Works (City of God, On the Trinity, etc.) 17

[I] Whether after the flood the traces of the holy city as it runs onward were continuous, or were interrupted by intervening times of impiety, so that no worshipper of the one true God existed among men, it is difficult to find out clearly from the plain speech of the Scriptures; for the reason that in the canonical books, after Noah — who, together with his wife and three sons and as many daughters-in-law, deserved to be delivered through the ark from the devastation of the flood — we do not find, all the way to Abraham, the piety of anyone proclaimed by evident divine utterance, except that Noah commends his two sons, Shem and Japheth, with a prophetic blessing, beholding and foreseeing what was to be far off in the future.

Whence it came to pass also that thing — namely that he cursed his middle son, that is, the one younger than the firstborn and older than the last, who had sinned against his father, not in his own person, but in his son, his own grandson — with these words: 'Cursed be Canaan the boy, a servant shall he be to his brothers.' Now Canaan had been born of Ham, who had not covered, but rather betrayed, the nakedness of his sleeping father. Whence also that which followed, when he added the blessing of his two sons, the greatest and the least, saying: 'Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant;'

may God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem' — just as that very planting of the vine by this same Noah, and the inebriation from its fruit, and the uncovering of him as he slept, and the other things which were there done and written down, are pregnant with prophetic senses and veiled with coverings. [II] But now, the effect of the events having already followed in later generations, the things which had been covered are sufficiently laid open. For who, attending diligently and intelligently to these things, would not recognize them in Christ? For Shem, from whose seed Christ was born in the flesh, is interpreted 'named.' But what is more named than Christ, whose name now everywhere breathes fragrance, so that in the Song of Songs, by a prophecy going before, it is even compared to ointment poured out;

in whose tents, that is, churches, dwells the breadth of the nations? For Japheth is interpreted 'breadth.' But Ham, which is interpreted 'hot,' the middle son of Noah, as though distinguishing himself from both and remaining between the two, neither in the firstfruits of the Israelites nor in the fullness of the nations — what does he signify but the kind of heretics, hot not with the spirit of wisdom but of impatience, with which the inward parts of heretics are wont to seethe and to disturb the peace of the saints? But these things turn to the use of those who make progress, according to that saying of the apostle: 'There must be also heresies, that they who are approved may be made manifest among you.' Whence also it is written: 'A learned son shall be wise, but he shall employ an imprudent servant.'

For many things pertaining to the catholic faith, while they are agitated by the hot restlessness of heretics, in order that they may be defended against them, are both considered more diligently and understood more clearly and preached more insistently; and the question raised by the adversary becomes an occasion of learning. Although not only those who are most openly separated, but all who glory in the Christian name and live perditiously, may not absurdly be seen to be figured by the middle son of Noah; for the passion of Christ, which was signified by the nakedness of that man, they both announce by professing it, and by doing evil dishonor it. Of such, therefore, it was said: 'By their fruits ye shall know them.'

Therefore Ham was cursed in his son, as though in his fruit, that is, in his work. Whence fittingly his son himself, Canaan, is interpreted 'their motion' — which is nothing else than their work. But Shem and Japheth, as though the circumcision and the uncircumcision, or, as the apostle in another manner calls them, Jews and Greeks — but called and justified — having come to know in some way the nakedness of their father, by which the passion of the Savior was signified, took a garment and laid it upon their own backs and went in backward and covered the nakedness of their father, nor did they see what they reverently covered. For in a certain way, in the passion of Christ, we both honor what was done for us and turn away from the crime of the Jews.

The garment signifies the sacrament, the backs the memory of things past, because the Church celebrates the passion of Christ — at that time, namely, in which Japheth dwells in the tents of Shem and the evil brother is in the midst of them — as already accomplished, not still looking forward to it as future. But the evil brother, in his son, that is, in his work, is a boy, that is, a servant of the good brothers, since the good, for the exercise of patience or for the advancement of wisdom, knowingly make use of the evil. For there are, as the apostle testifies, those who announce Christ not chastely; 'but whether in pretense,' he says, 'or in truth, Christ is announced.' For he himself planted a vineyard, of which the prophet says:

'The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel,' and he drank of its wine — whether that cup here be understood, of which he says: 'Can ye drink the cup which I am about to drink?' and: 'Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass,' by which he without doubt signifies his passion; or, because wine is the fruit of the vine, this rather was signified by that, namely that from that very vine — that is, from the race of the Israelites — he took flesh and blood for us, that he might be able to suffer — and he was inebriated, that is, he suffered, and was made naked: for there was there made naked, that is, appeared, his weakness, of which the apostle says: 'Although he was crucified out of weakness.' Whence the same says: 'The weak thing of God is stronger than men, and the foolish thing of God is wiser than men.'

But whereas, when it had been said, 'And he was made naked,' Scripture added, 'in his own house,' it elegantly shows that He was to suffer the cross and death from the people of His own flesh and from the kinsmen of His own blood, namely the Jews. This passion of Christ the reprobate proclaim outwardly in the mere sound of the voice; for they do not understand what they proclaim. But the upright hold so great a mystery in the inner man, and inwardly in the heart they honour the weak and foolish thing of God, because it is stronger and wiser than men. Of this matter it is a figure that Ham, going out, announced this abroad; whereas Shem and Japheth, in order to veil it, that is, to honour it, entered in — that is, they did this thing inwardly.

These secrets of divine Scripture we search out as we can, one man more and another less fittingly, yet holding faithfully for certain that these things were neither done nor recorded without some prefiguration of things to come, and that they are to be referred to none but Christ and His Church, which is the City of God; the preaching of which has not been wanting from the beginning of the human race, and which we see being fulfilled through all things. Two sons of Noah, therefore, having been blessed, and one in the midst of them cursed, thereafter, down to Abraham, there is silence for more than a thousand years concerning the commemoration of any of the just who piously worshipped God.

Nor would I believe that such men were lacking; but if all were commemorated, it would become too long, and this would be historical diligence rather than prophetic foresight. Therefore the writer of these sacred letters — or rather the Spirit of God through him — pursues those things by which not only are past events narrated, but future ones also foretold, which nevertheless pertain to the City of God; because whatever is here said even of men who are not its citizens is said for this end, that she may profit or stand out by contrast and comparison. Assuredly not all things that are narrated as done are to be thought to signify something also; but for the sake of those which do signify something, even those which signify nothing are woven in.

For the earth is cleaved by the ploughshare alone; but that this may be done, the other parts of the plough also are necessary; and the strings alone in lyres and musical instruments of this kind are fitted for song; but that they may be fitted, there are also the other parts in the frame of the instruments, which are not struck by the players, but to which are joined those that, being struck, resound. So too in prophetic history certain things are said which signify nothing, but to which the things that signify may adhere and in a manner be bound. [III] The generations, therefore, of the sons of Noah are next to be considered, and what seems needful to be said of these must be woven into this work, in which is shown the course through the ages of both cities, the earthly, that is, and the heavenly.

For they began to be commemorated from the youngest son, who was called Japheth, whose sons are named as eight, and grandsons seven from two of his sons — three from one, four from the other; so all become fifteen. But the sons of Ham, that is, of Noah's middle son, are four, and grandsons five from one of his sons, great-grandsons two from one grandson; the sum of them comes to eleven. When these have been enumerated, it returns, as it were, to the head, and it is said: 'And Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a giant upon the earth. He was a giant hunter against the Lord God. Wherefore they say: Even as Nimrod the giant hunter against the Lord.' And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, and Erech, and Accad, and Chalanne in the land of Shinar.

Out of that land went forth Asshur and built Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Chalach, and Dasem between the midst of Nineveh and Chalach: this is a great city. Now this Cush, the father of the giant Nimrod, was named first among the sons of Ham, whose five sons and two grandsons had already been reckoned. But this giant he either begot after his grandsons were born, or — what is more credible — Scripture spoke of him separately on account of his eminence; since indeed his kingdom too was commemorated, the beginning of which was that most noble city Babylon, and the cities or regions that are named alongside it.

But as for what was said, that out of that land — that is, out of the land of Shinar, which pertained to the kingdom of Nimrod — Asshur went forth and built Nineveh and the other cities which it links together, this was done long afterward; and Scripture touched upon it on this occasion because of the renown of the kingdom of the Assyrians, which Ninus, son of Belus, marvellously enlarged, being the founder of the great city Nineveh, whose name was derived from his own name, so that from Ninus it was called Nineveh. But Asshur, from whom come the Assyrians, was not among the sons of Ham, Noah's middle son, but is found among the sons of Shem, who was Noah's eldest son.

Whence it appears that they sprang from the progeny of Shem who afterward obtained the kingdom of that giant and thence advanced and founded other cities, of which the first was called Nineveh from Ninus. From here it returns to another son of Ham, who was called Mizraim, and there are commemorated those whom he begot, not as individual men but as seven nations. And from the sixth, as from a sixth son, is commemorated a nation to have gone forth which is called the Philistines; whence they become eight. Thence again it returns to Canaan, in which son Ham was cursed, and eleven are named whom he begot. Then, certain cities being commemorated, it is told up to what boundaries they reached.

And by this reckoning, when the sons and grandsons of the progeny of Ham have been counted, thirty-one are recorded as begotten. It remains to commemorate the sons of Shem, the eldest son of Noah; for it is to him that the narrative of these generations, having arisen from the youngest, gradually came. But whence the sons of Shem begin to be commemorated has something of obscurity that must be illustrated by exposition, because it much pertains to the matter we are inquiring into. For it is thus read: 'And Shem was born, and to him also, the father of all the sons, Eber, the elder brother of Japheth.' The order of the words is: 'And Shem was born; to Eber also' — that is, to Shem himself was Eber born, which Shem is the father of all the sons.

Shem, therefore, He willed to be understood as the patriarch of all who sprang from his stock, whom He is about to commemorate, whether they be sons, or grandsons, and great-grandsons, and those thence sprung in succession. Not indeed that Shem begot this Eber, but Eber is found fifth in the line of progenitors from him. For Shem, among his other sons, begot Arphaxad; Arphaxad begot Cainan; Cainan begot Salah; Salah begot Eber. Not in vain, therefore, is he himself named first in the progeny coming from Shem, and preferred even to the sons, though he is the fifth grandson, unless because what is handed down is true, that from him the Hebrews were named, as it were Heberews; although there could also be another opinion, that they seem to be called from Abraham, as it were Abrahaeans;

but no doubt this is true, that from Eber they were called Heberews, and then, one letter being worn away, Hebrews — a tongue which the people of Israel alone was able to retain, in which the City of God both sojourned in the saints and in all things was foreshadowed in mystery. Therefore the sons of Shem are first named as six; then from one of them were born four grandsons; and again another of Shem's sons begot his grandson, and from him likewise a great-grandson was born, and thence a great-great-grandson, who is Eber. Now Eber begot two sons, one of whom he called Peleg, which is interpreted 'dividing.' Then Scripture, subjoining and rendering the reason of this name, says: 'Because in his days the earth was divided.' But what this is will appear afterward.

But the other, who was born of Eber, begot twelve sons; and by this all who were begotten of Shem come to twenty-seven. In sum, therefore, all who were begotten of the three sons of Noah — that is, fifteen of Japheth, thirty-one of Ham, twenty-seven of Shem — come to seventy-three. Then Scripture follows, saying: 'These are the sons of Shem in their tribes according to their tongues, in their regions and in their nations'; and likewise of all: 'These,' it says, 'are the tribes of the sons of Noah according to their generations, according to their nations. From these were the isles of the nations dispersed over the earth after the flood.' Whence it is gathered that there were then seventy-three, or rather (as will afterward be shown) seventy-two nations, not men.

For before, when the sons of Japheth had been commemorated, it was thus concluded: 'From these were the isles of the nations set apart in their land, each according to his tongue, in their tribes and in their nations.' But now, in the sons of Ham, in a certain place the nations were more openly commemorated, as I showed above: 'Mizraim begot those who are called the Ludim'; and in the same manner the rest, up to seven nations. And when all had been enumerated, concluding afterward: 'These,' it says, 'are the sons of Ham in their tribes according to their tongues, in their regions and in their nations.' Therefore the sons of many were not commemorated for this reason, that by being born they were added to other nations, but they themselves were not able to make nations.

For what other cause is there, that, whereas the sons of Japheth are enumerated as eight, only from two of them are the sons who were born commemorated; and whereas the sons of Ham are named as four, only from three are those who were born added; and whereas the sons of Shem are named as six, only of two is the posterity woven in? Did the rest remain without sons? Far be it to believe this; but the nations, on account of which they would have been worthy to be commemorated, they assuredly did not make, because, as they were born, they were added to other nations. [IV] Since, then, these nations are recorded to have existed in their own tongues, the narrator nevertheless returns to that time when there was one tongue for all, and thence now sets forth what happened, so that a diversity of tongues arose.

'And,' it says, 'the whole earth was one lip and one voice for all. And it came to pass, when they journeyed from the East, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt there. And a man said to his neighbour: Come, let us make bricks and bake them with fire. And bricks became stone to them, and bitumen was to them for mortar; and they said: Come, let us build for ourselves a city and a tower, whose top shall be even unto heaven; and let us make our name before we are scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the Lord God said: Behold, they are one race and one lip for all;

and this they have begun to do, and now nothing will be withheld from them of all that they have determined to do; come, and going down let us there confound their tongue, that they may not each hear the voice of his neighbour. And the Lord scattered them thence over the face of the whole earth, and they ceased building the city and the tower. Therefore its name was called Confusion, because there the Lord confounded the lips of the whole earth; and thence the Lord God scattered them over the face of the whole earth.' This city, which was called Confusion, is Babylon itself, whose marvellous construction the history even of the Gentiles commends. For Babylon is interpreted 'confusion.'

Whence it is gathered that that giant Nimrod was its founder, which had been briefly intimated above, where, when Scripture spoke of him, it said that the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon — that is, the city which held the primacy over the rest of the cities, where there was, as it were, in a metropolis the dwelling of the kingdom; although it was not completed to such a degree as proud impiety was designing. For an exceeding height was being planned, which was said to be 'even unto heaven,' whether of a single tower of it, which they were chiefly labouring to raise among the others, or of all the towers; which were signified by the singular number, as one says 'soldier' and thousands of soldiers are understood; as 'frog' and 'locust';

for thus was named the multitude of frogs and locusts in the plagues by which the Egyptians were smitten through Moses. But what would human and vain presumption have accomplished, however great and however high a mass it should raise up toward heaven against God, when it would surpass all the mountains, when it would escape the space of this cloudy air? What harm, finally, would any exaltation, whether spiritual or corporeal, do to God? Humility fashions the safe and true way to heaven, lifting up the heart to the Lord, not against the Lord, as this giant was called 'a hunter against the Lord.' Not understanding which, some were misled by the ambiguous Greek, so that they interpreted it not 'against the Lord' but 'before the Lord';

for 'enantion' signifies both 'against' and 'before.' For this word is in the Psalm: 'And let us weep before the Lord who made us'; and this word is also in the book of Job, where it is written: 'Thou hast broken out in fury against the Lord.' So, then, is this giant to be understood as 'a hunter against the Lord.' But what is here signified by this name, which is 'hunter,' but a deceiver, oppressor, and destroyer of the earth-born creatures? He was therefore raising up, with his peoples, a tower against God, by which impious pride was signified. And rightly is an evil disposition punished, even when the effect does not follow it. But of what sort was the kind of punishment itself?

Since the dominion of one who commands is in the tongue, there was pride condemned, so that he who was unwilling to understand in order to obey God commanding, was himself not understood when commanding a man. Thus was that conspiracy dissolved, when each withdrew from him whom he did not understand, and joined himself to none but him with whom he was able to speak; and through the tongues the nations were divided and dispersed through the lands, as it pleased God, who did this by hidden ways incomprehensible to us. [V] For as to what is written, 'And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built' — that is, not the sons of God, but that society living according to man, which we call the earthly city:

God is not moved from place, who is always everywhere whole; but He is said to come down when He does something on earth which, being wonderfully done beyond the accustomed course of nature, in a manner shows His presence; nor does He learn by seeing at a given time, who can never be ignorant of anything, but He is said to see and to know at a given time that which He causes to be seen and known. That city, therefore, was not seen in the way in which God caused it to be seen, when He showed how much it displeased Him. Although God can be understood to have come down to that city because His angels came down, in whom He dwells; so that what is added — 'And the Lord God said: Behold, they are one race and one lip for all,' and the rest — and then is added:

'Come, and going down let us there confound their tongue,' may be a recapitulation, showing in what manner was done that which had been said, 'The Lord came down.' For if He had already come down, what does it mean, 'Come, and going down let us confound' — which is understood as said to the angels — unless because He was coming down through the angels, He who was in the descending angels? And well does it not say, 'Come and, going down, confound ye,' but 'Let us confound there their tongue'; showing that He so works through His ministers that they too are fellow-workers of God, as the Apostle says: 'For we are God's fellow-workers.' [VI] That also, when man was made, could have been understood of the angels which was said, 'Let us make man,' because He did not say, 'I shall make';

but because there follows 'after our image,' and it is not lawful to believe that man was made after the image of angels, or that the image of angels and of God is the same, it is rightly understood there as the plurality of the Trinity. Yet this Trinity, because it is one God, even when He had said, 'Let us make,' says, 'And God made man after the image of God' — He did not say 'the gods made,' or 'after the image of the gods.' Here too the same Trinity could be understood, as though the Father had said to the Son and the Holy Spirit:

'Come, and going down let us there confound their tongue' — if there were anything that would forbid the angels to be understood, to whom it rather befits to come to God by holy motions, that is, by pious thoughts, by which the immutable Truth is consulted by them, as an eternal law in that supernal court of theirs. For they are not the Truth to themselves, but, being partakers of the creating Truth, they are moved toward Her as toward the fountain of life, that what they have not of themselves they may receive from Her. And stable is that motion of theirs by which they come, who do not withdraw. Nor does God speak to the angels in the way that we in turn speak to one another, or to God, or to the angels, or the angels themselves to us, or through them God to us, but in His own ineffable manner;

but to us it is here indicated in our manner. For the more sublime speech of God, prior to His act, is the immutable reason of that very act of His, which has no sound clamouring and passing away, but a power everlastingly abiding and operating temporally. By this He speaks to the holy angels, but to us, placed far otherwise, in another way. But when we too grasp something of such speech with our inner ears, we draw near to the angels. Not, therefore, is a reason constantly to be rendered by me in this work concerning the speeches of God. For either the immutable Truth speaks by Herself ineffably to the minds of the rational creature, or speaks through the mutable creature, whether by spiritual images to our spirit or by corporeal voices to the sense of the body.

That indeed which was said, 'And now nothing will be withheld from them of all that they have determined to do,' was not said by way of confirmation, but as if by way of questioning, as is wont to be said by those who threaten, in the manner in which a certain poet says: 'Will they not seize their arms and follow forth from the whole city?' So, then, is it to be taken, as though He had said: 'Shall not all things be withheld from them of what they have determined to do?' But if it be so said, it does not express one who threatens. Yet for the sake of the slower-witted we have added the particle — that is, 'ne' — so that we might say 'nonne' (is it not?), since we cannot write the voice of one uttering it.

From those three men, therefore, the sons of Noah, seventy-three, or rather, as reason will declare, seventy-two nations and as many tongues began to be through the lands, which by growing filled even the islands. But the number of nations was increased far more than that of tongues. For even in Africa we know very many barbarous nations in one tongue. [VII] And that men indeed, by the multiplication of the human race, could pass over by ship to inhabit the islands, who would doubt?

But there is a question concerning every kind of beast which is not under the care of men, and does not, like frogs, arise from the earth, but is propagated only by the coupling of male and female, such as wolves and the rest of this kind: how, after the flood, in which all things that were not in the ark were destroyed, they could have come to be even in the islands, if they were not restored except from those whose kinds the ark preserved in either sex. They can indeed be believed to have passed over to the islands by swimming, but only the nearest. But there are some so far removed from continental lands that it seems no beasts could have swum to them.

But if men caught them and carried them along with themselves, and in that way, out of a zeal for hunting, established their kinds where they were dwelling, it is not incredible that this could have been done; although it is not to be denied that they could, by the command or permission of God, even by the work of angels, have been transferred. But if they arose from the earth according to the first origin, when God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living soul,' it appears much more clearly that not so much for the sake of restoring the animals as for figuring the various nations, on account of the mystery of the Church, all kinds were in the ark, if in islands, to which they could not cross over, the earth brought forth many animals.

[VIII] It is also asked whether it is to be believed that from the sons of Noah — or rather from that one man, from whom they themselves also existed — were propagated certain monstrous kinds of men which the history of the nations relates: as some are said to have a single eye in the middle of the forehead; some to have the soles of their feet turned backward behind their legs; some to have the nature of both sexes, the right breast male, the left female, and by turns coupling among themselves both to beget and to bear; others to have no mouths, and to live only by breathing through the nostrils; others to be a cubit in stature, whom the Greeks call Pygmies from the cubit; in another place, that the females conceive at five years and do not exceed the eighth year of life.

Likewise they report there to be a nation where they have single legs in their feet, and do not bend the knee, and are of marvellous swiftness; whom they call Sciopodes, because in the heat, lying on the ground on their backs, they shade themselves with the shadow of their feet; and certain ones without neck, having eyes in their shoulders; and the other kinds of men, or as it were of men, which are painted in mosaic on the seaside esplanade of Carthage, drawn from books, as of a rather curious history. What shall I say of the Cynocephali, whose dog-like heads and very barking confess them beasts rather than men? But it is not necessary to believe all the kinds of men which are said to exist.

But whoever is anywhere born a man — that is, a rational, mortal animal — however unusual to our senses he may bear a form of body, or colour, or motion, or sound, or by whatever force, whatever part, whatever quality of nature: that he draws his origin from that one first-formed man, no one of the faithful will doubt. Yet it is apparent what nature has obtained in the greater number, and what is wonderful by its very rarity. But such a reason as is rendered concerning the monstrous births of men among us can be rendered concerning certain monstrous nations. For God is the creator of all, who knows where and when it behoves or has behoved anything to be created, knowing with what likeness or diversity of parts He weaves the beauty of the universe.

But he who cannot inspect the whole is offended, as it were, by the deformity of a part, because he is ignorant to what it may be suited and to what it is to be referred. We know that men are born with more than five fingers on hands and feet; and this is a slighter deviation than any other; yet far be it that anyone should be so foolish as to think that the Creator erred in the number of human fingers, though not knowing why He did this. So too, even if a greater diversity should arise, He knows what He has done, whose works no one justly reprehends. At Hippo Diarrhytus there is a man having soles as it were half-moon-shaped, and on them only two toes each, and his hands likewise. If any nation were such, it would be added to that curious and marvellous history.

Shall we then, on this account, deny that this man was propagated from that one who was first created? Androgynes, whom they also call Hermaphrodites, although they be rather rare, yet it is difficult for them to be lacking in any age, in whom each sex so appears that it is uncertain from which they ought rather to receive their name; yet the custom of speaking has prevailed that they be named from the better, that is, the masculine. For no one ever called them Androgynaecae or Hermaphroditae. Some years ago, certainly within our memory, in the East a man was born double in the upper members, single in the lower. For there were two heads, two chests, four hands, but one belly and two feet, as of a single man;

and he lived so long that fame drew many to see him. But who could enumerate all human offspring far unlike those from whom it is most certain they were born? As, therefore, these cannot be denied to draw their origin from that one man, so whatever nations, in diversities of body, are reported as it were to have deviated from the accustomed course of nature which the more part and almost all hold, if they are included in that definition — that they are rational and mortal animals — it must be confessed that they draw their stock from that same one first father of all, provided that the things handed down concerning the variety of those peoples and their so great diversity among themselves and from us are true.

For if we did not know that apes and monkeys and sphinxes are not men but beasts, those historians, glorying in their curiosity, could lie to us with unpunished vanity, as though they were some nations of men. But if they are men, concerning whom those marvels have been written: what, if for this reason God willed even to create some nations thus, lest in these monsters which among us must needs be born of men, we should think that His wisdom, by which He fashions human nature, had erred, as it were, like the art of some less perfect craftsman? It ought not, therefore, to seem absurd to us that, just as in single nations there are certain monstrous men, so in the whole human race there are certain monstrous nations.

Wherefore, to conclude this question step by step and cautiously: either those things which are written of such sort concerning certain nations are altogether nothing; or if they exist, they are not men; or if they are men, they are from Adam. [IX] But as to their fabling that there are also Antipodes — that is, men on the opposite part of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets for us, treading with their feet opposite to our footsteps — this is by no reasoning to be believed. Nor do they affirm that they have learned this by any historical knowledge, but conjecture it as though by reasoning, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of heaven, and that the world has one and the same place both lowest and midmost; and from this they suppose that the other part of the earth, which is beneath, cannot be devoid of the habitation of men.

Nor do they consider that, even if the world be believed or by some reasoning be shown to be of a globed and rounded figure, it does not therefore follow that on that part also the earth is bare of the mass of waters; and then, even if it be bare, neither is it forthwith necessary that it should have men. Since in no way does that Scripture lie, which makes faith by narrating past events in that its predictions are fulfilled; and it is exceedingly absurd that it should be said that some men, the immensity of the Ocean being traversed, could have sailed from this to that part and arrived, so that even there the human race might be established from that one first man.

Wherefore, among those peoples of men who at that time are gathered to have been divided through seventy-two nations and as many tongues, let us seek, if we can find it, that City of God sojourning on the earth, which was led down even to the flood and the ark, and is shown to have persevered in the sons of Noah through their blessings, chiefly in the eldest, who was called Shem — since indeed Japheth was so blessed that he should dwell in the houses of his brother. [X] The series of generations, therefore, is to be held from Shem himself, that it may show the City of God after the flood, as the series of generations from him who was called Seth showed it before the flood.

For this reason, therefore, when divine Scripture had shown the earthly city in Babylon — that is, in confusion — it returns by recapitulation to the patriarch Shem, and thence begins the generations down to Abraham, the number of years also being recorded, at what age each begot the son pertaining to this line and how long he lived. Where certainly is to be acknowledged what I had before promised, that it may appear why it was said of the sons of Eber: 'The name of the one was Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided.' For what else is to be understood by the earth being divided, but by the diversity of tongues? The other sons of Shem, therefore, not pertaining to this matter, being passed over, those are linked in the order of generations through whom one may arrive at Abraham;

Just as those before the flood were linked together—the generations through whom one arrives at Noah, which were propagated from that son of Adam who was called Seth—so this chain of generations likewise begins thus: And these are the generations of Shem. Shem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, in the second year after the flood. And after he had begotten Arphaxad, Shem lived five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. In this manner Scripture proceeds through the rest, stating in what year of his life each one begot the son belonging to this order of generations that extends to Abraham, and how many years he lived thereafter, noting that he begot sons and daughters.

This is so that we may understand whence the peoples could increase, lest, childishly preoccupied with the few men who are named, we should be at a loss as to how such vast expanses of lands and kingdoms could have been filled from the stock of Shem—especially on account of the kingdom of the Assyrians, where that Ninus, the subduer of the Eastern peoples everywhere, reigned with immense prosperity, and handed down to his posterity a most extensive and most firmly established kingdom, one destined to endure for a long span of time.

But we, so as not to linger longer than needful, shall record in this order only this much—not how many years each one lived in this series of generations, but in what year of his life he begot his son—both that we may reckon up the number of years from the flood that is past down to Abraham, and that, apart from those matters upon which necessity compels us to dwell, we may touch briefly and in passing upon the rest. In the second year, then, after the flood, Shem begot Arphaxad; and Arphaxad, when he was a hundred and thirty-five years old, begot Cainan; and he, when he was a hundred and thirty, begot Sala; then Sala too was of the same number of years when he begot Heber; and Heber was a hundred and thirty-four years old when he begot Phalech, in whose days the earth was divided.

Phalech himself lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Ragau; and Ragau, a hundred and thirty-two, and begot Seruch; and Seruch, a hundred and thirty, and begot Nachor; and Nachor, seventy-nine, and begot Thara; and Thara, seventy, and begot Abram, whom God afterward, changing his name, called Abraham. Thus the years from the flood down to Abraham amount to one thousand and seventy-two, according to the received edition—that is, of the Seventy translators. In the Hebrew manuscripts, however, they report that far fewer years are found, for which they give either no account at all or one exceedingly difficult.

When, therefore, we seek the City of God among those seventy-two nations, we cannot affirm that at the time when they had one lip—that is, one speech—the human race was even then already estranged from the worship of the true God, so that true piety remained only in those generations which descend from the seed of Shem through Arphaxad and reach toward Abraham. But from the time of that proud building of a tower up to heaven, whereby impious arrogance is signified, there appeared the city—that is, the society—of the impious. Whether, then, it did not exist before, or lay hidden, or rather whether both remained—the pious, that is, in the two sons of Noah who were blessed, and in their descendants;

but the impious in him who was cursed and in his offspring, where also arose that giant who was a hunter against the Lord—this is no easy matter to determine. For perhaps—and this indeed is the more credible—even in the sons of those two there were, already then, before Babylonia had begun to be founded, despisers of God, and among the sons of Ham there were worshippers of God; yet we must believe that neither kind of men was ever wholly absent from the earth. Indeed, even when it was said, They have all gone astray, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not so much as one—in both Psalms where these words occur, this too is read: Shall not all they know, who work iniquity, who devour my people as they eat bread?

There was therefore, even then, a people of God. Hence that saying, There is none that doeth good, no, not so much as one, was spoken of the sons of men, not of the sons of God. For it is prefaced thus: God looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there were any that did understand, or seek after God; and then those words are subjoined which show that all the sons of men—that is, those belonging to the city which lives according to man, not according to God—are reprobate. Wherefore, just as, when there was one tongue for all, the sons of pestilence were not on that account lacking (for before the flood also there was one tongue, and yet all save the one household of the just man Noah deserved to be blotted out by the flood):

so likewise, when for the desert of a more arrogant impiety the nations were punished and divided by diversity of tongues, and the city of the impious received the name of confusion—that is, was called Babylon—there was not lacking the house of Heber, in which that which was before the tongue of all remained. Hence, as I have noted above, when the sons of Shem began to be enumerated, each of whom begot several nations, Heber was commended first, although he is his great-great-grandson—that is, he is found to have sprung from him in the fifth degree. Because, therefore, in his family this tongue remained, when the rest of the nations were divided among other tongues (which tongue is not without reason believed to have earlier been common to the human race), it was thereafter for that cause named Hebrew.

For then it was needful that it be distinguished from other tongues by its own proper name, just as the others too were called by their proper names. But when it was the one and only tongue, it was called nothing else than the human tongue or human speech, in which alone the whole human race spoke. Someone may say: If in the days of Phalech, son of Heber, the earth was divided by tongues—that is, the men who were then upon the earth—then that tongue which was before common to all ought rather to have been named after his name. But it is to be understood that Heber for this very reason gave his son such a name, that he should be called Phalech, which is interpreted 'division,' because he was born to him at the time when the earth was divided by tongues—that is, at that very moment—so that this is the meaning of what is said:

In his days the earth was divided. For unless Heber were still living when the multiplication of tongues came to pass, the tongue which was able to remain with him would not have taken its name from his name. And therefore it is to be believed that this very tongue was that first common one, since that multiplication and change of tongues came from a penalty, and the people of God ought assuredly to have been exempt from this penalty. Nor is it without cause that this is the tongue which Abraham held, and could not transmit to all his sons, but only to those who, propagated through Jacob and coalescing more markedly and more eminently into the people of God, were able to possess the covenants of God and the lineage of Christ.

Nor did Heber himself pour back this same tongue upon his whole progeny, but only upon that line whose generations are led down to Abraham. Wherefore, even though it is not plainly expressed that there was some pious race of men at the time when Babylonia was being founded by the impious, this obscurity did not avail so far as to defraud the seeker, but rather to exercise his attention. For when we read that there was at first one tongue for all, and Heber is commended before all the sons of Shem (although he sprang from him in the fifth degree), and the tongue is called Hebrew, which the authority of the patriarchs and prophets preserved not only in their discourse but also in the sacred letters:

assuredly, when it is asked, in the division of tongues, where that tongue could have remained which was before common (which, without any doubt, wherever it remained, there was not that penalty which came about by the change of tongues), what else occurs to us but that it remained in the nation of him from whose name it took its name? And that this was no small trace of the righteousness of this nation is apparent: that, when other nations were being punished by the change of tongues, no such penalty reached this one. But there is still this that troubles us: how could Heber and his son Phalech have each made a nation, if one tongue remained to them both?

And certainly the Hebrew nation is one, propagated from Heber down to Abraham, and through him thenceforward, until the great people of Israel came to be. In what manner, then, did all the sons who are recorded of the three sons of Noah each make a nation, if Heber and Phalech did not each make one? Doubtless this is more probable: that that giant Nebroth himself also made his own nation, but on account of the eminence of his dominion and of his bodily stature was named apart and more conspicuously, so that the number of seventy-two nations and tongues might stand. Phalech, however, was recorded for this reason: not because he made a nation (for his nation is the very same Hebrew one, and the same tongue), but on account of the notable time, in that in his days the earth was divided.

Nor ought it to trouble us how the giant Nebroth could reach that age at which Babylon was founded and the confusion of tongues took place, and from this the division of nations. For it is not the case that, because Heber is sixth from Noah, while he is fourth, they could not therefore have met at the same time by living. For this came about when men lived longer where the generations are fewer, and less where they are more; or were born later where the generations are fewer, earlier where they are more. Certainly it is to be understood that, when the earth was divided, not only were the other sons of the sons of Noah, who are recorded as fathers of nations, already born, but they were also of such an age as to have numerous families, which were worthy of the names of nations.

Hence it is by no means to be thought that they were begotten in the order in which they are read as recorded. Otherwise, the twelve sons of Jectan, who was another son of Heber and a brother of Phalech, how could they already have made nations, if Jectan was born after his brother Phalech, just as he was recorded after him—seeing that at the very time when Phalech was born, the earth was divided? Accordingly it is to be understood that the former, indeed, was named, but was born long after his brother Jectan, whose twelve sons had by then such large families that they could be divided into their own tongues.

For thus the one who was later in age could be recorded first, just as, of the three sons of Noah, the sons of Japheth—who was the youngest of them—were recorded first; then the sons of Ham, who was the middle one; and last the sons of Shem, who was the first and greatest. Now the names of those nations partly remained, so that even today it is evident whence they were derived, as the Assyrians from Assur and the Hebrews from Heber; and partly were changed by the antiquity of time, so that scarcely can the most learned men, poring over the most ancient histories, discover the origins—not of all, but of some—of these nations. For as to the fact that the Egyptians are said to have sprung from Ham's son who was called Mesraim, here no origin of the name resounds;

just as neither is there of the Ethiopians, who are said to pertain to that son of Ham who was called Chus. And if all things be considered, more names appear changed than remaining. Now let us at last behold the advance of the City of God from that juncture of time also which was reached in the father Abraham, whence the knowledge of it begins to be more evident, and where more manifest divine promises are read, which we now see fulfilled in Christ. As, then, we have learned from the indication of Holy Scripture, Abraham was born in the region of the Chaldeans, which land belonged to the kingdom of the Assyrians. Among the Chaldeans, however, even then already, impious superstitions prevailed, as throughout the other nations.

There was, then, one house of Thara, of whom Abraham was born, in which the worship of the one true God, and—as far as is credible—in which alone the Hebrew tongue too had by then remained (although he himself also, just as the now more manifest people of God in Egypt, so in Mesopotamia is reported by the narrative of Joshua the son of Nun to have served strange gods), while the rest of the offspring of that Heber were flowing away, little by little, into other tongues and into other nations. Accordingly, just as through the flood of waters the one house of Noah had remained for the restoring of the human race, so in the flood of the many superstitions throughout the whole world the one house of Thara had remained, in which was preserved the planting of the City of God.

Finally, just as there, after the generations had been enumerated above down to Noah, together with the number of years, and the cause of the flood had been set forth, before God began to speak to Noah about building the ark, it is said: These, moreover, are the generations of Noah—so here too, after the generations had been enumerated from him who was called Shem, the son of Noah, down to Abraham, then a notable juncture is likewise placed, so that it is said: These are the generations of Thara. Thara begot Abram and Nachor and Arran, and Arran begot Loth. And Arran died in the sight of Thara his father, in the land in which he was born, in the region of the Chaldeans. And Abram and Nachor took wives for themselves; the name of Abram's wife was Sara, and the name of Nachor's wife was Melcha, the daughter of Arran.

This Arran was the father of Melcha and the father of Iesca, which Iesca is believed to be Sara herself, the wife of Abraham. Then it is narrated how Thara with his own people left the region of the Chaldeans and came into Mesopotamia and dwelt in Charra. But of one of his sons, who was called Nachor, nothing is said, as though he did not take him along with him. For it is narrated thus: And Thara took Abram his son, and Loth the son of Arran, the son of his son, and Sara his daughter-in-law, the wife of Abram his son, and led them out of the region of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Chanaan; and he came into Charran and dwelt there. Nowhere here is Nachor named, nor his wife Melcha.

But we find afterward, when Abraham was sending his servant to receive a wife for his son Isaac, that it is written thus: And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master, and of all his master's goods with him, and arising he set out into Mesopotamia, into the city of Nachor. By this and by other testimonies of this sacred history it is shown that Nachor also, the brother of Abraham, had gone out of the region of the Chaldeans and had established his seat in Mesopotamia, where Abraham had dwelt with his father. Why, then, did Scripture not mention him, when Thara set out with his own people from the Chaldean nation and dwelt in Mesopotamia—where not only Abraham his son, but also Sara his daughter-in-law and Loth his grandson are mentioned, in that he took them with him?

Why, do we suppose, unless perhaps because he had defected from his paternal and fraternal piety and had cleaved to the superstition of the Chaldeans, and afterward emigrated thence—whether by repenting, or having suffered persecution because he was held suspect? For in the book which is entitled Judith, when Holofernes, the enemy of the Israelites, was inquiring what nation that was, whether war ought to be waged against it, Achior, the leader of the Ammonites, answered him thus: Let our lord hear a word from the mouth of his servant, and I will report to thee the truth concerning the people that dwells beside thee upon this mountain, and no lie shall come forth from the mouth of thy servant.

For this progeny is of the people of the Chaldeans, and formerly they dwelt in Mesopotamia, because they were unwilling to follow the gods of their fathers, who were in the land of the Chaldeans glorious; but they turned aside from the way of their parents and adored the God of heaven, whom they had come to know, and their fathers cast them out from the face of their gods, and they fled into Mesopotamia and dwelt there many days. And their God told them to go out from their dwelling and go into the land of Chanaan, and there they dwelt—and the rest that Achior the Ammonite narrates. Whence it is manifest that the house of Thara suffered persecution from the Chaldeans for the sake of true piety, whereby the one and true God was worshipped by them.

But when Thara had died in Mesopotamia, where he is reported to have lived two hundred and five years, the promises of God made to Abraham now begin to be set forth, in that it is thus written: And the days of Thara in Charra were two hundred and five years, and Thara died in Charra. This, however, is not to be taken as though he had spent all these days there, but because he had completed there all the days of his life, which were two hundred and five years; otherwise it would not be known how many years Thara lived, since it is not read in what year of his life he came into Charran; and it is absurd to suppose that in this series of generations, where it is carefully recorded how many years each one lived, of this one man alone the number of the years of his life should not have been committed to memory.

For as to those certain persons whom this same Scripture mentions, whose years are passed over in silence, they are not in this order in which the reckoning of times is woven together by the departure of those who beget and the succession of those begotten. But this order, which is drawn from Adam down to Noah and thence down to Abraham, contains no one without the number of the years of his life. Now as to the fact that, after the death of Thara, Abraham's father, has been recorded, it is then read: And the Lord said to Abram, Depart from thy land and from thy kindred and from thy father's house, and so forth—it is not to be supposed that, because this follows in the discourse of the book, it therefore also follows in the temporal order of the events that were done. For, if it be so, there will be an insoluble question.

For after these words of God, which were made to Abraham, Scripture speaks thus: And Abram went out, as the Lord spoke to him, and Loth went with him. Now Abram was seventy-five years old when he went out from Charra. How can this be true, if he went out from Charra after the death of his father? For when Thara was seventy years old, as was intimated above, he begot Abraham; and if to this number one adds the seventy-five years which Abraham was passing when he went out from Charra, they make one hundred and forty-five years. Of so many years, therefore, was Thara when Abraham went out from that city of Mesopotamia;

for he was passing the seventy-fifth year of his age, and by this reckoning his father, who had begotten him in his own seventieth year, was passing, as has been said, his one hundred and forty-fifth. He did not, therefore, go out thence after his father's death—that is, after the two hundred and five years which his father lived—but the year of his setting out from that place, since it was his own seventy-fifth, is without doubt gathered to have been his father's one hundred and forty-fifth, who had begotten him in his own seventieth year. And by this it is to be understood that, after its custom, Scripture has returned to a time which that narrative had already passed by;

just as above, when it had mentioned the sons of the sons of Noah, it said that they were in their tongues and nations, and yet afterward, as if this too followed in the order of times, it says: And the whole earth was one lip, and one voice to all. How then were they according to their nations and according to their tongues, if there was one to all, unless because the narrative returned by way of recapitulation to that which had already passed by? So then here too, when it had been said: And the days of Thara in Charra were two hundred and five years, and Thara died in Charra, then Scripture, returning to that which it had for this reason omitted—that first, concerning Thara, what had been begun might be completed—says: And the Lord said to Abram, Depart from thy land, and so forth.

After which words of God it is subjoined: And Abram went out, as the Lord spoke to him, and Loth went with him. Now Abram was seventy-five years old when he went out from Charra. It came to pass, then, at that time when his father was passing the one hundred and forty-fifth year of his age; for then it was his own seventy-fifth. But this question is also solved in another way, namely that the seventy-five years of Abraham, when he went out from Charra, should be reckoned from the point at which he was delivered from the fire of the Chaldeans, not from that at which he was born, as though he should rather be held to have been born then. But blessed Stephen, when he narrated these things in the Acts of the Apostles:

The God of glory, he says, appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charra, and said to him: Depart from thy land and from thy kindred and from thy father's house, and come into the land which I shall show thee. According to these words of Stephen, God did not speak to Abraham after his father's death—who assuredly died in Charra, where the son himself also dwelt with him—but before he dwelt in that same city, yet when he was already in Mesopotamia. He had therefore already gone out from the Chaldeans. And so, as to what Stephen adds:

Then Abraham went out from the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Charra—this is not what was done after God spoke to him (for he had not gone out from the land of the Chaldeans after those words of God, since he says that God spoke to him when he was in Mesopotamia), but it pertains to that whole span of time which he indicates when he says: 'Then'—that is, from the time when—'he went out from the Chaldeans and dwelt in Charra.' Likewise, as to what follows: And thence, after his father died, He settled him in this land, in which you now dwell and your fathers—he does not say: 'After his father died, he went out from Charra,' but:

'Thence He settled him here, after his father died.' It is therefore to be understood that God spoke to Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charra; but that he came into Charra with his father, retaining with himself the precept of God, and went out thence in his own seventy-fifth year, but in his father's one hundred and forty-fifth. His settling, however, in the land of Chanaan—not his setting out from Charra—Stephen says was accomplished after his father's death, because his father was already dead when he bought the land, of which he there began to be the possessor as of his own property. But as to the fact that God, when Abraham was already established in Mesopotamia—that is, already gone out from the land of the Chaldeans—says: