos, harum autem nationum quantumvis numerosarum potuisse Noe sortem compertam habere. At illud prius gratuito asseritur. Singulorum patriarcharum, praeter filios suis nominibus recensitos, alii commemorantur « filii et filiae », quos omnes illis duabus gentibus esse accensitos et in pristinis sedibus perseverasse, nulla est ratio affirmandi. Aut cur Sethitis vel Cainitis accenseamus illos Adami filios 5, 4, qui neque Setho neque Caino orti sunt? &) Idipsum effici, universalitatis relativae defensores monent, contextu cum praecedente et sequente narratione : neque ea, quae ^, 16- 6, ^, neque ea, quae 10, 1-11, 9 referantur, totius generis humani acta describere : ergo neque interiectam diluvii narrationem censendam esse tradi ad modum historiae universi generis humani. Gen. 4, 16-6, 4 traditur historia non omnium posterorum Adam, cum diserte asserantur etiam alii fuisse filii et filiae, sed solorum Sethitarum et Cainitarum, nequc horum necessario universorum, eum singulorum patriarcharum « filios et filias » plures sibi novas quaesisse sedes haud sit veri absimile, sed eorum utique, qui circa primas sedes fixi perseveravere. Habet descriptio colorem omnino localem : omnia peraguntur in regionibus Eden et Nod, ubi habes civitatem Henoch, Iabel, Jubal, Tubalcain, Noemam et gigantes. Uti postmodum gens electa Iudacorum exiguum tantum terrae tractum obtinebat, ita ante diluvium stirps electa, quae a connubiis alienigenarum interdicebatur, vix potest fingi integrum aut certe dimidium orbem occupasse. Elenchus vero cap. 10, omnibus consentientibus, non totius orbis sed tantum familiae Caucasiae gentes describit; 11, 1-9 ne de his quidem universis agit. 5) Ex dictis tandem colligi aiunt, nihil contra sententiam diluvium limitantem effici ex fine dzluviz prout in Genesi exprimatur : qui fuerit punitio hominum ob universae carnis corruptionem ; verum si voci V"^ significationem attribuas omnino propriam et legitimam « re- £10 », similiter caro, animantia, homines intelligenda esse eius solius regionis carnem, animantia, homines; corruptionem eadem regione eireumscribi , neque fas esse supponere, omne genus humanum fuisse exstirpandum in poenam unius regionis incolarum corruptionis. Hinc perspici affirmant teztu Genesis non effici omnes homines diluvio esse absorptos; narrationem quippe sapienter exponi tamquam a testibus immediatis primitus profectam , qui de hominibus aeque atque de terra, montibus, animalibus locuti sint universalitate non absoluta sed relativa, quatenus sc. haec omnia ipsis innotuerint; esseque nobis tanto maiorem rationem narrationis ita interpretandae, si cum sententia iamiam communiore expressiones, quae sunt de universa terra, de omnibus montibus et de universa carne, sensu interpretemur non absolute, sed relative universali. Verum, quamvis Geneseos textum ita interpretetur quis, non ideo definita est quaestio, liceatne interpreti catholico concedere non omnes homines diluvio esse absorptos. Qua de quaestione praeter Genesin audiantur oportet textus paralleli et traditio. Potuit quippe fieri, ut de ambitu diluvii plus noverint auctores aliqui inspirati posteriores aut - traditio, quam testes immediati oculis contueri potuerint. Haec fuse rimari interpretis Geneseos non est; eadem tamen viro Geneseos studioso penitus ignoranda non sunt. Nos ea summis labiis delibabimus, textus demonstrabimus; auctorum nomina, argumenta, obiectiones, responsiones indicabimus; uberiorem tamen disputationem interpreti epistolarum S. Petri, ad quem ea maxime spectat, permittemus. 2. Systema universalitatis diluvii relativae comparatur cum alüis scripturae textibus. Eorum textuum duplex distinguenda est classis : alii enim afferuntur, qui universalitatem relativam excludant, omnes omnino homines interemptos affirment; alii, qui universalitatem relativam adstruant, aliquos extra arcam servatos demonstrent. a. Textus, qui affirmare censentur omnium hominum diluvio effectum interitum. 2) Sap. 15, 6 : « Sed et ab initio, cum perirent superbi gigantes, spes orbis terrarum » — «o5 x2cgov 1. e. Noe vel generatim illi octo, qui in arca servati sunt (Menoch., Tir.) — « ad ratem confugiens remisit saeculo semen nativitatis, quae manu tua erat gubernata »; &xÉAwxsv atàvt oxéppa vsvíosug. 3) Eccli. 44, 17 sq. : « Noe inventus est perfectus, iustus, et in tempore iracundiae factus est reconciliatio. Ideo dimissum est reliquum terrae, cum factum est diluvium ». £ysvíür, xaz&^su. pa 73) 17 , ipse factus est residuum terrae. | legebant, liberius et poetice enuntiabant : vocibus « terra », « orbis » id exprimunt, . quod ib. dictione « omnis terra » designatur. « Semen nativitatis » transmisit Noe, suae sc. stirpis sethitae, quae erat stirps electa, productura messiam. à) Matth. 25, 37 sqq. : « Sieut autem in diebus Noe, ita erit et adventus Filii hominis. Sicut enim erant in diebus ante diluvium comedentes et bibentes, nubentes et nuptui tradentes usque ad eum diem, quo intravit Noe in arcam, et non cognoverunt, donec venit diluvium et tulit omnes : ita erit et adventus Filii hominis ». Respondent : a) illud « omnes » intelligi oportere, uti similes in Genesi expressiones; b) tertium comparationis non esse in illo « tulit omnes », cum potius. quoad illud explicite statuatur discrimen : « unus assumetur, et unus relinquetur »; sed reperiri in eo, quod uterque eventus ínopinatus hominibus superveniat. Cf. Motais p. 70 sqq. | 5) 2 Petr. 3, 5 sqq. : « Latet enim eos hoc volentes, quod coeli erant prius et terra, de aqua et per aquam consistens Dei verbo; per quae ille tunc mundus aqua inundatus periit. Coeli autem , qui nunc sunt, et terra eodem verbo repositi sunt, igni reservati in diem iudicii et perditionis impiorum hominum ». « Mundus » v. 6, inquiunt, idem est atque v. 5. 7 « coelum et terra ». v. 5. 1 de eventibus agunt universalibus, creatione et iudicio : ergo etiam interiectus v. 6 eventus universalis fuerit oportet, i. e. diluvium. Respondent tamen alii : a) rationem allatam nimis probare, sc. diluvii universalitatem non mixtam solum, sed absolutam tam quoad locum quam quoad homines; ergo trium illorum eventuum universalitatem intelligendam esse pro subiecta materia , absolutam in creatione et iudicio, non absolutam quoad diluvium; non vero probari mixtam. b) Aiunt v. 5.7 sibi omnino respondere : uti coeli et terra pridem ex aqua prodiere verbo Dei, ita coeli et terra aliquando igne consumentur verbo Dei; inter quos duos versus inseratur v. 6; de diluvio igitur h. 1l. agere apostolum non ex professo, sed incidenter et parenthetice, neque eius verba esse premenda. c) Speciatim, licet indubie sibi respondeant 6 tóxc «óouoc et ol Gà vUv obpavot xat $j 17, tamen si haec ratio nimis prematur, effici diluvii universalitatem absolutam; aliquam etiam differentiam in eo deprehendi, quod creatio et iudicium coelum et terram atficiant totam, etiam stellas, dum diluvium ad has utique non pertigerit; ergo non nimium premenda esse apostoli verba, dum oratoris sacri et prophetae, non vero historiographi munere fungatur. 6) 2 Petr. 2,5-9 : « Si enim Deus angelis peccantibus non pepercit... , et originali mundo non pepercit, sed octavum Noe iustitiae praeconem custodivit, diluvium mundo impiorum inducens; et civitates Sodomorum et Gomorrhaeorum in cinerem redigens eversione damnavit... : novit Dominus pios de tentatione eripere, iniquos vero in diem iudicii reservare cruciandos ». Respondent fere eadem, atque aliis locis ratione : S. Petrum mundum alium non novisse practer euim, de quo per scripturam edocebatur, non alium « mundum originalem » seu « impiorum » praeter eum, cuius fata Genesis enarrat, terram sc. quatenus Noe erat nota; in hoc mundo exstitisse Noe « iustitiae praeconem », hunc suo exemplo « damnasse » (Hebr. 11, 7), et quidem incredulitatis damnasse (1 Petr. 3, 20), quod sc. arcam construi conspexerint neque tamen divinis comminationibus fidem praestiterint. 1) 1 Petr. 3,20 sq. : « Qui increduli fuerant aliquando, quando exspectabant Dei patientiam in diebus Noe, cum fabricaretur arca, in qua pauci, id est octo animae, salvae factae sunt per aquam. Quod et vos nunc similis formae salvos facit baptisma, non carnis depositio sordium, sed conscientiae bonae interrogatio in Deum per resurrectionem Iesu Christi ». Aliquando iis, qui diluvium limitabant, etiam illud de « octo animabus » obiiciebatur, octo tantummodo homines teste S. Petro diluvium evasisse. Respondebant vero illi, ultro se concedere, « in arca » non plus quam octo esse salvatos. Nunc tota disputatio iam est circa verba 6 xol ópac dvilrumov vóv odet Bázrtsua. Versio Vulg. est nonnihil obscurior : e graeco patet, pronomen 9$ referri ad nomen neutrum immediate praecedens Üóatoc. Ei pronomini iungitur adiectivum &vtzoxov, appositionis instar accedit áxttwspa : « quae aqua etiam vos in antitypo salvat, tamquam baptismus », « welches auch euch im Gegenbilde nun rettet als Taufe » (L. J. Hundhausen : Die beiden Pontificalschreiben des Apostelfürsten Petrus, I. 360, Mainz 1873). Cf. Calm., Est. Interpretes aliqui (Gagnaeus, Mar.) praeferunt lectionem erroneam 6 pro 0, qua pronomen item ad aquam refertur; eodem recidit Tíir., « quod » hebraismum interpretatus pro « cui ». Versio Vulg. correcta quidem est, sed minus clara : ut enim pronomen non substantivi regentis genus, sed sequentis appositionis imitetur, non est a genio linguae latinae alienum. Minime tamen mirandum, interpretes aliquos, qui Vulgatam potius sequerentur, pronomen simpliciter retulisse ad « baptisma », quod vel in graeco fieri potest, sed durius, et a Theophylact. (M. 125. 1233) factum est. Ita L. Fromond (ap. Migne : Cursus Scr. S., tom. XXV). Sed pronomen reíerendum esse ad aquam, etiam evidens fit ex adscripto 9t 66azog : ait enim paucos illos salvatos esse « per aquam », i. e. non solum trans aquas seu de aquis, sed ope aquarum; aquae diluvii ad illorum salutem contulerunt, quatenus arcam sublimem elevaverunt. Comparantur igitur fideles octo illis animabus seu, quod idem est, ecclesia arcae; aqua baptismi aquis diluvii; praeprimis salvatio salvationi. Utrum apostolus illud etiam efferre velit (Fromond), uti in arca, ita in ecclesia « paucos » tantummodo salvari, non liquet. Certe id erui nequit ex una voce &vtizurov, cum antitypus typo non debeat quoad singula quaeque respondere; imo vel in ipsis aquis, quae explicite comparantur inter sc, est maxima differentia, cum baptismi aqua non sit nisi salutis medium, nullatenus vero perditionis, diluvii aqua fuerit potissimum punitionis medium, et tantum pro paucis medium quodammodo salutis. Neque illud explicite affirmat apostolus, uti extra arcam servati sint nulli, ita nullos salvatum iri sine baptismo aquae : utrum vero id implicite textui insit atque legitime ex illo eruatur, dissentiunt auctores. E quo textu hoc modo argumentatur Brucker p. 149 : « Sicut baptismus est medium necessarium iustificationis pro omnibus hominibus, ita salvatio, quae fuit baptismi typus, debuit esse unicum salutis medium generi humano tempore diluvii concessum ». Cui respondet Corluy (La Science catholique I. 251, 1888) et Motazs (Revue des questions scientifiques 1887 I. 170 sq.) de universalitate apostolum non agere in textu; aquas conferri inter se non ut perdentes, sed ut salvan- (es ; salvatos autem esse per aquas diluvii reapse solos illos octo, qui in arca fuere. Dices fortasse, quod apostolus asserat paucos e diluvio esse salvatos, innui re/iguos omnes esse absorptos. Id facile iidem concedent, si assertio ad homines restringatur, qui zn£ra diluvii ambitum exstiterint; aliis quippe aquae neque salutem praestare poterant neque ruinam. Atque ita reducimur ad universalitatem relativam. Cf. Mota?s ap. Robert : Revue des questions scientifiques p. 173. Imo etsi quis concesserit verbis S. Petrum revera enuntiare universalitatem absolutam, non ideo suam everti sententiam recentiores concedunt. Tum enim aiunt, reduci disputationem ad quaestionem, quorsum typus verbis in scriptura ezpressus et typus in rerum natura exsistens congruere debeant inter se. Ubi monet Corluy l. c. p. 66, typum quandoque praefigurare antitypum, non tam secundum modum quo typus exstet in rerum natura, quam secundum modum quo in scriptura typus exhibeatur et exprimatur; ita Melchisedech, quod in Genesi parentum , natalis dieique supremi mentione careat, exhiberi a S. Paulo Hebr. 7, 3 « sine patre, sino matre, sine genealogia, neque initium dierum neque finem vitae habens, sacerdos in perpetuum », sicque fieri typum Christi sacerdotium sempiternum non iure haereditatis humanae obtinentis. Si igitur Spiritus Sanctus, silente Genesi de Melchisedech parentibus, virum exhibuit tamquam parentibus carentem typumque sempiterni Christi sacerdotii, cur non possit idem, reticente diluvii limites Genesi, diluvium exhibere ut illimitatum typumque universalis per baptismum salutis? Cui argumento reponit Brucker ib. p. 184, hoc typorum genus esse infrequens, dignosci quoad Melchisedech cum ex natura rei tum ex Patrum interpretatione; nihil autem essc neque in scriptura neque apud Patres, quo doceamur diluvium non fuisse universale, imo uno Patres ore eius universalitatem profiteri. Qua responsione suae obiectioni satisfactum esse testatur Corluy ib. 251. E contra A. Breitung S. I. (Zeitschrift für Kath. Theologie XI. 659 sq. 673, Innsbruck 1887) typorum proprietatem hisce accuratius explicat: « Aeterna sapientia, quae typos tamquam realia sua verba in V. T. scripturis recondidit, exhibitura in typo absolutiorem antitypi imaginem, potuit hanc ita in s. Scripturis delineare, ut, quibus in rerum natura typus ab antitypo divergeret, ea praetermitteret atque ita augeretur typi similitudo ex modo, quo res aut persona, quae typus erat, ab auctore inspirato describeretur ». Idque explicat adducto Melchisedech exemplo. Of. item S. F. Smith S. I, : The Month 1888 I. 341. Ceterum, cum in hac disputatione primarie unanimis consensus Pairum invocetur, ad illud caput remittimus lectorem. Primum tamen alia classis textuum breviter est expedienda. . b. Textus, qui probare censentur non omnes extra arcam homines diluvio esse absorptos. Eos discussere imprimis Moa:zs p. 301 sqq. et Roóert (La non-universalité p. 83 sqq. ; Encore p. 2& sqq.); contra quos scripsere Brucker (L'universalité etc. ; in Revue des questions scientifiques 1886 II. p. 468 sqq.; Encore p. 17 sqq.), Hambouwllet (Cain redivivus; in Revue des sciences ecclésiastiques, Mai etc. 1886). 3. Systema universalitatis relativae cum traditione comparatur. . Dicebamus, sententiam de tota terra diluvio submersa antiquitus apud auctores exstitisse communem : id multo magis affirmandum est de altera sententia, nullos extra arcam homines esse salvatos. Duae enim illae sententiae necessario connectuntur inter se ita, ut altera nonnisi priore concessa cogitari queat, et paucorum eorum auctorum, qui aliquas terrae partes exciperent, pauciores etiam eo progeseonnt, ut aliquos homines salvatos esse permitterent. Commemoranda h. 1. venit quaestio de Mathusala, qui secundum chronologiam LXX quatuordecim annis supervixit diluvio. Quam quaestionem Hier. (ad Gen. 5, 25) vocat « famosam et omnium ecclesiarum disputatione ventilatam », Aug. (de Civ. Dei XV. 13) « famosissimam », idemque ait (de gratia Christi et de peccato originali II. 25; M. 44. 398) quaestionem, « ubi potuerit Mathusala vivere, qui in arca non fuit », esse de, numero earum, quae « ignorari salva christiana fide » queant. — Aliquos extra arcam diluvium evasisse explicite docebat Hier. ab Oleastro O. P. (Commentaria in Pent., Lugd. 1588, ad Num. 24, 21), cuius haec sunt verba : « Est quidam ex nostris, qui dicit tunc temporis Moabitas et Ammonitas et Amalecitas sese vocare semen sanctum et a Seth per sanctos patres oriundos, ceteros vero vocari Cainitas, a Caino videlicet ortos, inter quos erant isti Cinaei; neque displicet annotatio ». — Idipsum docebat 1655 I. La Peyrére tamquam necessarium erroneae Praeadamitarum hypotheseos fundamentum. Sententiam aliquos extra arcam servatos esse homines edito 1858 Parisiis libello « De l'universalité du déluge » ex professo propugnavit C. Schobel. Contra quem F. Moigno (Les splendeurs de la foi, III. p. 2, Paris 1877), postquam p. 1118 sqq. contra Lambert defendisset, clare edicere textum sacrum, totam terram esse diluvio submersam, p. 1132 sqq. protestatur « esse de fide aut fidei proximum , duplicem esse generis humani unitatem, adamicam et noachicam; neque sine temeritate aliqua affirmari, aliquas populorum familias diluvium evasisse; quae opinio sit minime necessaria, imo plane inutilis ». Cum 1866 d'Omalius d'Halloy, vir rerum naturalium peritissimus, (Discours prononcé à la classe des sciences de l'Académie de Belgique, Bruxelles) eandem illam sententiam tuitus esset, ratus librum Genesis bere, appellatus ab eo A. Bel/ynck S. I.! (Études religieuses etc., 1868 Il p. 578) declarabat, « se eam quidem sententiam, quod minime tum temporis videretur necessaria, haud profiteri ; nullam tamen in eos doctrinam communem ». — Similiter contra I. Tyndall, qui 187^ in urbe Belfast Hiberniae oratione habita pluribus religionem impetiverat, scribens 1876 /. Deísaulx S. I. (Revue cath. de Louvain XLI. 295) concedebat, « omnium hominum a Noe non esse aeque certam, atque eorumdem ab Adamo originem ». Idque scriptum 1877 seorsim prelo edidit : « Les derniers écrits philosophiques de M. Tyndall, Paris ». | Mox etiam inter Germanos quaestio agitari coepta est. 1877 A. Scholz (Die Keilschrift-Urkunden u. die Genesis, in : Worl's kath. Studien III. 1.71) defendebat concedi posse, non omnes extra arcam homines perlisse. 1877 C. Güttler (Naturforschung u. Bibel, Freiburg i. B., p. 274 sq.) et 1878 A. RoA/ing (Liter. Rundschau p. 119) fatebantur, e concessa thesi, diluvium non totam terram opplevisse, logice sequi alteram thesin, non omnes homines dici oportere diluvio esse exstinctos. 1879 F. de Hummelauer S. I. (Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, p. 395 sqq.) eius opinionis argumenta et difficultates exponebat; cf. de eodem C. Robert : Revue des questions scientifiques 1887 I. 190. Apud Italos eidem opinioni favebat G. Brunengo I. I. , cuius verba v. s., p. 236. Sed revertamur ad Gallos. 1880 P. de Foville (Revue des questions scientifiques 1880 II. 253) protestabatur, posse sententiam de hominibus extra arcam servatis defendi salvis S. Petri effatis et baptismi ratione typica. I. d' Estienne (La Controverse 1880-1881, I. 440) : « novam sententiam », inquit, « neque repudiantes neque amplectentes proponimus »; tamen, postquam 1881 I. 415 sqq., II. 148 sqq. &74 sqq. eam fusius explicavit, fatetur p. 504 eadem argumenfa, quibus non tota terra diluvio submersa esse demonstratur, aequo iure illud efficere non omnes homines periisse. H. Rau/t (Cours élémentaire d'Écriture Sainte, &? éd. , Paris 1882, I. 172 sq.) : « Imo », ait, « illud concedimus, s. textum non obstantibus expressionibus specie tenus universalibus non excludere absolute illam interpretationem. Tamen, ut ipsi accedamus hypothesi tam novae et audaci, rationes nonnisi gravissimae nos poterunt movere ». o». Eo usque res pacate acta fuerat et decore. Id solum fere novae sententiae patroni spectarant, ut sententia non ab ipso limine inaudita proseriberetur, ut sua illi, licet tenuis fortasse, concederetur proba- . bilitas; id veteris. dogmatis fautores praestiterant, parce quandoque nec sine fastidio. At vehementius exarsere animi, ubi 1883 7. B. Iaugey, ephemeridis « La Controverse » moderator, ratus se lectoribus rem gratam esse facturum, si utriusque partis audiendae facultatem faceret, rogavit hinc T. 7. Lamy, illinc A. Mot/a?s, ut, quid de universalitate diluvii sentirent, paucis exponerent. Annuere ambo,.et hic quidem VI. 82 sqq. novam sententiam defendi posse tuebatur, ille p. 296 sqq. affirmabat totam latissime terram aquis diluvii fuisse submersam. Quem severius in novam sententiam animadvertisse ratus C. de Harlez Lovaniensis, ib. p. 426 sqq. quid de eadem sententia ipse iudicaret, scriptis mandavit. Jaugey vero p. 428-430 placide conclusit disputationem, pronuntians « novam interpretationem defendi posse salva ecclesiae doctrina ». « Primo, certum est, scripturam nullatenus magis favere opinioni, quae solam tribum Sethitarum diluvio absorptam esse tenet; altera opinio sine dubio tutior est. Fateri tamen cogor, textus non penitus repugnare thesi de diluvio restringendo neque rationibus contra allatis rem dirimi. — Secundo, sententia nova excogitata fuit a viris christiane sentientibus, novarum rerum nequaquam temere studiosis : nc icitur simus ad eam respuendam proniores. Qui vero dicat, ecclesiam solum ex indulgentia ab ea sententia confodienda abstinuisse illamque vel silentio reprobare suo, is illud praecise pro certo affirmat, quod in quaestione versatur. — Traditionis hac in re ego primus unanimitatem demonstravi; sed res agitur penitus eiusdem generis, atque miraculum a Iosue patratum aut quaestio de antiquitate mundi; habetur sc. traditio aliqua constans et unanimis, sed novis repertis veritatibus emendanda. Illam equidem opinionem non profiteor, sed eius propono argumenta, quod theologi meo iudicio hae sint partes, non privata auctoritate et opinionum quarumdam favore proscribere sententiam apologeticae et animarum saluti utilissimam futuram ». Ita de Harlez. Experturi mox erant lectores ephemeridis « La Controverse », facilius evocari spectra, quam in sua dormitum sepulcra relegari. 1884, VII. 241 sqq. scripsit Mota?s « À propos de l'universalité du déluge », durioribus etiam in Lamy, « antiquatum illum alterius scholae interpretem », invectus verbis. Non tulit istud veteranus exegeta, sed, eadem inscriptione usus (188^, Nouvelle sérielI. p. 162 sqq.), sententiam Motais appellavit « falsam opinionem, verae exegesi adversantem, alienam a sensu et doctrina constanter in ecclesia receptis ». Jaugey vero VII. 241 iudicium tulit : « Hoc systema (Motais), temperata aliquando per diseussionem ea novitatis et temeritatis specie, qua nunc repelluntur plures theologi catholici, fortasse utilissimam apologeticae opem est laturum ». G. de Dubor (Muséon 1884) idem systema commendavit, cuius scriptum ansam dedit controversiae etiam in Angliam transferendae. Ubi quibusdam, maxime laicis, novam sententiam inique ferentibus, G. Clifford Episcopus Cliftoniensis et L. C. Casartellí eam admitti posse defendere. Illos vero inter alia monebat episcopus (Tablet 1884 I. 461), sensum obvium s. textus non posse semper e sola Vulg. vel versione Duacensi definiri. Cf. ib. 289. 338. 379, 419. 460. 499. 538.579. 617. 657. 698. 780. — Eandem sententiam probavere M$" d'Hulst (Annales de la philosophie chrétienne, Nov. 4885, p. 119) et de Matignon S. 1. (Les familles bibliques I. 133 sq.). 1885 Motais iustae molis volumen edidit: « Le déluge biblique devant ]a foi, l'Écriture et la science ». Librum examinabat Canonicus Rhedonensis Howet, qui commendat auctoris erga ecclesiae decreta reverentiam, solidam qua exegetae libertatem vindicat thesimque stabilit argumentandi rationem , theseos in defendenda religione utilitatem. Quo nisus iudicio easque laudes suas faciens Archiepiscopus Rhedonensis librum imprimi permisit. Hic liber brevi factás est in signum, cui contradiceretur. In introductione agitur de libertate interpreti in hoc genere quaestionum concedenda, ne soli semper adversarii religionem impugnantes videantur ea primi suggessisse, quae verum in his progressum efficiunt. Dein exponuntur tria systemata universalitatis absolutae, mixtae et relativae seu, ut ipse dicit, non-universalitatis. Quod nomen minus aptum videtur, cum, quod supra monuimus, aliquam universalitatem utique textus exigat et vel ipse Motais tueatur. Porro systema universalitatis relativae proponitur argumentatione primum negativa, quod neque scriptura, neque traditione, neque antiquitus recepta interpretatione universalitas relativa legitime proscribatur; dein positiva. Ubi ostenditur, vel &à S. Augustini tempore sensisse non paucos, plura quae diluvium attingant penitiorem aliquam requirere solutionem; sententiam diluvium restringentem quoad locum tantum, ab humillimis profectam initiis, iam doceri communiter; esse tamen logice incompletam, quoad extensa ad homines restrictione absolvatur. Recensentur difficultates a viris scientiarum gnaris prolatae, quae nova sententia facile atque ab ipso limine praecludantur. Evolvitur tandem argumentum e Pentateuchi contextu petitum. Librum Motais probabat TA. de Regnon S. I. (Bibliographie catholique 1885, II. 100 sqq.). I. d'Estienne autem (Revue des questions scientifiques 1885, II. 468 sqq.) dubiis valedicens sententiam palam professus est; neque tamen impune. Nam /Jawgey, causam iam ratus minus tutam et prioris indulgentiae immemor, eum in sua ephemeride 1885, V. 504 sqq. reum proclamat « erroris quoad infallibélitatem ecclesiae » admissi. Quem de ambitu, obiecto etc. infallibilitatis edocuere P. Carbonnelle S. I. (Revue des questions scientifiques, 1886, I. 168 sqq.) et P. Béesau (Les foudres de la Controverse et le déluge biblique, Paris 1886). Respondit Jaugey 1886, VI. 168 sqq. 324 sqq., postea conticuit, donec 1888 eam, quam supra ab omnibus uno excepto Lamy reprobari monuimus, sententiam protulit de miraculis nullum in rerum natura vestigium relinquentibus. Ipso anno 1886 moritur Motais. sent, qui vero extra illam essent, quemadmodum iis evenit, qui in arcam recepti non sunt, suis sceleribus obruerentur ». Adde p. II c. 2 n. 8 : « Diluvium enim, quo mundus purgatus est, quod multa malitia hominum esset in terra et cuncta cogitatio cordis intenta esset ad malum, huius aquae figuram et similitudinem gessisse, Apostolorum princeps in priore epistola ostendit ». Ceterum illud de Catechismo Conc. Trid. argumentum iam suggesserat anonymus quidam, in « La Controverse » 1885, IV. 684 sq. Adversarii vero e Iaugey quaerebant, essetne etiam infallibilis Catechismus ille p. I c. 2 n. 21 pronuntians : « At vero terram etiam super stabilitatem suam fundatam Deus verbo suo iussit in media mundi parte consistere ». Dein in memoriam revocabant factum Galilei. Ubi Domini Iaugey contra universalitatem relativam verba describens Béesau p. 11 sqq. (cf. Carbonnelle), in adiecta columna eadem verba transfert ad quaestionem de motu relativo solis et terrae. Iaugey de diluvio. Béesau de motu solis. At nactus est laugey ultorem I. Brucker S. I., qui (Revue des Questions scientifiques, 1886 II. 193 sqq. 437 sqq.), usus titulo « L'universalité du déluge », universalitatem mixtam magna eruditione . defendit. Contra quem in aciem prodiere pugnatores duo, C. Robert Oratorianus et I. Corluy S. I. In his tribus viris illud laudavere plures, revocatam esse disputationem ad eam quietem et comitatem, a qua illa incensis animis parumper deflexerat. Igitur Robert ib. 1887 I. 137 sqq., 409 sqq. scripsit « La non-universalité du déluge » et, cum Brucker respondisset II. 28 sqq. opusculo « Encore l'universalité du déluge », ipse rursum ib. 488 sqq. scripsit « Encore la non-universalité du déluge ». Corluy breviores notas edidit in ephemeride a laugey recenter incepta « La Science catholique ». Et quidem 1887 I. 65 sqq., cui respondit Brucker ib. 180 sqq., et iterum 250 sqq. 650 sqq.; cf. etiam ib. 1888 II. 134 sq. Igitur primum, quod textum Geneseos attinet, urget Robert contra Brucker argumentum, quod ipse post Motais vocat argumentum « duplicis ponderis et mensurae ». Duplici velut pondere, inquit, utuntur adversarii in textibus Geneseos exponendis : « omnem terram » interpretantur partem terrae tantum, « omnia animalia » partem animalium tantum, at « omnes homines » interpretantur omnes omnino homines, ne uno quidem excepto, idque in eodem omnino contextu. Quod si excusent restrictionem terrae adhibitam eo, quod contextus suadeat agi de sola terra habitata , urget Robert gratis supponi non totam tum terram fuisse habitatam. Sin autem, quod exegetice aeque sit probabile, spectatis vero naturalis incrementi legibus sit omnino veri similius, tota terra ante diluvium supponatur fuisse habitata, quid porro? Aut diluvio cuin communiore sententia ad partem terrae restricto, excipienda quoque interitu erit pars generis humani; aut toto genere humano undis devoto, habebitur diluvium quoad locum etiam universale, redibunt difficultates et nugae omnes, a quibus se iamiam expeditos esse gratulati erant interpretes. Hinc Brucker, qui 1886 II. p. 126 (v. s.) « cum plerisque exegetis et apologetis modernis » ultro concesserat posse restringi expressiones « omnis terra », « omnia animalia » ct legitime defendi universalitatem mixtam, iam 1887 II. 31. 36 pedem retrahit dicitque se ci systemati non esse addictum neque aegre laturum, si illud foret repudiandum. Argumentum autem e mente Bruckeri omnino praecipuum et in quo totius disputationis cardo versetur, est argumentum /rad?ttonzs, quod ipse 1886 II. 154 ita proponit: « Traditio unanimis et constans factum universalitatis diluvii quoad homines exhibet tamquam veritatem fidei connexam, eo quod illud accipiat ut fundamentum /yp? certi seu figurae propheticae de Christo et ecclesia ». illam petram aedificatam ecclesiam scio. Quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit, profanus est. Si quis in Noe arca non fuerit, peribit regnante diluvio ». Idem (Adv. Iovin. I. 17; M. 23. 236) : « Porro Noe, qui quasi secunda radix humano generi servabatur, utique cum uxore et filiis debuit reservari. Quamquam in hoc mysterium scripturarum sit. Arca illa iuxta apostolum Petrum typus ecclesiae fuit, in qua octo animae salvae factae sunt ». Gaudent. (Serm. 8; M. 20. 897) : « Perisse autem constat in illo diluvio omnes ipsius temporis homines, praeter eos qui intra arcam, quae typum gerebat ecclesiae, reperiri meruerant. Nam similiter etiam nunc omnino salvi esse non poterunt, qui ab apostolica fide et ab ecclesia catholica fuerint alieni ». Chrys. (Hom. in Lazar. 6; M. 48. 1037) primum rhetorice describit diluvium quoad locum universale. Inde pergit : « Quemadmodum in medio nari servabat eos arca, qui intus erant, sic et omnes, qui errant, servat ecclesia ». Idem (Hom. 24 et 25 in Gen.; M. 53. 209. 227) desoribit diluvio oppressos, uti omnes homines, ità omnia etiam bruta; idemque dicas de Theodoret. (M. 80. 152 sq.). Or. (Hom. 2 in Gen. n. ? sq.; M. 12. 164 sq.) clausa arca ait « nullum extra arcam hominem fuisse ». Idem (c. Cels. IV. 41; M. 11. 1097 sq.) omnes, qui nune sunt, homines et animalia ex arca derivat. Ambr. (De Sacr. II. 1. 1; M. 16. 423) diluvii meminit ut baptismi figurae, intelligit diluvium universale quoad locum. 4A4ug. (De catech. rudibus n. 32) dicit « ecclesiam diluvio praesignatam », de universalitate diluvii ib. non loquitur, utique vero n. 53 (cf.. M. 40. 334. 346). De Civ. Dei XV. 26 (M. 41. 472 sq.) typi in arca rationem minutatim explicat, universalitatem tamen diluvii omittit. C. Faust. Manich. XII. 14 (M. 42. 262) : « Noe cum suis », inquit, « per aquam et lignum liberatur, sicut familia Christi per baptismum crucis passione signatur ». Paul. Nolan. (Ep. 12. 2; M. 61. 200 sq.) verbis « quamvis interveniente diluvio in uno quidem, attamen iusto, universitatis peremptae seminarium stetit », videtur paraphrasim dare textuum Sap. 14, 6 et Eccli. 44, 17 sq. Arcam dicit imaginem redemptoris , non tamen explicat. Prosper Aquit. (De vocat. omnium gentium II. 14; M. 51. 698 sq.) arcam comparat ecclesiae. Verba « qui ex illa mundi vastatione salvati sunt » supponunt inundationem tam quoad locum quam quoad homines universalem. Fulgent. (De fide ad Petr. 37; M. 65. 703) : « Firmissime tene et nullatenus dubites, omnem extra ecclesiam catholicam baptizatum participem fieri non posse vitae aeternae, si ante finem vitae huius catholicae non fuerit redditus atque incorporatus ecclesiae.... Nam et in diebus diluvii neminem legimus extra arcam potuisse salvari ». Isid. (Alleg. ex. V. T. n. 12; M. 83. 102) allegoriarum catenae etiam haec inseruit : « Noe, qui interpretatur requies, similitudinem praefert Domini, in cuius ecclesia requieseunt quicunque ab huius saeculi excidio liberantur, sicut in arca ». Io. Damasc. (Hom. in Sabb. S. n. 25; M. 96. 624) arcam facit imaginem sepulcri Christi : £0«o otov Oeutépou xóspoo tà cxéppata, alludens ad textus supra laudatos. Beda (Hexaem. II; M. 91. 85 sq.) arcam dicit esse imaginem ecclesiae, diluvium baptismi : « Deus tulit omnia, quae extra eam erant », qua expressionc et aliis apud alios similibus non soli homines, sed imprimis animalia omnino omnia designantur. Thom. (in 1 Thess., Prolog.) : « Ecclesia etiam figuratur per arcam , quia sicut in arca ceteris pereuntibus paucac animae salvatae sunt, ita in ecclesia pauci i. c. soli electi salvabuntur ». Agmen claudit Catech. Conc. Trid. supra laudatus. Ex his illud primum collige, exsistere consensum constantem et unanegmem , diluvium fuisse universale non solum quoad locum , sed etiam quoad homines. Cum enim, quod supra monebamus , Patres omnes profiterentur diluvium universale quoad locum, non potuerunt non etiam adstruere diluvii quoad homines universalitatem : quippe haec necessario inter se connectuntur neque potuere, universo orbe inundato, homines alibi quam intra arcam servari. Unde sequitur eum, quem diximus, consensum constantem atque unanimem per se solum non esse genuinae de omnimoda diluvii universalitate traditionis argumentum. Potuit is utique ex eiusmodi traditione originem duxisse; verum, etsi haec supponatur defuisse, debuit idem consensus oriri e communi de diluvii quoad locum universalitate errore. Hinc merito Brucker 1886 II. 448 : « Illud », inquit,.« concedi oportet, Patres et antiquos interpretes nonnisi valde imperfecte novisse difficultates, quae consequerentur eorum diluvii tamquam universalis ruinae interpretationem. Et hoc putaverim sufficere, quo eorum consensui inesse veri nominis auctoritatem doctrinalem negemus, si quaestio ageretur pure historica aut scientifica atque ideo cum fide non necessario connexa ». Argumentorum vix aliud intricatius atque mobilius argumento traditionis. Etenim, quot testes ad completum argumentum sint audiendi, quid dicant singuli, conspirentne in id praecise quod quaeritur, loquanturne ut testes aut doctores, an e sua quisque privata mente : haee omnino difficile definiuntur. Nihilominus illud etiam cum Cor- [uy 1887 I. 65 omnino est concedendum, testimonia allata revera demonstrare, d?luvium et arcam a. Patribus habitos esse typos baptismi et ecclesiae. Quo concesso, illico pergit p. 66 Corluy : « Illud non est ita evidens, Patres hanc typicam explicationem proferre tamquam doctrinam ab ecclesia acceptam , neque solummado tamquam sensum , quem privato ipsi studio in textu sacro deprehenderint. Videatur istud minus probabile, at impossibile certe non est ». Contra quae advertas, novisse eos Patres 1 Petr. 3, 20 sq., qui textus indubium typicae significationi substernit fundamentum, novisse ecclesiam Christi esse catholicam, baptismo intrandam, medium salutis necessarium. Atqui haec plane sufficiebant, quibus Patres a Spiritu S. illustrati typum explicarent, simili fere ratione ei, qua dogma aliquod in fontibus fidei implicite contentum postmodum a Patribus et theologis evolvi consuevit. Ergo diluvium et arca merito a Patribus habebantur typus baptismi et ecclesiae. Neque tamen ideo, quascunque in applicando typo Patres similitudines deprehenderint, eae illico omnes censendae sunt fide divina esse recipiendae. Aliqui certe subtilius egere : arcam comparant Christi sepulcro, arcae lignum ligno crucis, in arcae dimensionibus atque in nomine Noe mysteria detegunt. Non ideo igitur, quod in typo explicando Pater aliquis vel Patres plures protulere quid, illud profecto ad typi substantiam pertinere censendum est. Solvenda porro est quaestio, pertineatne universalitas ad typi substantiam. Ubi illud quoque concedi omnino debet, Patres omnes in explicando typo, si non expressisse at certe cogitasse universalitatem ; imo, et S. Petrum idem fecisse. Est enim istud nimis obvium , nimis intime et individue cum ipsis typi visceribus connexum. Diluvium aliquo vero sensu universale esse , et textus clamat, et nos initio totius huius disceptationis inculeabamus; ecclesiam Christi, obligationem suscipiendi baptismi universalia esse, Patrum neminem latere poterat. Qui potuit quis diluvium et baptismum, ecclesiam et arcam conferre infer se tamquam typum et antitypum, quin universalitatem quoque universalitati compararet? Ergo universalitas est de substantia typi. Verum duplex cum detur universalitas, absoluta et relativa, quaeritur porro, utram in mente habuerint Patres de diluvii typo disserentes. Ubi locus dubio relinquitur nullus : Patres omnes et singuli unam in mente habebant wnersalitatem absolutam, hanc unam norant, alteram ne suspicabantur quidem. Patres, uti patet, non semper tria haec simul explicite commemorant : terram, animalia, homines. At nunquam separant. Universalitatis mixtae erant penitus ignari. Censebant ita omnes homines periisse, uti omnis terra fuerat submersa, animalia omnia oppressa. Sibi fas esse non putabant vocem « omnes », ubi de hominibus praedicabatur, restringere, quod is, quem prae manibus habebant, s. textus non totam aliquam solummodo regionem, sed totam terram affirmaret esse submersam : nulla igitur relinquebatur restrictionis possibilitas. Quare non possumus Bruckero 1886 II. 447 consentire dicenti : « Perpaucis exceptis, Patrum verba loquentium de universa terra submersa, de animalibus extra arcam omnibus destructis, quin textibus vis inferatur, intelligi possunt, uti quos commentantur Geneseos textus, de inundata tota terra habitata et de omnibus animalibus iis, quae penes homines viverent, destructis. Illud vero imprimis notare oportet, Patrum plerosque haec duo, terram sc. et animalia, extra typum relegare ». Patrum certe effata eo, qui suggoeritur, modo intelligi minime possunt, nisi interpres sua potius, quam ipsorum cogitata ex eorum verbis eruere studeat. Patres ignorabant distinctionem terrae habitatae à terra universa. Neque dicas, quod fas sit verba Geneseos interpretari de universalitate relativa, ideo legitimum etiam esse Patres iisdem fere verbis loquentes secundum eandem relativam universalitatem exponere. Aliud sc. in mente habuerat Noe, traditionis de diluvio primus auctor, aliud Patres, qui Genesin secundum obvium sensum versionis graecae vel latinae interpretarentur. Ea vero Bruckeri in tota hac disputatione praecipua atque indubia laus est, ut, in quo summa sit controversiae, clare definiverit. Ingenue quippe fatetur, rem dirimendam esse argumento 4raditionis prae scripturae textibus; totum eius argumenti robur consistere in ratione (ypi; in typo hoéó unum quaeri, quorsum universalitas pertineat ad substantiam typi, e, si pertinere permittatur, totam tandem disputationem ad hane unam revocari quaestionem, potuerintne Patres errare in re ad substantiam typi pertinente , universalitatem interpretati absolutam , quae revera fuerit relativa. Patres quippe affirmabant consensu unanimi et constanti cum factum historicum , tum rationem typiceam universalis diluvii. Eos in facto affirmando potuisse errare, sufficientes universalitatem absolutam /ocalem in locum universalitatis relativae, omnes concedunt : potueruntne iidem ratione eadem errare in re typi, dum affirmant universalitatem quoad homines absolutam? Hanc quaestionem dirimere , interpretis Geneseos non est. Quin potius ad absolvendam eam, in qua haeremus, controversiae historiam pedem referimus. - Quam modo descripsimus de libro Motais disputatio, ea alios plures, ut suam hac in re aperirent sententiam, allicuit. Rambouillet (Revue des Sciences eccelésiastiques 1886) in opusculo, cui titulus « Cain redivivus », invectus est in Motais Cinaeos aliosque populos a Cain derivantem. De quo cf. Corluy (La Science catholique 1887 I. 67). F. Vigourouz, qui antea sententiae recenti minime videbatur infensus, eam in 2a editione libri « Les livres saints et la critique rationaliste », Paris 1887, III. 497, « repudiavit tamquam communi ecclesiae traditioni adversam, quae traditio nullo argumento ostendatur textum sacrum esse perperam interpretata ». E contra F. Duilhé de Saint-Projet (Apologie scientifique de la foi chrétienne, 29 éd. 1885, p. 443) censet, « sententiam hanc defendi possesalva ecclesiae doctrina, neque defensores criminandos ' esse erroris in re fidei; nihil in hac controversia ecclesiam pronuntiasse; consensum oppositum iis destitui notis, quibus agnoscatur catholicae fidei regula ». Similiter A. Breitung S. I. in : Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie, Innsbruck 1887, p. 631 sqq. (cf. 1888 p. 369 3qq.), argumenta utriusque partis resumens contendit novam sententiam non esse refutatam. Strenue pro Motais decertat D. Le Hir (« L'abbé Motais, profanae magis magisque demonstravere, systema universalitatis absolutae admitti vix posse, imo ipsum universalitatis mixtae systema esse perquam salebrosum. Unde, quisquis divinam scripturae auctoritatem tuetur, adigitur ad praesumendum, tertium universalitatis relativae systema illud esse, quod s. textus supponat. Hinc, sacro textu maturius secundum solidae interpretationis principia perpenso, tertium hoc systema non quidem omnibus iam modis demonstratum, imo ne omnibus quidem difficultatibus expeditum , at certe altius confirmatum exsistit magnamque habet probabilitatem ». Ceterum hoc fere tempore, quae usque increverat procella, aliquamdiu remittebatur, ut pauciores universalitatis relativae defensores in arenam descenderent, incensique frigescerent hinc inde dimicanlium animi. Quo tempore E. Jacquier (La Controverse 1888 XII. 616) de scripto A. Breitung loquens : « quaestionem sibi videri dilucide propositam », exclamavit, « sed perpetuo mansuram insolubilem ». Ephemeris « The Tablet », quam 1886 I. 423 se reddituram spoponderat libri Motais rationem, suppressit. Novam componendae controversiae viam excogitavit A. Cetta S. I. : Il diluvio, Torino 1886. Narrationem Geneseos etiam ipse accipit tamquam a testibus immediatis profectam. Universalitatem tuetur mixtam : dum aliqua terrae pars aquis mergebatur, reliquus orbis varie concuticbatur. Aliquos extra arcam esse salvatos, censet textui Geneseos minus consonare neque ad solvendas obiectiones necessario esse admittendum. Nequaquam vero s. textui repugnare autumat, si quis statuerit, praeter « octo animas » alios intra arcam esse salvatos, puta filiorum filios aut servos. Quam opinionem merito repudiabat « Civiltà Cattolica » (1886 IV. 326 sqq.), simul occasionem arripiens sententiae Motais etiam severius carpendae, quod a 1 Petr. 3, 20 discordet viamque sternat « haeresi, posse homines extra ecclesiam salvari ». E contra R. D. Thomas, Vicarius Generalis Virodunensis et s. theologiae pridem professor, 1889. in libro « Les temps primitifs et les origines religieuses d'aprés 1a bible et la science » II. 264 sq., re diligenter discussa, suam sententiae de universalitate relativa probabilitatem concedit. Cui (La Science catholique 1890. p. 189 sqq.) assentitur Oratorianus Hamard , qui antea (La Controverse 1881 II. 689 sqq.) ei systemati fuerat infensus. I. A. Petit (La Sainte Bible avec Commentaire, Arras 1889) plures gentes censet diluvium evasisse. Universalitatem relativam defendit I. G. Zeeboock (Les Sciences modernes en regard de la Genése de Moise, Bruxelles 1892), et M&" de Kernaéret (Revue des facultés catholiques de l'Ouest, avril 1893, p. 676. Cf. La Science catholique 1893, p. 1031). Die 14. Decembris 1892 7. Semer:a Barnabita in aedibus Congregationis Propagandae Fidei, praesidente Illustr. Cardinali Vicario ei consessui, qui quarti anni Societatis Romanae pro studiis biblicis erat primus, publice tuitus est libertatem interpretibus concedendam in quaestione de universalitate diluvii relativa (Revue biblique trimestrielle , 1893 II. p. 431 sq.). Hispaniarum quoque vox in hac controversia audita est. 1892 I. 7'. Gonzalez-Arintero O. P. Vergarae prelo dedit opus : El Diluvio universal de la Biblia y de la Tradicion, demostrado por la Geologia y la Prehistoria. Adstruit auctor diluvium, cuius aquae in Europa 1500 m., in Asia 3500 m. ascenderint (p. 235. 385. 405), cuius causa imprimis fuerint Andes montes in America recens nati, cuius effectus exstiterit stratum quod Loess dicitur, etc. Disputationis summa est, diluvium fuisse universale ethnographice universalitate absoluta, geographice universalitate incompleta et restricta (p. 423; cf. 419 sqq.). - Expressiones « omnis terra », « omnis caro » accipiuntur de terra et animalibus tum temporum notis (p. 417. 516) : etenim « in narratione Moysis, uti in omni narratione historica, habetur perfecta veracitas, dummodo exprimantur fideliter facta, qualia spectantium obtutui obiiciebantur oculisque narratoris conspiciebantur » (p. 418). Universalitatem diluvii ethnographicam absolutaih censet auctor tenendam esse /ide divina atque catholica, eam sine summo periculo negari non posse (p. 451 sqq. 468). Cui reponit Cardinalis Z. Gonzales O. P. (Revue biblique trimestrielle I. 470, Paris 1892) illud se mirari, « defendi tamquam dogmaticam diluvii quoad homines universalitatem »; et R. Martinez y Vigil O. P., episcopus Ovetensis (La creacion, la redencion y la Iglesia ante la ciencia, la critica y el racionalismo. Madrid, Libreria catolica de G. del Amo 1892, 2 vol. ; cf. Revue biblique trimestrielle Oct. 1893, p. 638 sqq.) interpreti sacro hac in re libertatem vindicat. A. Schoepfer (Geschichte des A. T., Brixen 1893, p. 59) historiam V. T. texens pro scholis, pronuntiat systema universalitatis relativae, licet neque in praesens efficacibus argumentis fulciatur neque indubie omnes e s. textu petitas obiectiones dispellat, tamen contra fidem non offendere, ad concordiam fidei et scientiae plurimum conferre, et e controversia recenter habita haud spernendam nactum esse probabilitatem. Similiter Beck (Theologisch praktische Monatsschrift , Passau 1893, III. 295), de usu agens s. scripturae pro concionibus et catechesibus, tenet universalitatem relativam in catechesibus, quamdiu fideles nihil de ea audierint, non esse attingendam; sed neque a limine repudiandam ideo, quod ab interpretatione antiquiorum auctorum recedat. Tandem W. Zaborski S. I. (Przeglad Powszeckny, Cracoviae Sept. 1894, p. 313 sqq.) eandem cum ob defensorum auctoritatem, tum ob rationes intrinsecas pronuntiat esse hypothesin non possibilem tantum, sed imo probabilem. Demonstrabamus in Introductione narrationem dividi in quatuor pericopas 6,9-7,5; 7,6-16; 7,17-8,22; 9,1-27, quae singulae sacrosancto nomine pro clausula insigniantur. Arg. — Effertur 6,9 Noe sanctitas salutis causa futura, commemorantur filii stirpem propagaturi, corruptio universali ruina punienda; dein duo traduntur divina mandata, quae eadem formula clauduntur 6,99 et 7,5, fecisse Noe omnia, quae sibi mandasset numen. Primum est mandatum aed?ficandae arcae, in qua Noe cum animalibus sit salvandus novoque foederi reservandus; alterum est mandatum 2ntrandae arcae iam aedificatae.
6:9
v. 9 « Hae sunt generationes Noe » (cf. 9,&; 5,1) : « Noe vir zustus atque » — copulam Hebr. ignorat : tribus diversis expressionibus eandem hie versus maximi momenti veritatem inculcat — « perfectus fuit in. generationibus suis », inter aequales suos (Heór.); et nota, sat multarum generationum aequalem fuisse virum, qui tum sexcentos aetatis annos haberet. « Cum Deo ambulavit »; cf. 5,92 et Eccli.
6:10
v. 10 tres filii Noe. « Et tactus dolore cordis [intrinsecus] », v. * « Delebo, inquit, hominem quem creavi a facie terrae, ab homine usque ad animantia , «4 reptili usque ad volucres coeli : poenitet enim me fecisse eos ». Hebr. : ab. homine ad iumenta, ad reptilia et ad volucres coeli. — 44, 17. v. 10 « Et genutt tres filios : Sem, Cham et Iapheth ».
6:11
v. 41 « Corrupta est autem terra coram Deo et repleta est iniquitate ». Yterum inculcatur secuturi interitus causa.
6:12
v. 19 « Cumque vidisset Deus terram esse corruptam , omnis quippe caro corruperat viam suam super terram » ,
6:13
v. 13 « dzxit ad Noe : Finis universae carnis venit coram me », — reliqui inserunt quia — « repleta est terra iniquitate a. facie eorum, et ego disperdam eos cum terra ». Vox caro non hominem dicit et animalia (Caílm.) , sed solum hominem (Targumim , Chrys., Ambr.) : homo v. 3 dicebatur caro, neque possunt animalia dici corrumpere vias 1. e. mores suos. Enuntiat iam decretum Deus, quod V. 6 sq. « intrinsecus in corde suo » sanxerat; non est mera v. 6 sq. dictorum repetitio. dem « finis venit », sed non adiicitur « coram me ». Illa expressio 18, 21; Ex. 3,9 dicitur res Deo innotescere, quando fit; h. 1. innotescit finis carnis coram Deo, quando corruptio actu obtinet, quam Deus suo decreto praestituerat fore causam finis i. e. interitus infligendi. Ergo satis commode Per. : venit i. e. statutus est. Quam Deus effecturus sit ruinam, ea 6, 7; 7, 4 indicitur verbo nm", delebo; eodem verbo completa nuntiatur 7, 23. In cuius locum 8, 21 succedit synonymum 7323, percutiam. Sed 6, 13. 17, cum v. 11 sq. Deus dixisset corruptam esse terram, eodem verbo rnv usus affirmat se terram esse corrupturum. Antitheseos ergo vox seligitur, diversum auctorem nequaquam prodens. 6, 17 adhibetur verbum y*3 cum nnwv , uti 7, 21. 23 nan, «(0:óc, « un coffre » secus solum scribitur Ex. 2, 3. 5 de illa arcula, in qua Moyses puer undis creditus est. Nomen dicunt e lingua aegyptiaca transsumptum. Narratio cuneiformis substituit navim, assignat gubernatorem : sed biblica narratio evidenter supponit homines rei nauticae prorsus imperitos. — Dp nídi, hinc parva cubicula; probabilis lectio Dp aup (Lagarde), germ. « Zelle an Zelle ». — Praeter ea duo habet textus &rab Aeyópeva. 1523, erronee Vulg. reddit laevigatis et LXX tsvoa- Yóvov», quae graeca vox Ex. 27, 1; 28, 16; 30, 2; 39, 9 (36, 16); Ez. 41, 21; 43,16; 45, 2; 48, 20 exprimit hebraeum y"2*. ^23 utique est species quaedam ligni seu arboris. Comparant «122, quod chald. et syr. sonat cypressum; sed est mera coniectura , uti etiam quod h. 1. Chald. scribit cedrus. — 122, &cg&Ato, qua eadem voce utitur Beros. ad exprimendum assyr. kupri, nam etiam cuneiformis diluvii narratio bituminis meminit : « Tres saros bituminis fudi extrinsecus, tres saros bituminis fudi intrinsecus ». Of. Schrader KAT I. p. 48, Len. I. 606. Alii vocem vertunt piz, cf. Crelier.
6:15
v. 15 « Et sic facies eam : Trecentorum cubitorum ertt longitudo arcae , quinquaginta cubitorum latitudo, et triginta cubitorum altitudo dllius ». Carinam area non videtur habuisse, sed ad instar ratis fuisse configurata. Petrus Iansen Batavus 1604 construxit navigium quoddam, quod arcae dimensiones imitaretur : illud repertum est ad navigandum quidem satis incommodum, at tutum ferendisque oneribus perquam aptum. Etiam cuneiformis narratio arcae dimensiones exprimit cubitis, eadem voce usa nox : at longitudinis scribit cubitos sexcentos, latitudinis et altitudinis sexagenos : traditio effraenis numeros exaggeravit et omnia ad neros et sossos revocavit. Moyses eosdem adhibuerit, mensurae vero babyl. nonnisi serius in scriptura deprehendantur. Verum speciosior haec ratio quam verior. Moyses traditione accepit mensuras arcae cubitis expressas; hos cubitos ipse descripsit, quin ideo censendus sit definivisse intelligendos eiusdem rationis cubitos, quales apud suos aequales usuvenissent. Narratio cuneiformis omnino intelligit cubitos babylonicos, mensurae vero babylonicae videntur esse summae maximeque venerandae antiquitatis, neque ex Aegypto in Babyloniam invectae. Hebraei systemata metrica variis temporibus videntur esse mutuati a nationibus, quibuscum continuum ipsis esset commercium ; Aegypto egressi mensuras profitebantur aegyptiacas, Assyriis principatum orientis obtinentibus babylonicas; eorum in Mesopotamia maiores item babylonicis usos esse crediderim.
6:16
v. 16 « Fenestram 2n arca facies et in cubito consummabis summitatem eius ». Narratio cuneiformis refert tectum arcae impositum, quod quidem reapse esse impositum per se patet. Si conferas Gen. S,6. 13, perspicies fenestram fuisse in tecto, et nostro hoc versu illud saltem efficitur fenestram non fuisse in latere. Haec fenestra claudebatur corpore opaco, puta trabe, cum nonnisi aperta fenestra, quae extra arcam essent, videri potuerint. Etiamsi, quae de cubito dicuntur, ad fenestram referas, tamen his sola femestrae altitudo describitur, nihil de cius latitudine affirmatur; unde, cum non homines solum sed animalia quoque luce atque aere indiguerint, nihil prohibet, quominus cum Cam. adstruas fenestram fuisse tantae, quantae ipsa arca, longitudinis; consentitque Sy. scribens fenestras. At cuius rei summitas consummanda :n cubito, i. e. mensura cubiti? Fenestrae putavere quidam : at sic evadit oratio mire contorta. Longe simplicius diceres : Fenestram in arca facies altitudinis cubiti unius; quam constructionem ipse v. 15 suggerebat. Praeterea "n3 secus semper est masc., suffixum vero h. 1. fem. Asserit quidem Ges., x h. l., quod collectivum sit, posse genere fem. construi : at simplicior constructio, quae suffixum fem. ad nomen fem. arca trahit (LXX, Syr., Ephr., Per. etc.). Ergo : e£ supra illam fenestram altitudine cubiti perficies arcam desuper, « u& non absimilem referat à feretro imaginem » culmen arcae (Caim.). maiores in tentoriis viverent fenestris carentibus, narratorem varias tentando effinxisse expressiones ad fenestras designandas, quod vocum discrimen posteriores religiose servaverint. « Ostium autem arcae pones ez latere. Deorsum coenacula et tristega facies in ea ». Verte : cubicula inferiora, distega et tristega. Explicatis iam, quae Noe praestanda erunt, emphatico *xn ^iNj distinctius Deus, quae ipse acturus sit, exponere orditur.
6:17
v. 17 « Ecce ego adducam aquas diluvii super terram , ut interficiam omnem carnem, 2n qua spiritus vitae est subter coelum ». Etiam in narratione cuneiformi : « destruam », numen ait, « semen et vitam ». « Universa, quae n terra sunt, consumentur ».
6:18
v. 18 « Ponamque foedus meum tecum , et ingredteris arcam tu et. filii tui, uxor tua et uxores filiorum tuorum tecum », octo omnino personae (1 Petr. 3, 20), quém numerum narratio cuneiformis exaggerat, illis iungens servos et ancillas, viros exercitus, navis gubernatorem. Foedus illud postea 15,18 Deus transtulit in Abraham, quod primum protoevangelio stabilitum fuerat cum Adam, foederis tamen nomine suppresso. Hoc foedus, cuius summa erat futuri seminis concedendi promissio, quo tempore de universa carne ageretur diluvio destruenda , praeprimis spectabat generis electi e communi ruina (cf. 9,15) efficiendam salutem.
6:19
v. 19 « E£ ex cunctis animantibus universae carnis bina induces 2n arcam, ut vivant tecum » ; et illud bini explicatur « masculini sexus et feminini », numerus quippe individuorum 7,2 sq. statuitur maior. Aliter dividunt v. 17 voces LXX Syr.: diluvium, aquas super terram. o5, incertae derivationis vox, occurrit secus solum Ps. 28 (29), 10. Vox fortasse antiquata (Dilim.) explicabatur adiecto l'a» oy DQ'"O, quod item 7, 6 appositionis rationem . habebat. Ex quo textu etiam patet, non esse cum quibusdam punctandum D" pro D"2. — Vox *V3 v. 17 iam sumitur sensu latiori, quam v. 12 sq. sumebatur, includitque animalia : quod patet ex v. 19 sq., ubi uti v. 18 quidam homines, ita etiam quaedam animalia a communi carnis interitu eximuntur. Uti v. 18, ita etiam 7, 7. 13 personae familiae Noe ita recensentur, ut primum viri, dein mulieres eífferantur : sc. omnibus iis locis (6, 19; 7, 9. 16) illico etiam in animalibus masculi et feminae discernuntur. 7, 1 res ad breviorem formulam « tu et omnis domus tua » redigitur, animalium v. 2 masculi et feminae distinguuntur. Sed ubi in animalibus non discernuntur sexus, ibi (8, 16. 18) in familia etiam Noe non sexus sed dignitatis ordo servatur : « tu et uxor tua, filii tui et uxores filiorum] tuorum ». Absurde aliqui diversos hinc inferunt scriptores.
6:20
v. 90 « De volucribus tuxta genus suum, et de tumentis in genere suo , et ez omni reptili terrae secundum genus suum , bina de omnibus ingredientur tecum, ut possint vivere ». Recensentur ea animalia, quae recipienda sint in arcam, ut postea inde egressa repleant terram : potuere alia animalia recipi, ut essent esca carnivoris in arca. v. 19 iubebantur animalia znduc?, hic ipsa dicuntur esse ventura : quomodo res effecta sit, non edocemur; Deus utique, quod humanis deerat viribus, supplevit.
6:21
v. 91 « Tolles igitur tecum ex omnibus escis, quae mandi possunt , et comportabis apud te, et erunt tam tibi quam illis in cibum ».
6:22
v. 99 « Fecit igitur Noe omnia, quae praeceperat illi Deus ». Hoc mandatum praecedente est posterius. Post illud effluxit totum illud tempus, quod arcae aedificandae impendebatur; hoc vero mandatum *7,^ septiduo ante diluvium editum est. s Cum toties moneamur differre elohistae et iahvistae stilum , iuvabit in his duabus pericopis demonstrare, quam affinis quandoque, ne dicam idem, sit eorumdem stilus. Igitur 7, 1? idem fere est, atque 6, 18b : cf. ann UN nDN N2 cum nana bw neam nnN; quod 7, 1* habet qn" o», idem 6, 18^ enumeratione partium amplificat. 7, 1b mn Ww72 p" cf. cum 6, 9 ^ra p". 7,9 mana D5:3 etiam habes 6, 19; voci autem 1 npn respondet v. 21 ge np. 7, 3 habes n", 6, 20 mnm; ibi nn, y"* hic solum nwn5; expressione napm "23 ibi utitur iahvista, 6, 19 elohista, iahvista autem modo utebatur expressione *STYUN' V*N ad eundem sensum exprimendum. Tandem 7, 5 verbotenus idem est atque 6, 22, sola nomina divina sunt diversa Cap. VII
6:1
I. BIBLICAL ACCOUNT (Gen. 6:1-9:19). - God saw that human wickedness had spread and "repented that he had made man."
6:2
… that the angels are pure spirits. Ps. 103:4 "Qui facis angelos tuos spiritus" deals with the winds poetically presented as messengers of God. In certain codices of the Septuagint the sons of God who committed carnal sins with the daughters of men (Gen. 6:2) are called ἀγγέλοι. …
… This opinion, now abandoned, was founded on a false version of Gen. 6, 2 (cf. id., ibid., coll. 326-327). There is almost agreement in placing the fault of the angels in an act of pride (cf. the letters of the popes Hormisdas and Gregory I, in Cavallera, …
… such spirits many Jews and Christians later attributed the moral corruption of humanity, holding the "sons of God" to be angels who descended (fell) from the heavenly court, from whose commerce with "the daughters of men" the wicked nēphilim were born (Gen. 6:2-4).
6:3
… man of sin and the new man of righteousness (ibid. 7:5-25). The first, called the "body of sin, of death" (ibid. 6:6; 7:24), which tends toward moral and physical disintegration, is usually called "flesh" in the pejorative sense that already appears in Gen. 6:3, 12 (cf. Is. 40:6; Eccl. 14:18; I Cor. 1:20) and that was widespread among the Stoics. …
6:4
GIANTS IN THE BIBLE. - Gen. 6:4 recalls the
… For this reason those men were called R. (cf. Gen. 6:4) to whom the Bible, more than bulk and physical prowess, attributes stubborn rebellion against God, wickedness (cf. Bar. 3:26 ff.).
6:7
… by the beauty of the "daughters of men," who belonged to the line of Cain, were led astray by sensuality: "they are flesh." In his wrath God decided: "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth: and with man also the beasts" (Gen. 6:7), yet granting them 120 years to repent. …
6:9
Ezek. 14 recalls Job for his righteousness (v. 20; cf. Job 12:4; Gen. 6:9 for Noah), together with Noah and Daniel (cf. Ecclus. 49:9); James 5:11 recalls him rather for his patience: cf. Tob. 2:12-15 (only in the Vulgate). …
6:10
… Hām, Vulgar Chām). - One of the three sons of Noah (Shem, C. and Japheth, Gen. 5:32; 6:10; 9:18; 1 Chron. 1:4) saved from the flood (Gen. 8:18) and from whom "the whole human race spread over all the earth" (ibid. 9:19). He had four sons (v. CAMITES). …
SEM (Hebrew: Šēm). - One of the sons of Noah, perhaps the firstborn, since he appears in first place in the enumerations (S., Ham [v.] and Japheth [v.]: Gen. 5:32; 6:10; 9:18 etc.); but in the "Table of Nations" (ibid. 10:2-21) the brothers are mentioned first, because they are set aside from the narrator's interest, who then follows only the fortunes …
6:12
INCARNATION (Σάρκωσις). - A term with a Semitic flavor, derived from the Johannine expression (John 1:14: καὶ ὁ Λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο), in which the word σάρξ (caro) simply means human nature, according to biblical usage (cf. Gen. 6:12; Isa. 40:5; Rom. 3:20), which continues in tradition from the first century onward. …
6:13
ARK (OF NOAH). - A large floating wooden receptacle, which Noah before the flood (v.) built by God's command, as a refuge for himself, his family and all the animal species (Gen. 6:13-22).
… Döller, H. Lesêtre, P. Heinisch, etc. But while a flood of the whole earth is never explicitly mentioned, we have instead: "the end of all flesh is come before me..." (ibid. 6, 13-17 and cf. 6, 6 f.).
6:14
According to the order he had received, Noah made it of resinous wood (Gen. 6:14 Hebr.), perhaps of cypress, used for receptacles destined for damp contacts (ships, coffins), and he smeared it with bitumen. …
6:15
… The dimensions (Gen. 6:15) of 300 cubits in length by 50 in width by 30 in height, if this is the lesser Babylonian cubit (of 0.45 m.), are equivalent to approximately 135 x 22.5 x 13.5 m. (the Vatican Basilica …
6:16
It had elements not customary in a ship: a door in the side (Gen. 6:16 b; for its use cf. Gen. 6:18; 7:1, 7; 8:18), which God closed before sending the waters (Gen. 7:16), the roof or cover (cf. Gen. 8:13) to protect from the water. …
6:17
… Methuselah according to the Masoretic text and the Samaritan died during the flood (in 1656 according to the Masoretic, in 1307 according to the Samaritan and in 2262 according to the Septuagint), and Lamech would have died 5 years after the flood, against Gen. 6:17; 7:4, 21-24; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:5 (see Table b).
… The communication of life by means of the divine breath is common to man and beast (cf. Ps. 104 [103], 29 f.); therefore one also speaks of the rūah of beasts (Gen. 6, 17; 7, 15); thus Eccles. 3, 19: "there is but one breath — rūah — for all". …
6:18
It had elements not customary in a ship: a door in the side (Gen. 6:16 b; for its use cf. Gen. 6:18; 7:1, 7; 8:18), which God closed before sending the waters (Gen. 7:16), the roof or cover (cf. Gen. 8:13) to protect from the water. …
… God's covenant (ibid., 6:18) with Noah consisted in the promise to save him and his own from destruction in order to found with them a new humanity, faithful and holy.
6:19
field in which the darnel grows mingled with the wheat (Mt. 13:29-30), or to Noah's ark in which clean and unclean animals took refuge (Gen. 6:19 ff.). …
… But more than true contradictions, these are ways of speaking that complete one another: it is said in general that the animals must be brought in by pairs (Gen. 6, 19), and then the number is indicated (ibid., 7, 2); the entry into the ark cannot be said to be narrated twice merely because 7, 13 takes up 7, 7 again; 7, 12 speaks of the increase …
6:20
… Of the clean animals 7 pairs entered, because their flesh was to be offered in sacrifice (ibid., 6:20) and also eaten; of the unclean, one pair. …
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · original Douay-Rheims (Douay 1609-10), transcription by EEBO-TCP (CC0) · La Sacra Bibbia, tradotta dalla Volgata da Antonio Martini (1769-1781) (LaParola (laparola.net), Martini OSIS text, Public domain (LaParola's electronic edition marks it 'Dominio pubblico')). Public domain.