---
title: "City of God · De civitate Dei"
author: "Augustine"
translator: "Marcus Dods"
languages: [la, en]
shelf: "Church Fathers"
section: 75 of 116
url: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/75/
cite: "Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods, City of God · De civitate Dei, section 75. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/75/"
---

# City of God · De civitate Dei

*Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods*

“Two loves have made two cities.” Augustine’s Latin, in Hoffmann’s critical text, beside Dods’s English, chapter by chapter.

> Latin: Augustine, De civitate Dei, ed. Emanuel Hoffmann, CSEL 40 (Vienna: Tempsky, 1899–1900), as encoded by the Open Greek and Latin project, University of Leipzig (stoa0040.stoa003.opp-lat3, CC BY-SA 4.0); apparatus omitted.

> English: Marcus Dods, The City of God (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, vol. 2, 1887).

> Chapters are matched one to one except where the two editions divide them differently; within a chapter the Latin sentences are shared out over the English paragraphs by position.

## 75. Of the Generations of the Three Sons of Noah

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/75/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/75/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 3.—Of the Generations of the Three Sons of Noah.

> Latin: Caput III. De generationibus trium filiorum Noe.

[¶1] We must therefore introduce into this work an explanation of the generations of the three sons of Noah, in so far as that may illustrate the progress in time of the two cities. Scripture first mentions that of the youngest son, who is called Japheth: he had eight sons, and by two of these sons seven grandchildren, three by one son, four by the other; in all, fifteen descendants. Ham, Noah’s middle son, had four sons, and by one of them five grandsons, and by one of these two great-grandsons; in all, eleven. After enumerating these, Scripture returns to the first of the sons, and says, “Cush begat Nimrod; he began to be a giant on the earth. He was a giant hunter against the Lord God: wherefore they say, As Nimrod the giant hunter against the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Assur, and built Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah: this was a great city.” Now this Cush, father of the giant Nimrod, is the first-named among the sons of Ham, to whom five sons and two grandsons are ascribed. But he either begat this giant after his grandsons were born, or, which is more credible, Scripture speaks of him separately on account of his eminence; for mention is also made of his kingdom, which began with that magnificent city Babylon, and the other places, whether cities or districts, mentioned along with it. But what is recorded of the land of Shinar which belonged to Nimrod’s kingdom, to wit, that Assur went forth from it and built Nineveh and the other cities mentioned with it, happened long after; but he takes occasion to speak of it here on account of the grandeur of the Assyrian kingdom, which was wonderfully extended by Ninus son of Belus, and founder of the great city Nineveh, which was named after him, Nineveh, from Ninus. But Assur, father of the Assyrian, was not one of the sons of Ham, Noah’s son, but is found among the sons of Shem, his eldest son. Whence it appears that among Shem’s offspring there arose men who afterwards took possession of that giant’s kingdom, and advancing from it, founded other cities, the first of which was called Nineveh, from Ninus. From him Scripture returns to Ham’s other son, Mizraim; and his sons are enumerated, not as seven individuals, but as seven nations. And from the sixth, as if from the sixth son, the race called the Philistines are said to have sprung; so that there are in all eight. Then it returns again to Canaan, in whose person Ham was cursed; and his eleven sons are named. Then the territories they occupied, and some of the cities, are named. And thus, if we count sons and grandsons, there are thirty-one of Ham’s descendants registered.

> Latin: Generationes ergo filiorum Noe deinceps intuendae, et quod de his dicendum uidetur, adtexendum est huic operi, quo ciuitatis utriusque, terrenae scilicet et caelestis, per tempora procursus ostenditur. Coeptae sunt enim commemorari a minimo filio, qui uocatus est Iapheth, cuius filii octo nominati sunt, nepotes autem septem de duobus filiis eius, tres ex uno, quattuor ex altero; fiunt itaque omnes quindecim. Filii autem Cham, hoc est medii filii Noe, quattuor et nepotes quinque ex uno eius filio, pronepotes duo ex nepote uno; fit eorum summa undecim. Quibus enumeratis reditur tamquam ad caput et dicitur: Chus autem genuit Nebroth; hic coepit esse gigans super terram. Hic erat gigans uenator contra Dominum Deum. Propter hoc dicunt: Sicut Nebroth gigans uenator contra Dominum. Et factum est initium regni eius Babylon, Oreg, Archad et Chalemne in terra Sennaar. De terra illa exiuit Assur et aedificauit Nineuen et Roboth ciuitatem et Chalach et Dasem inter medium Nineuae et Chalach: haec ciuitas magna. Iste porro Chus, pater gigantis Nebroth, primus nominatus est in filiis Cham, cuius quinque filii iam fuerant conputati et nepotes duo. Sed istum gigantem aut post nepotes suos natos genuit, aut, quod est credibilius, seorsum de illo propter eius eminentiam scriptura locuta est; quando quidem et regnum eius commemoratum est, cuius initium erat illa nobilissima Babylon ciuitas, et quae iuxta commemoratae sunt siue ciuitates siue regiones. Quod uero dictum est de terra illa, id est de terra Sennaar, quae pertinebat ad regnum Nebroth, exisse Assur et aedificasse Nineuen et alias quas contexuit ciuitates, longe postea factum est, quod ex hac occasione perstrinxit propter nobilitatem regni Assyriorum, quod mirabiliter dilatauit Ninus, Beli filius, conditor Nineuae ciuitatis magnae; cuius ciuitatis nomen ex illius nomine deriuatum est, ut a Nino Nineue uocaretur. Assur autem, unde Assyrii, non fuit in filiis Cham, medii filii Noe, sed in filiis Sem reperitur, qui fuit Noe maximus filius. Unde apparet de progenie Sem. exortos fuisse, qui postea regnum gigantis illius obtinerent et inde procederent adque alias conderent ciuitates, quarum prima est a Nino, appellata Nineue. Hinc reditur ad alium filium Cham, qui uocabatur Mesraim, et commemorantur quos genuit, non tamquam singuli homines, sed nationes septem. Et de sexta, uelut de sexto filio, gens commemoratur exisse, quae appellatur Philistiim; unde fiunt octo. Inde iterum ad Chanaan reditur, in quo filio maledictus est Cham, et quos genuit undecim nominantur. Deinde usque ad quos fines peruenerint commemoratis quibusdam ciuitatibus dicitur.

[¶2] It remains to mention the sons of Shem, Noah’s eldest son; for to him this genealogical narrative gradually ascends from the youngest. But in the commencement of the record of Shem’s sons there is an obscurity which calls for explanation, since it is closely connected with the object of our investigation. For we read, “Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Heber, the brother of Japheth the elder, were children born.” This is the order of the words: And to Shem was born Heber, even to himself, that is, to Shem himself was born Heber, and Shem is the father of all his children. We are intended to understand that Shem is the patriarch of all his posterity who were to be mentioned, whether sons, grandsons, great-grandsons, or descendants at any remove. For Shem did not beget Heber, who was indeed in the fifth generation from him. For Shem begat, among other sons, Arphaxad; Arphaxad begat Cainan, Cainan begat Salah, Salah begat Heber. And it was with good reason that he was named first among Shem’s offspring, taking precedence even of his sons, though only a grandchild of the fifth generation; for from him, as tradition says, the Hebrews derived their name, though the other etymology which derives the name from Abraham (as if Abrahews) may possibly be correct. But there can be little doubt that the former is the right etymology, and that they were called after Heber, Heberews, and then, dropping a letter, Hebrews; and so was their language called Hebrew, which was spoken by none but the people of Israel among whom was the city of God, mysteriously prefigured in all the people, and truly present in the saints. Six of Shem’s sons then are first named, then four grandsons born to one of these sons; then it mentions another son of Shem, who begat a grandson; and his son, again, or Shem’s great-grandson, was Heber. And Heber begat two sons, and called the one Peleg, which means “dividing;” and Scripture subjoins the reason of this name, saying, “for in his days was the earth divided.” What this means will afterwards appear. Heber’s other son begat twelve sons; consequently all Shem’s descendants are twenty-seven. The total number of the progeny of the three sons of Noah is seventy-three, fifteen by Japheth, thirty-one by Ham, twenty-seven by Shem. Then Scripture adds, “These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.” And so of the whole number “These are the families of the sons of Noah after their generations, in their nations; and by these were the isles of the nations dispersed through the earth after the flood.” From which we gather that the seventy-three (or rather, as I shall presently show, seventy-two) were not individuals, but nations. For in a former passage, when the sons of Japheth were enumerated, it is said in conclusion, “By these were the isles of the nations divided in their lands, every one after his language, in their tribes, and in their nations.”

> Latin: Ac per hoc filiis nepotibusque conputatis de progenie Cham triginta unus geniti referuntur. Restat commemorare filios Sem, maximi filii Noe; ad eum quippe gradatim generationum istarum peruenit a minimo exorta narratio. Sed unde incipiunt commemorari filii Sem, habet quiddam obscuritatis, quod expositione inlustrandum est, quia et multum ad rem pertinet, quam requirimus. Sic enim legitur: Et Sem natus est, et ipsi patri omnium filiorum, Heber, fratri Iapheth maiori. Ordo uerborum est: Et Sem natus est Heber, etiam ipsi, id est ipsi Sem, natus est Heber, qui Sem pater est omnium filiorum. Sem ergo patriarcham intellegi uoluit omnium, qui de stirpe eius exorti sunt, quos commemoraturus est, siue sint filii, siue nepotes et pronepotes et deinceps indidem exorti. Non sane istum Heber genuit Sem, sed ab illo quintus in progenitorum serie reperitur. Sem quippe inter alios filios genuit Arphaxat, Arphaxat genuit Cainan, Cainan genuit Sala, Sala genuit Heber. Non itaque frustra ipse primus est nominatus in progenie ueniente de Sem et praelatus etiam filiis, cum sit quintus nepos, nisi quia uerum est, quod traditur, ex illo Hebraeos esse cognominatos, tamquam Heberaeos; cum et alia possit esse opinio, ut ex Abraham tamquam Abrahaei dicti esse uideantur; sed nimirum hoc uerum est, quod ex Heber Heberaei appellati sunt, ac deinde una detrita littera Hebraei, quam linguam solus Israel populus potuit obtinere, in quo Dei ciuitas et in sanctis peregrinata est et in omnibus sacramento adumbrata. Igitur filii Sem prius sex nominantur, deinde ex uno eorum nati sunt quattuor nepotes eius, itemque alter filiorum Sem genuit eius nepotem, adque ex illo itidem pronepos natus est adque inde abnepos, qui est Heber. Genuit autem Heber duos filios, quorum unum appellauit Phalech, quod interpretatur diuidens. Deinde scriptura subiungens rationemque huius nominis reddens: Quia diebus, inquit, eius diuisa est terra. Hoc autem quid sit, postea apparebit. Alius uero, qui natus est ex Heber, genuit duodecim filios; ac per hoc fiunt omnes progeniti de Sem uiginti septem. In summa igitur omnes progeniti de tribus filiis Noe, id est quindecim de Iapheth, triginta unus de Cham, uiginti septem de Sem fiunt septuaginta tres. Deinde sequitur scriptura dicens: Hi filii Sem in tribubus suis secundum linguas suas in regionibus suis et in gentibus suis; itemque de omnibus: Haec, inquit, tribus filiorum Noe secundum generationes eorum, secundum gentes eorum. Ab his dispersae sunt insulae gentium super terram post diluuium. Unde colligitur septuaginta tres uel potius (quod postea demonstrabitur) septuaginta duas gentes tunc fuisse, non homines. Nam et prius, cum fuissent commemorati filii Iapheth, ita conclusum est: Ex his segregatae sunt insulae gentium in terra sua, unus quisque secundum linguam in tribubus suis et in gentibus suis.

[¶3] But nations are expressly mentioned among the sons of Ham, as I showed above. “Mizraim begat those who are called Ludim;” and so also of the other seven nations. And after enumerating all of them, it concludes, “These are the sons of Ham, in their families, according to their languages, in their territories, and in their nations.” The reason, then, why the children of several of them are not mentioned, is that they belonged by birth to other nations, and did not themselves become nations. Why else is it, that though eight sons are reckoned to Japheth, the sons of only two of these are mentioned; and though four are reckoned to Ham, only three are spoken of as having sons; and though six are reckoned to Shem, the descendants of only two of these are traced? Did the rest remain childless? We cannot suppose so; but they did not produce nations so great as to warrant their being mentioned, but were absorbed in the nations to which they belonged by birth.

> Latin: Iam uero in filiis Cham quodam loco apertius gentes commemoratae sunt, sicut superius ostendi. Mesraim genuit eos, qui dicuntur Ludiim; et eodem modo ceterae usque ad septem gentes. Et enumeratis omnibus postea concludens: Hi filii Cham, inquit, in tribubus suis secundum linguas suas in regionibus suis et in gentibus suis. Propterea ergo multorum filii non sunt commemorati. quia gentibus aliis nascendo accesserunt, ipsi autem gentes facere nequiuerunt. Nam qua alia causa, cum filii Iapheth octo enumerentur, ex duobus eorum tantum filii nati commemorantur, et cum filii Cham quattuor nominentur, ex tribus tantum qui nati sunt adiciuntur, et cum filii Sem nominentur sex, duorum tantum posteritas adtexitur? Numquid ceteri sine filiis remanserunt? Absit hoc credere; sed gentes, propter quas commemorari digni essent, non utique fecerunt, quia, sicut nascebantur, aliis gentibus addebantur.

### Of the Diversity of Languages, and of the Founding of Babylon.

[¶5] Chapter 4.—Of the Diversity of Languages, and of the Founding of Babylon.

> Latin: Caput IV. De diuersitate linguarum principioque Babylonis.

[¶6] But though these nations are said to have been dispersed according to their languages, yet the narrator recurs to that time when all had but one language, and explains how it came to pass that a diversity of languages was introduced. “The whole earth,” he says, “was of one lip, and all had one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt there. And they said one to another, Come, and let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly. And they had bricks for stone, and slime for mortar. And they said, Come, and let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top shall reach the sky; and let us make us a name, before we be scattered abroad on the face of all the earth. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord God said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Come, and let us go down, and confound there their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. And God scattered them thence on the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city and the tower. Therefore the name of it is called Confusion; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and the Lord God scattered them thence on the face of all the earth.” This city, which was called Confusion, is the same as Babylon, whose wonderful construction Gentile history also notices. For Babylon means Confusion. Whence we conclude that the giant Nimrod was its founder, as had been hinted a little before, where Scripture, in speaking of him, says that the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, that is, Babylon had a supremacy over the other cities as the metropolis and royal residence; although it did not rise to the grand dimensions designed by its proud and impious founder. The plan was to make it so high that it should reach the sky, whether this was meant of one tower which they intended to build higher than the others, or of all the towers, which might be signified by the singular number, as we speak of “the soldier,” meaning the army, and of the frog or the locust, when we refer to the whole multitude of frogs and locusts in the plagues with which Moses smote the Egyptians. But what did these vain and presumptuous men intend? How did they expect to raise this lofty mass against God, when they had built it above all the mountains and the clouds of the earth’s atmosphere? What injury could any spiritual or material elevation do to God? The safe and true way to heaven is made by humility, which lifts up the heart to the Lord, not against Him; as this giant is said to have been a “hunter against the Lord.” This has been misunderstood by some through the ambiguity of the Greek word, and they have translated it, not “against the Lord,” but “before the Lord;” for ἐναντίον means both “before” and “against.” In the Psalm this word is rendered, “Let us weep before the Lord our Maker.” The same word occurs in the book of Job, where it is written, “Thou hast broken into fury against the Lord.” And so this giant is to be recognized as a “hunter against the Lord.” And what is meant by the term “hunter” but deceiver, oppressor, and destroyer of the animals of the earth? He and his people therefore, erected this tower against the Lord, and so gave expression to their impious pride; and justly was their wicked intention punished by God, even though it was unsuccessful. But what was the nature of the punishment? As the tongue is the instrument of domination, in it pride was punished; so that man, who would not understand God when He issued His commands, should be misunderstood when he himself gave orders. Thus was that conspiracy disbanded, for each man retired from those he could not understand, and associated with those whose speech was intelligible; and the nations were divided according to their languages, and scattered over the earth as seemed good to God, who accomplished this in ways hidden from and incomprehensible to us.

> Latin: Cum ergo in suis linguis istae gentes fuisse referantur, redit tamen narrator ad illud tempus, quando una lingua omnium fuit, et inde iam exponit, quid acciderit, ut linguarum diuersitas nasceretur. Et erat, inquit, omnis terra labium unum et uox una omnibus. Et factum est, cum mouerent ipsi ab Oriente, inuenerunt campum in terra Sennaar, et habitauerunt ibi. Et dixit homo proximo: Venite, faciamus lateres et coquamus illos igni. Et facti sunt illis lateres in lapidem, et bitumen erat illis lutum, et dixerunt: Venite, aedificemus nobismet ipsis ciuitatem et turrem, cuius caput erit usque ad caelum, et faciamus nostrum nomen antequam dispergamur in faciem omnis terrae. Et descendit Dominus uidere ciuitatem et turrem, quam aedificauerunt filii hominum. Et dixit Dominus Deus: Ecce genus unum et labium unum omnium; et hoc inchoauerunt facere, et nunc non deficient ei illis omnia quae conati fuerint facere; uenite, et descendentes, confundamus ibi linguam eorum, ut non audiant unusquisque uocem proximi. Et dispersit eos Dominus inde super faciem omnis terrae, et cessauerunt aedificantes ciuitatem et turrem. Propter hoc appellatum est nomen illius confusio, quia ibi confudit Dominus labia omnis terrae; et inde dispersit illos Dominus Deus super faciem omnis terrae. Ista ciuitas, quae appellata est confusio, ipsa est Babylon, cuius mirabilem constructionem etiam gentium commendat historia. Babylon quippe interpretatur confusio. Unde colligitur, gigantem illum Nebroth fuisse illius conditorem, quod superius breuiter fuerat intimatum, ubi, cum de illo scriptura loqueretur, ait initium regni eius fuisse Babylonem, id est quae ciuitatum ceterarum gereret principatum, ubi esset tamquam in metropoli habitaculum regni; quamuis perfecta non fuerit usque in tantum modum, quantum superba cogitabat inpietas. Nam nimia disponebatur altitudo, quae dicta est usque in caelum, sine unius turris eius, quam praecipuam moliebantur inter alias, siue omnium turrium, quae per numerum singularem ita significatae sunt, ut dicitur miles et intelleguntur milia militum; ut rana, ut lucusta; sic enim appellata est multitudo ranarum ac lucustarum in plagis, quibus Aegyptii percussi sunt per Moysen. Quid autem factura fuerat humana et uana pra«sumtio, si cuiuslibet et quantumlibet in caelum aduersus Deum altitudinem molis extolleret? quando montes transcenderet uniuersos, quando spatium nebulosi aeris huius euaderet? Quid denique noceret Deo quantacumque uel spiritalis uel corporalis elatio? Tutam ueramque in caelum uiam molitur humilitas, sursum leuans cor ad Dominum, non contra Dominum, sicut dictus est gigans iste uenator contra Dominum. Quod non intellegentes nonnulli ambiguo Graeco falsi sunt, ut non interpretarentur contra Dominum, sed ante Dominum; ivavtiov quippe et contra et ante significat. Hoc enim uerbum est in psalmo: Et ploremus ante Dominum qui nos fecit; et hoc uerbum est etiam in libro Iob, ubi scriptum est: In furorem erupisti contra Dominum. Sic ergo intellegendus est gigans iste uenator contra Dominum. Quid autem hic significatur hoc nomine, quod est uenator, nisi animalium terrigenarum deceptor obpressor extinctor ? Erigebat ergo cum suis populis turrem contra Deum, qua est inpia significata superbia. Merito autem malus punitur adfectus, etiam cui non succedit effectus. Genus uero ipsum poenae quale fuit? Quoniam dominatio imperantis in lingua est, ibi est damnata superbia, ut non intellegeretur iubens homini, qui noluit intellegere ut oboediret Deo iubenti. Sic illa conspiratio dissoluta est, cum quisque ab eo, quem non intellegebat, abscederet nec se nisi ei, cum quo loqui poterat, adgregaret; et per linguas diuisae sunt gentes dispersaeque per terras, sicut Deo placuit, qui hoc modis occultis nobisque inconprehensibilibus fecit.

### Of God’s Coming Down to Confound the Languages of the Builders of the City.

[¶8] Chapter 5.—Of God’s Coming Down to Confound the Languages of the Builders of the City.

> Latin: Caput V. De descensione Domini ad confundendam linguam aedificantium turrem.

[¶9] We read, “The Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men built:” it was not the sons of God, but that society which lived in a merely human way, and which we call the earthly city. God, who is always wholly everywhere, does not move locally; but He is said to descend when He does anything in the earth out of the usual course, which, as it were, makes His presence felt. And in the same way, He does not by “seeing” learn some new thing, for He cannot ever be ignorant of anything; but He is said to see and recognize, in time, that which He causes others to see and recognize. And therefore that city was not previously being seen as God made it be seen when He showed how offensive it was to Him. We might, indeed, interpret God’s descending to the city of the descent of His angels in whom He dwells; so that the following words, “And the Lord God said, Behold, they are all one race and of one language,” and also what follows, “Come, and let us go down and confound their speech,” are a recapitulation, explaining how the previously intimated “descent of the Lord” was accomplished. For if He had already gone down, why does He say, “Come, and let us go down and confound?”—words which seem to be addressed to the angels, and to intimate that He who was in the angels descended in their descent. And the words most appropriately are, not, “Go ye down and confound,” but, “Let us confound their speech;” showing that He so works by His servants, that they are themselves also fellow-laborers with God, as the apostle says, “For we are fellow-laborers with God.”

> Latin: Quod enim scriptum est: Et descendit Dominus uidere ciuitatem et turrem, quam aedificauerunt filii hominum, hoc est non filii Dei, sed illa societas secundum hominem uiuens, quam terrenam dicimus ciuitatem: non loco mouetur Deus, qui semper est ubique totus, sed descendere dicitur, cum aliquid facit in terra, quod praeter usitatum naturae cursum mirabiliter factum praesentiam quodam modo eius ostendat; nec uidendo discit ad tempus, qui numquam potest aliquid ignorare, sed ad tempus uidere et cognoscere dicitur, quod uideri et cognosci facit. Non sic ergo uidebatur illa ciuitas, quo modo eam Deus uideri fecit, quando sibi quantum displiceret ostendit. Quamuis possit intellegi Deus ad illam ciuitatem descendisse, quia descenderunt angeli eius in quibus habitat: ut, quod adiunctum est: Et dixit Dominus Deus: Ecce genus unum et labium unum omnium, et cetera, ac deinde additum: Venite et descendentes confundamus ibi linguam eorum, recapitulatio sit, demonstrans quem ad modum factum sit, quod dictum fuerat: Descendit Dominus. Si enim iam descenderat, quid sibi uult: Venite et descendentes confundamus (quod intellegitur angelis dictum), nisi quia per angelos descendebat, qui in angelis descendentibus erat? Et bene non ait: Venite et descendentes confundite,’ sed: Confundamus ibi linguam eorum; ostendens ita se operari per ministros suos. ut sint etiam ipsi cooperatores Dei, sicut apostolus dicit: Dei enim sumus cooperarii.

### What We are to Understand by God’s Speaking to the Angels.

[¶11] Chapter 6.—What We are to Understand by God’s Speaking to the Angels.

> Latin: Caput VI. Qualis intellegenda sit esse locutio, qua Deus angelis loquitur.

[¶12] We might have supposed that the words uttered at the creation of man, “Let us,” and not Let me, “make man,” were addressed to the angels, had He not added “in our image;” but as we cannot believe that man was made in the image of angels, or that the image of God is the same as that of angels, it is proper to refer this expression to the plurality of the Trinity. And yet this Trinity, being one God, even after saying “Let us make,” goes on to say, “And God made man in His image,” and not “Gods made,” or “in their image.” And were there any difficulty in applying to the angels the words, “Come, and let us go down and confound their speech,” we might refer the plural to the Trinity, as if the Father were addressing the Son and the Holy Spirit; but it rather belongs to the angels to approach God by holy movements, that is, by pious thoughts, and thereby to avail themselves of the unchangeable truth which rules in the court of heaven as their eternal law. For they are not themselves the truth; but partaking in the creative truth, they are moved towards it as the fountain of life, that what they have not in themselves they may obtain in it. And this movement of theirs is steady, for they never go back from what they have reached. And to these angels God does not speak, as we speak to one another, or to God, or to angels, or as the angels speak to us, or as God speaks to us through them: He speaks to them in an ineffable manner of His own, and that which He says is conveyed to us in a manner suited to our capacity. For the speaking of God antecedent and superior to all His works, is the immutable reason of His work: it has no noisy and passing sound, but an energy eternally abiding and producing results in time. Thus He speaks to the holy angels; but to us, who are far off, He speaks otherwise. When, however, we hear with the inner ear some part of the speech of God, we approximate to the angels. But in this work I need not labor to give an account of the ways in which God speaks. For either the unchangeable Truth speaks directly to the mind of the rational creature in some indescribable way, or speaks through the changeable creature, either presenting spiritual images to our spirit, or bodily voices to our bodily sense.

> Latin: Poterat et illud, quando factus est homo, de angelis intellegi quod dictum est: Faciamus hominem, quia non dixit: […] sed quia sequitur ad imaginem nostram, nec fas est credere ad imaginem angelorum hominem factum, aut eandem esse imaginem angelorum et Dei: recte illic intellegitur pluralitas trinitatis. Quae tamen trinitas quia unus Deus est, etiam cum dixisLet: cF a c iam us): ‘Et fecit, inquit, Deus hominem adimaginem Dei’, non dixit fecerunt di’ aut ad imaginem deorum). Poterat et hic eadem intellegi trinitas, tamquam Pater dixerit ad Filium et Spiritum sanctum: Venite, et descendentes confundamus ibi linguam eorum, si aliquid esset, quod angelos prohiberet intellegi, quibus potius conuenit uenire ad Deum motibus sanctis, hoc est cogitationibus piis, quibus ab eis consulitur incommutabilis Veritas, tamquam lex aeterna in illa eorum curia superna. Neque enim sibi ipsi sunt ueritas, sed creatricis participes Veritatis ad illam mouentur, tamquam ad fontem uitae, ut, quod non habent ex se ipsis, capiant ex ipsa. Et eorum stabilis est iste motus, quo ueniunt, qui non recedunt Nec sic loquitur angelis Deus, quo modo nos in uicem nobis uel Deo uel angelis uel ipsi angeli nobis siue per illos Deus nobis. sed ineffabili suo modo; nobis autem hoc indicatur nostro modo. Dei quippe sublimior ante suum factum locutio ipsius sui facti est inmutabilis ratio, quae non habet sonum strepentem adque transeuntem, sed uim sempiterne manentem et temporaliter operantem. Hac loquitur angelis sanctis, nobis autem aliter longe positis. Quando autem etiam nos aliquid talis locutionis interioribus auribus capimus, angelis propinquamus. Non itaque mihi adsidue reddenda ratio est in hoc opere de locutionibus Dei. Aut enim Veritas incommutabilis per se ipsam ineffabiliter loquitur rationalis creaturae mentibus, aut per mutabilem creaturam loquitur, siue spiritalibus imaginibus nostro spiritui siue corporalibus uocibus corporis sensui. Illud sane quod dictum est: Et nunc non deficient ex illis omnia, quae conati fuerint facere, non dictum est confirmando, sed tamquam interrogando, sicut solet a comminantibus dici, quem ad modum ait quidam: Non arma expedient totaque ex urbe sequentur?

[¶13] The words, “Nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do,” are assuredly not meant as an affirmation, but as an interrogation, such as is used by persons threatening, as e.g., when Dido exclaims,

> Latin: Sic ergo accipiendum est, tamquam dixerit: ‘Nonne omnia deficient ex illis, quae conati fuerint facere?’ Sed si ita dicatur, non exprimit comminantem.

[¶14] “They will not take arms and pursue?”

[¶15] We are to understand the words as if it had been said, Shall nothing be restrained from them which they have imagined to do? From these three men, therefore, the three sons of Noah we mean, 73, or rather, as the catalogue will show, 72 nations and as many languages were dispersed over the earth, and as they increased filled even the islands. But the nations multiplied much more than the languages. For even in Africa we know several barbarous nations which have but one language; and who can doubt that, as the human race increased, men contrived to pass to the islands in ships?

> Latin: Verum propter tardiusculos addidimus particulam, id est W, ut diceremus […] quoniam uocem pronuntiantis non possumus scribere. Ex illis igitur tribus hominibus, Noe filiis, septuaginta tres, uel potius, ut ratio declaratura est, septuaginta duae gentes totidemque linguae per terras esse coeperunt, quae crescendo et insulas inpleuerunt. Auctus est autem numerus gentium multo amplius quam linguarum. Nam et in Africa barbaras gentes in una lingua plurimas nouimus, et homines quidem multiplicato genere humano ad insulas inhabitandas nauigio transire potuisse, quis ambigat?

### Whether Even the Remotest Islands Received Their Fauna from the Animals Which Were Preserved, Through the Deluge, in the Ark.

[¶17] Chapter 7.—Whether Even the Remotest Islands Received Their Fauna from the Animals Which Were Preserved, Through the Deluge, in the Ark.

> Latin: Caput VII. An omne bestiarum genus etiam remotissimae a terris insulae ex eo numero acceperint, qui in arca a diluuii inundatione seruatus est.

[¶18] There is a question raised about all those kinds of beasts which are not domesticated, nor are produced like frogs from the earth, but are propagated by male and female parents, such as wolves and animals of that kind; and it is asked how they could be found in the islands after the deluge, in which all the animals not in the ark perished, unless the breed was restored from those which were preserved in pairs in the ark. It might, indeed, be said that they crossed to the islands by swimming, but this could only be true of those very near the mainland; whereas there are some so distant, that we fancy no animal could swim to them. But if men caught them and took them across with themselves, and thus propagated these breeds in their new abodes, this would not imply an incredible fondness for the chase. At the same time, it cannot be denied that by the intervention of angels they might be transferred by God’s order or permission. If, however, they were produced out of the earth as at their first creation, when God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature,” this makes it more evident that all kinds of animals were preserved in the ark, not so much for the sake of renewing the stock, as of prefiguring the various nations which were to be saved in the church; this, I say, is more evident, if the earth brought forth many animals in islands to which they could not cross over.

> Latin: Sed quaestio est de omni genere bestiarum, quae sub cura hominum non sunt neque sicuti ranae nascuntur ex terra, sed sola commixtione maris et feminae propagantur, sicut lupi adque huius modi. cetera, quo modo post diluuium, quo ea, quae in arca non erant, cuncta deleta sunt, etiam in insulis esse potuerint, si reparata non sunt nisi ex his, quorum genera in utroque sexu arca seruauit. Possunt quidem credi ad insulas natando transisse, sed proximas. Sunt autem quaedam tam longe positae a continentibus terris, ut ad eas nulla uideatur natare potuisse bestiarum. Quod si homines eas captas secum aduexerunt et eo modo ubi habitabant earum genera instituerunt uenandi studio, fieri potuisse incredibile non est; quamuis iussu Dei siue permissu etiam opere angelorum negandum non sit potuisse transferri. Si uero terra exortae sunt secundum originem primam, quando dixit Deus: Producat terra animam uiuam, multo clarius apparet non tam reparandorum animalium causa quam figurandarum uariarum gentium propter ecclesiae sacramentum in arca fuisse omnia genera, si in insulis, quo transire non possent, multa animalia terra produxit.

### Whether Certain Monstrous Races of Men are Derived from the Stock of Adam or Noah’s Sons.

[¶20] Chapter 8.—Whether Certain Monstrous Races of Men are Derived from the Stock of Adam or Noah’s Sons.

> Latin: Caput VIII. An ex propagine Adam uel filiorum Noe quaedam genera hominum monstrosa prodierint.

[¶21] It is also asked whether we are to believe that certain monstrous races of men, spoken of in secular history, have sprung from Noah’s sons, or rather, I should say, from that one man from whom they themselves were descended. For it is reported that some have one eye in the middle of the forehead; some, feet turned backwards from the heel; some, a double sex, the right breast like a man, the left like a woman, and that they alternately beget and bring forth: others are said to have no mouth, and to breathe only through the nostrils; others are but a cubit high, and are therefore called by the Greeks “Pigmies:” they say that in some places the women conceive in their fifth year, and do not live beyond their eighth. So, too, they tell of a race who have two feet but only one leg, and are of marvellous swiftness, though they do not bend the knee: they are called Skiopodes, because in the hot weather they lie down on their backs and shade themselves with their feet. Others are said to have no head, and their eyes in their shoulders; and other human or quasi-human races are depicted in mosaic in the harbor esplanade of Carthage, on the faith of histories of rarities. What shall I say of the Cynocephali, whose dog-like head and barking proclaim them beasts rather than men? But we are not bound to believe all we hear of these monstrosities. But whoever is anywhere born a man, that is, a rational, mortal animal, no matter what unusual appearance he presents in color, movement, sound, nor how peculiar he is in some power, part, or quality of his nature, no Christian can doubt that he springs from that one protoplast. We can distinguish the common human nature from that which is peculiar, and therefore wonderful.

> Latin: Quaeritur etiam, utrum ex filiis Noe uel potius ex illo uno homine, unde etiam ipsi extiterunt, propagata esse credendum sit quaedam monstrosa hominum genera, quae gentium narrat historia, sicut perhibentur quidam unum habere oculum in fronte media, quibusdam plantas uersas esse post crura, quibusdam utriusque sexus esse naturam et dextram mammam uii-ilem, sinistram muliebrem, uicibusque inter se coeundo et gignere et parere; aliis ora non esse eosque per nares tantummodo halitu uiuere, alios statura esse cubitales, quos Pygmaeos a cubito Graeci uocant, alibi quinquennes concipere feminas et octauum uitae annum non excedere. Item ferunt esse gentem, ubi singula crura in pedibus habent nec poplitem flectunt, et sunt mirabilis celeritatis; quos Sciopodas uocant, quod per aestum in terra iacentes resupini umbra se pedum protegant; quosdam sine ceruice oculos habentes in umeris, et cetera hominum uel quasi hominum genera. quae in maritima platea Carthaginis musiuo picta sunt, ex libris depromta uelut curiosioris historiae. Quid dicam de Cynocephalis, quorum canina capita adque ipse latratus magis bestias quam homines confitetur? Sed omnia genera hominum, quae dicuntur esse, credere non est necesse. Verum quisquis uspiam nascitur homo, id est animal rationale mortale, quamlibet nostris inusitatam sensibus gerat corporis formam seu colorem siue motum siue sonum sine qualibet ui, qualibet parte, qualibet qualitate naturam: ex illo uno protoplasto originem ducere nullus fidelium dubitauerit. Apparet tamen quid in pluribus natura obtinuerit et quid sit ipsa raritate mirabile.

[¶22] The same account which is given of monstrous births in individual cases can be given of monstrous races. For God, the Creator of all, knows where and when each thing ought to be, or to have been created, because He sees the similarities and diversities which can contribute to the beauty of the whole. But He who cannot see the whole is offended by the deformity of the part, because he is blind to that which balances it, and to which it belongs. We know that men are born with more than four fingers on their hands or toes on their feet: this is a smaller matter; but far from us be the folly of supposing that the Creator mistook the number of a man’s fingers, though we cannot account for the difference. And so in cases where the divergence from the rule is greater. He whose works no man justly finds fault with, knows what He has done. At Hippo-Diarrhytus there is a man whose hands are crescent-shaped, and have only two fingers each, and his feet similarly formed. If there were a race like him, it would be added to the history of the curious and wonderful. Shall we therefore deny that this man is descended from that one man who was first created? As for the Androgyni, or Hermaphrodites, as they are called, though they are rare, yet from time to time there appears persons of sex so doubtful, that it remains uncertain from which sex they take their name; though it is customary to give them a masculine name, as the more worthy. For no one ever called them Hermaphroditesses. Some years ago, quite within my own memory, a man was born in the East, double in his upper, but single in his lower half—having two heads, two chests, four hands, but one body and two feet like an ordinary man; and he lived so long that many had an opportunity of seeing him. But who could enumerate all the human births that have differed widely from their ascertained parents? As, therefore, no one will deny that these are all descended from that one man, so all the races which are reported to have diverged in bodily appearance from the usual course which nature generally or almost universally preserves, if they are embraced in that definition of man as rational and mortal animals, unquestionably trace their pedigree to that one first father of all. We are supposing these stories about various races who differ from one another and from us to be true; but possibly they are not: for if we were not aware that apes, and monkeys, and sphinxes are not men, but beasts, those historians would possibly describe them as races of men, and flaunt with impunity their false and vainglorious discoveries. But supposing they are men of whom these marvels are recorded, what if God has seen fit to create some races in this way, that we might not suppose that the monstrous births which appear among ourselves are the failures of that wisdom whereby He fashions the human nature, as we speak of the failure of a less perfect workman? Accordingly, it ought not to seem absurd to us, that as in individual races there are monstrous births, so in the whole race there are monstrous races. Wherefore, to conclude this question cautiously and guardedly, either these things which have been told of some races have no existence at all; or if they do exist, they are not human races; or if they are human, they are descended from Adam.

> Latin: Qualis autem ratio redditur de monstrosis aput nos hominum partubus, talis de monstrosis quibusdam gentibus reddi potest. Deus enim creator est omnium, qui ubi et quando creari quid oporteat uel oportuerit, ipse nouit, sciens uniuersitatis pulchritudinem quarum partium uel similitudine uel diuersitate contexat. Sed qui totum inspicere non potest, tamquam deformitate partis offenditur, quoniam cui congruat et quo referatur ignorat. Pluribus quam quinis digitis in manibus et pedibus nasci homines nouimus; et haec leuior est quam ulla distantia; sed tamen absit, ut quis ita desipiat, ut existimet in numero humanorum digitorum errasse Creatorem, quamuis nesciens quur hoc fecerit. Ita etsi maior diuersitas oriatur, scit ille quid egerit, cuius opera iuste nemo reprehendit. Aput Hipponem Zaritum est homo quasi lunatas habens plantas et in eis binos tantummodo digitos, similes et manus. Si aliqua gens talis esset, illi curiosae adque mirabili adderetur historiae. Num igitur istum propter hoc negabimus ex illo uno, qui primus creatus est, esse propagatum? Androgyni, quos etiam Hermaphroditos nuncupant, quamuis admodum rari sint, difficile est tamen ut temporibus desint, in quibus sic uterque sexus apparet, ut, ex quo potius debeant accipere nomen, incertum sit; a meliore tamen, hoc est a masculino, ut appellarentur, loquendi consuetudo praeualuit. Nam nemo umquam Androgynaecas aut Hermaphroditas nuncupauit. Ante annos aliquot, nostra certe memoria, in Oriente duplex homo natus est superioribus membris, inferioribus simplex. Nam duo erant capita, duo pectora, quattuor manus, uenter autem unus, et pedes duo, sicut uni homini; et tam diu uixit, ut multos ad eum uidendum fama contraheret. Quis autem omnes commemorare possit humanos fetus longe dissimiles his, ex quibus eos natos esse certissimum est? Sicut ergo haec ex illo uno negari non possunt originem ducere, ita quaecumque gentes in diuersitatibus corporum ab usitato naturae cursu, quem plures et prope omnes tenent, uelut exorbitasse traduntur, si definitione illa includuntur, ut rationalia animalia sint adque mortalia, ab eodem ipso uno primo patre omnium stirpem trahere confitendum est, si tamen uera sunt quae de illarum nationum uarietate et tanta inter se adque nobiscum diuersitate traduntur. Nam et simias et cercopithecoB et sphingas si nesciremus non homines esse, sed bestias, possent illi historici de sua curiositate gloriantes uelut gentes aliquas hominum nobis inpunita uanitate mentiri. Sed si homines sunt, de quibus illa mira conscripta sunt: quid, si propterea Deus uoluit etiam nonnullas gentes ita creare, ne in his monstris, quae aput nos oportet ex hominibus nasci, eius sapientiam, qua naturam fingit humanam, uelut artem cuiuspiam minus perfecti opificis, putaremus errasse? Non itaque nobis uideri debet absurdum, ut, quem ad modum in singulis quibusque gentibus quaedam monstra sunt hominum, ita in uniuerso genere humano quaedam monstra sint gentium. Quapropter ut istam quaestionem pedetemtim cauteque concludam: aut illa, quae talia de quibusdam gentibus scripta sunt, omnino nulla sunt; aut si sunt, homines non sunt; aut ex Adam sunt, si homines sunt.