{Upon those words, Genesis ch. 11: Come, let us go down and there confound their tongue.} — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

{Upon those words, Genesis ch. 11: Come, let us go down and there confound their tongue.}¹

Super illis verbis, Genes. cap. 11: Venite, descendamus et confundamus ibi linguam eorum.

CUM paulo superius dixerit Moses descendisse Deum ut videret civitatem, quomodo nunc, quasi nondum descenderit, inducit eum vocantem alios ut secum una descendant? Animadvertit hoc B. Augustinus libro 16 de Civitate Dei cap. 5, et respondet quae hic dicuntur a Mose priora esse quam illa superiora, sed hic narrari per recapitulationem. Declarat enim Moses quemadmodum Deus descenderit, hoc est, sociatis sibi aliis eorumque ad faciendum id quod ipse fieri volebat ministerio utens.

Since a little above Moses had said that God came down to see the city, how does he now, as if He had not yet come down, bring Him in calling others to come down together with Him? Blessed Augustine notes this in book 16 of the City of God, chapter 5, and answers that the things here said by Moses are prior to those above, but are here narrated by recapitulation. For Moses declares in what way God came down — that is, by associating others with Himself and using their ministry to do what He Himself willed to be done.²

SED qui sunt illi quibus Deus locutus est, dicens „Venite, descendamus et confundamus eorum linguam“? Multi putarunt his verbis significatum esse mysterium sanctissimae Trinitatis: nam illa pluralia, „Venite, descendamus et confundamus,“ indicant multitudinem et distinctionem divinarum personarum; illud autem quod numero singulari subditur, „Divisit eos Dominus ex illo loco in universas terras, et dispersit eos super faciem cunctarum regionum,“ denotat unitatem naturae et potentiae divinae. Hanc intelligentiam sequitur Glossa quaedam Graeca super hunc locum, et Rabanus et Glossa Interlinearis, necnon et Rupertus, qui verba haec Mosis tractans ita scribit: „Hoc tam mirandae vindictae incommodum, quo maxime homines a semetipsis dividuntur, solus facere potuit Deus. Proinde cum dixit pluraliter, Venite, descendamus, confundamus, non Angelorum multitudines ad auxilium cohortatur, sed ad feriendam superbiam adesse testatur tota Trinitas unus Deus. Quod ex opposito remedio magis liquet: ubi enim in ore Apostolorum omnia revocantur genera linguarum, eadem Trinitas sese aperit hominibus, et ea die primum in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti homines baptizantur, quae vera structura est altissimae turris qua in caelum homo conscendit cum Deo regnaturus.“ Haec Rupertus.

But who are those to whom God spoke, saying „Come, let us go down and confound their tongue“? Many thought that by these words was signified the mystery of the most holy Trinity: for those plurals, „Come, let us go down and confound,“ indicate the multitude and distinction of the divine persons; but that which is subjoined in the singular number, „The Lord divided them from that place into all lands, and dispersed them over the face of all regions,“ denotes the unity of the divine nature and power. This understanding a certain Greek Gloss on this place follows, and Rabanus and the Interlinear Gloss, and also Rupert, who, treating these words of Moses, writes thus: „This misfortune of so wonderful a vengeance, by which men are most of all divided from themselves, God alone could do. Accordingly, when He said in the plural, Come, let us go down, let us confound, He does not exhort multitudes of Angels to aid, but the whole Trinity, one God, attests Itself to be present to strike pride. Which is clearer from the opposite remedy: for when in the mouth of the Apostles all kinds of tongues are recalled, the same Trinity opens Itself to men, and on that day first in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit men are baptized — which is the true structure of the highest tower, by which man ascends into heaven to reign with God.“ So Rupert.³

VERUM commodior est et planior atque ob eam ipsam causam etiam probabilior sententia eorum qui verba haec Angelis dicta esse a Deo interpretantur. Nam quamvis etiam ad personas divinas accommodari facile possint, attamen, quia commodissime de Angelis ipsis exponunt, satius videtur ad eos verba haec referri. „Potest,“ inquit Augustinus, „quod hic dicitur exponi de Sancta Trinitate, tanquam Pater dixerit ad Filium et ad Spiritum sanctum, Venite et descendentes confundamus linguam eorum, si aliquid esset quod Angelos prohiberet intelligi: quibus potius convenit venire ad Deum motibus sanctis, hoc est cogitationibus piis, quibus ab eis consulitur incommutabilis veritas, tanquam lex aeterna in illa earum curia aeterna. Neque enim sibi ipsi sunt veritas, sed creatricis participes veritatis, ad illam moventur tanquam ad fontem vitae, ut quod non habent in se ipsis capiant ex ipsa; et ideo eorum stabilis est iste motus quo veniant ad Deum, qui nunquam ab eo recedunt.“ Sic Augustinus.

But more convenient and plainer, and for that very cause also more probable, is the opinion of those who interpret these words as said by God to the Angels. For although they can easily be accommodated also to the divine persons, yet, because they expound them most conveniently of the Angels themselves, it seems better to refer these words to them. „It can be,“ says Augustine, „that what is here said is expounded of the Holy Trinity, as if the Father said to the Son and the Holy Spirit, Come and, descending, let us confound their tongue — if there were something to forbid the Angels being 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 the eternal law in that eternal court of theirs. For they are not the truth to themselves, but partakers of the creating truth; toward it they are moved as toward the fountain of life, that what they have not in themselves they may receive from it; and therefore stable is that motion of theirs by which they come to God, who never withdraw from Him.“ So Augustine.⁴

ERGO illud „Venite, descendamus et confundamus“ dictum intelligitur Angelis. Sed cur non est dictum „descendite et confundite“? Scilicet quia per Angelos et cum Angelis descendebat Deus, qui in Angelis descendentibus erat. Ostendere enim voluit Deus ita se operari per ministros suos ut sint etiam ipsi cooperatores Dei, et sic ipsos operari ut per ipsos et in ipsis tamen magis etiam operetur Deus. „Quoniam ministerio Angelorum,“ inquit Caietanus, „Deus operatur, ideo pluraliter loquitur Deus. Et quia sic per Angelos operatur ut magis ipse operetur, ut ipse non procul absit (quemadmodum Philosophi fingunt) sed praesens sit Angelis operantibus circa haec infima tanquam praecipuus operans, ideo dixit Descendamus et confundamus. Et descendere quidem conveniet Deo secundum similitudinem effectus; confundere autem proprie ei convenit.“ Sic Caietanus. Idem sensit et multis verbis pertractat Beatus Gregorius libro secundo Moralium, cuius verba paulo infra commemorabimus.

Therefore that „Come, let us go down and confound“ is understood as said to the Angels. But why is it not said „go down and confound“? Namely, because through the Angels and with the Angels God came down, who was in the descending Angels. For God willed to show that He so works through His ministers that they too are co-workers of God, and that they so work that through them and in them God nonetheless works the more. „Since by the ministry of the Angels,“ says Cajetan, „God works, therefore God speaks in the plural. And because He so works through the Angels that He Himself works the more — so that He is not far off (as the Philosophers feign), but present to the Angels working about these lowest things as the chief worker — therefore He said, Let us go down and let us confound. And to go down indeed will befit God according to the likeness of the effect; but to confound befits Him properly.“ So Cajetan. The same Blessed Gregory held, and treats at length in book two of the Morals, whose words we shall mention a little below.⁵

AD horum auctorum sententiam Philo quoque adscribendus est, qui verba illa, „Venite, descendamus et confundamus eorum linguam,“ dicta esse Angelis a Deo interpretatur. Ponam eius disertam simul et eruditam orationem. „Videtur illis verbis Deus,“ inquit Philo, „quosdam alloqui tanquam operationis socios. Idemque antea de hominis creatione dictum legitur. ‘Dixit,’ inquit, ‘Dominus, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram’; ubi vox ‘Faciamus’ pluralitate significat. Illud igitur primo dicendum est: nihil in rebus aequiparari Deo, sed unum esse eum regem, a quo solo fas est administrari et dispensari universa. Namque illud, ‘Multos imperitare malum est, Rex unicus esto,’ non ad civitates et homines magis pertinet quam ad mundum et Deum: unum enim unius factorem, patrem ac dominum esse necesse est. Verum, etsi Deus unus est, dici tamen non potest quam multas habeat necesse socias potentias, quae salutem rerum procurant, quaedam etiam plectunt noxios: ea vero poena non est damnosa, cum per eam peccata castiget atque coërceat. Ex huiusmodi potentiis mundus ille incorporeus et intelligibilis constat, qui exemplar est huius mundi visibilis. Cuius mundi visibilis pulchritudinem admirati quidam praecipuas eius partes consecrarunt, Solem, Lunam, caelum, non veriti eas Deos appellare: quorum cogitationes Moses intelligens, supremum omnium regem nonnunquam Deum Deorum appellavit, ut indicaret eum praestantiorem esse quam subditos.‘“

To the opinion of these authors Philo too is to be added, who interprets those words, „Come, let us go down and confound their tongue,“ as said by God to the Angels. I shall set down his eloquent and at once learned discourse. „By those words God seems,“ says Philo, „to address certain ones as associates of His work. And the same is read to have been said before, about the creation of man. ‘The Lord said,’ it says, ‘Let us make man to our image and likeness’; where the word ‘Let us make’ signifies by its plurality. This first, then, must be said: that nothing among things is equaled to God, but that He is one king, by whom alone it is lawful that the universe be administered and dispensed. For that saying, ‘It is bad for many to rule; let there be one king,’ pertains no more to cities and men than to the world and God: for one maker, father, and lord of one [world] there must necessarily be. But, although God is one, it cannot be told how many associate powers He necessarily has, which procure the welfare of things, and some also punish the harmful: and that punishment is not hurtful, since by it He chastises and restrains sins. Of such powers consists that incorporeal and intelligible world, which is the exemplar of this visible world. The beauty of which visible world some, admiring, consecrated its chief parts — the Sun, the Moon, the heaven — not fearing to call them gods: whose thoughts Moses, understanding, sometimes called the supreme king of all the God of gods, to indicate that He is more excellent than the subjects.‘“⁶

„EST praeterea in aëre naturarum incorporearum sacratus chorus, assecla illarum caelestium. Has nominare solent Angelos divina oracula. Hic universus exercitus, in suos digestus ordines, Imperatoris summi iussa exequitur, et huic uni moderatori suo, sicut fas est, obsequitur; nec in his tam numerosis militum et ministrorum copiis vel unum muneris atque ordinis sui desertorem reperire licet. Rex ipse hisce ministris stipatus utitur eis duntaxat ad ea negotia quae decet non a solo Deo tractari. Quamvis enim nullius ope indigeat Pater omnium, qua sublevetur quoties vult aliquid facere, attamen videt quid se, quid creaturas deceat; et quaedam potentiis subditis efficienda permittit, nec his quidem concessa facultate in totum libera, ut ne quod erratum in generatione rerum et divinorum mandatorum effectione admittatur.“ Haec Philo.

„There is, besides, in the air a consecrated choir of incorporeal natures, attendant on those heavenly ones. These the divine oracles are wont to name Angels. This whole army, arranged into its own orders, executes the commands of the supreme Emperor, and obeys this one moderator of theirs, as is right; nor in these so numerous troops of soldiers and ministers can one find even one deserter of his office and order. The King Himself, surrounded by these ministers, uses them only for those affairs which it befits not to be handled by God alone. For although the Father of all needs no one's help, by which He might be relieved whenever He wishes to do something, yet He sees what befits Himself, what befits the creatures; and He permits some things to be effected by the subordinate powers — nor indeed with a faculty granted them wholly free, lest any error be admitted in the generation of things and the effecting of the divine commands.“ So Philo.⁷

SED in hac Philonis oratione illud quod dixit de creatione hominis veram non habet sententiam. Putat enim illa verba, „Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram,“ Deum dixisse Angelis: quod falsum esse convincit illud, „ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram.“ Neque enim una et communis est Dei et Angelorum imago, sicut nec natura; neque animus hominis, in quo potissimum elucet imago Dei, ab Angelis creatus est, sed a solo Deo et ad solius Dei similitudinem: unde mox subditur, „Fecit Deus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem suam.“ Merito igitur opinionem Philonis, tacito eius nomine, confutavit B. Augustinus. Nos quoque adversus Philonem copiose disputavimus in primo Tomo Commentariorum nostrorum in Genesim, libro quarto, ubi explanavimus illa verba, „Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram.“

But in this discourse of Philo, that which he said about the creation of man does not hold a true opinion. For he thinks that those words, „Let us make man to our image and likeness,“ God said to the Angels: which that very phrase, „to our image and likeness,“ convicts of being false. For neither is there one and common image of God and the Angels, just as neither is there one nature; nor was the soul of man, in which the image of God especially shines, created by the Angels, but by God alone and to the likeness of God alone: whence presently it is subjoined, „God made man to His own image and likeness.“ Rightly, then, did Blessed Augustine refute Philo's opinion, his name being suppressed. We too have disputed copiously against Philo in the first volume of our Commentaries on Genesis, book four, where we explained those words, „Let us make man to our image and likeness.“⁸

SED profecto (lubet enim hoc quasi obiter monere lectorem, quod semel hic dictum deinceps in perpetuum valere cupio) Philonem mihi semper visum esse cum studiosiorem, tum etiam peritiorem disciplinae Platonicae quam doctrinae sacrarum literarum. Itaque in scriptis eius licet animadvertere sententias divinae scripturae ab eo tractari allegorice, sed fere secundum disciplinam et placita Platonis. Quo factum est ut, quia Platonis dicta et decreta maiori quam oportebat studio et assensu complexus est, in tractandis sacris literis multa permisceat ex Platonis fontibus hausta, sed impura et purissimae divinarum literarum veritati contraria. Magna igitur attentione animi magnoque iudicio legendus est Philo, ut vera internoscantur a falsis, nec Platonicae Philosophiae et eloquentiae (quam ille incredibiliter adamavit et scriptis suis exprimere vehementer contendit) magnifica quadam et illustri specie lector imperitus et incautus decipiatur. Possem multos ex libris eius errores, quasi carpens et colligens, indicare eos lectori, sed non est hic locus.

But assuredly (for it pleases me to admonish the reader of this in passing, which, once said here, I wish thenceforth to hold good forever) Philo has always seemed to me both more studious of, and also more skilled in, the Platonic discipline than in the doctrine of the sacred letters. And so in his writings one may observe that the sentences of divine Scripture are treated by him allegorically, but generally according to the discipline and tenets of Plato. Whence it came about that, because he embraced the sayings and decrees of Plato with greater zeal and assent than was fitting, in treating the sacred letters he mixes in many things drawn from the springs of Plato — but impure, and contrary to the most pure truth of the divine letters. With great attention of mind, therefore, and with great judgment must Philo be read, that the true may be distinguished from the false, and that the unskilled and incautious reader be not deceived by a certain magnificent and brilliant appearance of the Platonic philosophy and eloquence (which he incredibly loved and vehemently strove to express in his writings). I could, as if culling and gathering, indicate to the reader many errors from his books, but this is not the place.⁹

QUEMADMODUM porro ea verba Deus locutus sit Angelis, breviter disputans Beatus Augustinus hoc modo scribit: „Non sic loquitur Angelis Deus ut nos invicem loquimur nobis, vel Deo, vel Angelis, vel ipsi Angeli nobis, sive per illos Deus nobis, sed ineffabili suo modo; nobis autem indicatur nostro modo. Dei quippe sublimior ante suum factum locutio, ipsius sui facti est immutabilis ratio, quae non habet sonum strepentem atque transeuntem, sed vim sempiterne manentem et temporaliter operantem. Hac loquitur Deus Angelis sanctis, nobis autem aliter, longe positis; quando autem etiam nos aliquid eiusmodi locutionis interioribus auribus capimus, Angelis propinquamus. Aut igitur veritas incommutabilis per seipsam ineffabiliter loquitur rationalis creaturae mentibus, aut per mutabilem creaturam loquitur, sive spiritalibus imaginibus nostro spiritui, sive corporalibus vocibus nostri corporis sensui.“ Haec Augustinus.

In what manner, moreover, God spoke those words to the Angels, Blessed Augustine, disputing briefly, writes in this way: „God does not speak to the Angels as we speak to one another among ourselves, or to God, or to Angels, or the Angels themselves to us, or through them God to us, but in His own ineffable way; to us, however, it is indicated in our way. For God's loftier speech, prior to His deed, is the immutable reason of His own deed — which has no resounding and passing sound, but a power eternally remaining and operating in time. By this God speaks to the holy Angels, but to us otherwise, set far off; but when we too grasp something of such speech with our inner ears, we draw near to the Angels. Either, therefore, the immutable truth speaks by itself ineffably to the minds of the rational creature, or it speaks through a mutable creature — either by spiritual images to our spirit, or by corporeal voices to the sense of our body.“ So Augustine.¹⁰

VERUM eadem de re copiosior et luculentior est B. Gregorii oratio. Explanans enim ille libro 2 Moralium quod scriptum est in primo capite libri Iob dixisse Deum Satanae, „Unde venis? Nunquid considerasti servum meum Iob, quod non sit ei similis in terra?“ sic ait: „Dum natura invisibilis natura incomprehensibilis loquitur, dignum est ut mens nostra, qualitatem corporeae locutionis excedens, ad sublimes atque incognitos modos locutionis intima suspendatur. Nos enim, ut ea quae sentimus intrinsecus extrinsecus exprimamus, ea per organum gutturis per sonum vocis eicimus, alienis quippe oculis intra secretum mentis quasi post parietem corporis stamus; sed cum manifestare nosmetipsos cupimus, quasi per linguae ianuam egredimur, ut quales sumus intrinsecus ostendamus. Spiritalis autem natura, quae ex mente et corpore composita non est, nequaquam talis est: namque, quia spiritali naturae ex corporea appositione nihil obstat, loquitur Deus ad Angelos sanctos eo ipso quo eorum cordibus occulta sua invisibilia ostendit, ut quicquid agere debeant in ipsa contemplatione veritatis legant, ut velut quaedam praecepta vocis sint ipsa gaudia contemplationis. Quasi enim audientibus dicitur quod videntibus inspiratur.“

But on the same matter the discourse of Blessed Gregory is more copious and more brilliant. For he, in book 2 of the Morals, explaining what is written in the first chapter of the book of Job, that God said to Satan, „Whence comest thou? Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth?“ says thus: „While the invisible nature, the incomprehensible nature, speaks, it is fitting that our mind, exceeding the quality of corporeal speech, be suspended in its inmost parts toward the sublime and unknown modes of speech. For we, in order that we may express outwardly the things we feel inwardly, cast them out through the organ of the throat by the sound of the voice — for to others' eyes we stand within the secret of the mind, as it were behind the wall of the body; but when we desire to manifest ourselves, we go out, as it were, through the door of the tongue, to show what we are inwardly. But the spiritual nature, which is not composed of mind and body, is by no means such: for, since to the spiritual nature nothing is opposed from the addition of a body, God speaks to the holy Angels by that very thing by which He shows to their hearts His hidden invisible things, so that whatever they ought to do they may read in the very contemplation of truth, so that the joys of contemplation themselves are as it were certain precepts of a voice. For what is breathed into the seeing is, as it were, said to the hearing.“¹¹

„UNDE cum eorum cordibus Deus contra humanam superbiam animadversionem ultionis impenderet, dixit, Venite, descendamus et confundamus ibi linguam eorum. Dicitur eis qui aderant Venite, quia nimirum hoc ipsum nunquam a divina contemplatione decrescere, in divina contemplatione semper accrescere est; et nunquam inde recedere, quasi quodam stabili motu est semper venire. Quibus et dicit Descendamus et confundamus linguam eorum: ascendunt Angeli in eo quod creatorem conspiciunt, descendunt Angeli in eo quod creaturam sese in illicitis erigentem examine districtionis premunt. Dicere ergo Dei, Descendamus et confundamus eorum linguam, est in seipso eis hoc quod recte agatur ostendere, et per vim internae visionis eorum mentibus exhibenda indicia occultis motibus inspirare.“ Hactenus quae sunt commemorata B. Gregorii sunt verba.

„Whence, when God laid upon their hearts the animadversion of vengeance against human pride, He said, Come, let us go down and there confound their tongue. It is said to those present, Come, because indeed this very thing — never to decrease from the divine contemplation, but in the divine contemplation always to increase — and never to withdraw thence, is, as it were by a certain stable motion, always to come. And to whom He also says, Let us go down and confound their tongue: the Angels ascend in that they behold the Creator, the Angels descend in that they press, with the examination of strictness, the creature raising itself in unlawful things. To say, therefore, on God's part, Let us go down and confound their tongue, is to show them in Himself what is rightly to be done, and by the force of inner vision to inspire into their minds, by hidden motions, the tokens that are to be displayed.“ Thus far are the words of Blessed Gregory, which have been recounted.¹²

APPARET igitur ex sententia B. Augustini et Gregorii Deum dixisse Angelis, „Venite, descendamus et confundamus eorum linguam,“ non aliud fuisse quam Deum revelasse Angelis voluntatis suae decretum, ut illorum hominum aedificatio civitatis et turris, confusa eorum lingua, procedere ulterius prohiberetur. Non enim aliud est Deum loqui Angelis ut aliquid illi vel sciant vel faciant, quam declarare illis quid ipse velit eos scire et facere. Tales autem revelationes divinae fiunt Angelis (sicut quibusdam Theologis placet) in essentia divina quam illi beatifica visione cernunt: ea quippe speculum quoddam est omnia intelligibilia repraesentans; sed est tamen speculum voluntarium, ea tantum manifestans quae Deus vult, et quantum vult, et quibus vult, et quando vult revelare. Quanquam probabilius videtur eiusmodi novas revelationes fieri Angelis per novas species intelligibiles intellectui eorum a Deo infusas, vel per priorum specierum novam quandam et propriam ad repraesentandas has vel illas res applicationem ac determinationem, vel denique per novas cognitiones sive conceptus harum vel illarum rerum, ad quos producendos conceptus Deus simul cum angelico intellectu concurrit: hac enim de re variant plurimum Theologorum sententiae.

It appears, therefore, from the opinion of Blessed Augustine and Gregory, that God's saying to the Angels, „Come, let us go down and confound their tongue,“ was nothing else than God's revealing to the Angels the decree of His will, that the building of the city and tower by those men, their tongue being confounded, should be hindered from proceeding further. For God's speaking to the Angels that they may know or do something is nothing else than declaring to them what He Himself wills them to know and to do. And such divine revelations are made to the Angels (as it pleases certain Theologians) in the divine essence, which they behold by the beatific vision: for that is a certain mirror representing all intelligible things; but it is a voluntary mirror, manifesting only those things which God wills, and as much as He wills, and to whom He wills, and when He wills to reveal. Although it seems more probable that such new revelations are made to the Angels by new intelligible species infused into their intellect by God, or by a certain new and proper application and determination of prior species to represent these or those things, or finally by new cognitions or concepts of these or those things, to the producing of which concepts God concurs together with the angelic intellect: for on this matter the opinions of the Theologians vary very much.¹³

ERGO illud quod dixit Deus, „Venite,“ significat imperium et mandatum Dei datum Angelis, vel potius certam quandam eorum determinationem vel applicationem ad unum aliquid potius quam ad aliud agendum. Namque Angeli per se sunt ad omnia Dei iussa capessenda paratissimi: determinantur autem a Deo et applicantur ad hoc potius quam ad illud exsequendum. Illud „Descendamus“ significat id quod volebat Deus fieri ab Angelis non in caelo fieri debere sed in terra et in campo illo Sennaar, ubi erant aedificatores illius civitatis et turris. Et descendere quidem Deo tribuitur metaphorice, videlicet quantum ad operationem et effectum quem Deus operatur in terra (quae infimus locus est comparatione caeli); at vero Angelis convenit descendere proprie, id est, non tantum secundum operationem et effectum, sed etiam secundum realem substantiae eorum praesentiam: secundum enim hanc, cum non sint ubique, varia loca adire et mutare possunt.

Therefore that which God said, „Come,“ signifies the command and mandate of God given to the Angels, or rather a certain determination or application of them to doing some one thing rather than another. For the Angels are of themselves most ready to undertake all God's commands: but they are determined by God and applied to executing this rather than that. That „Let us go down“ signifies that what God willed to be done by the Angels ought not to be done in heaven, but on earth and in that plain of Sennaar, where were the builders of that city and tower. And to go down indeed is attributed to God metaphorically — namely, as to the operation and effect which God works on earth (which is the lowest place in comparison with heaven); but to the Angels it befits to go down properly, that is, not only according to operation and effect, but also according to the real presence of their substance: for according to this, since they are not everywhere, they can go to and change various places.¹⁴

ILLUD denique „Confundamus eorum linguam“ proprie convenit tam Deo quam Angelis. Etenim illa confusio linguae a Deo profecta est non modo ut imperante et ordinante, verum etiam ut efficiente; sed quia non a solo Deo immediate effectus ille confusionis linguae profectus est, sed ab Angelis quoque cooperantibus et ministrantibus Deo, propterea pluraliter dictum est „Confundamus.“ Utitur autem Deus ad multas res perficiendas ministerio Angelorum, non propter indigentiam alieni auxilii (cum sibi ipse ad omnia plenissime sufficiens sit), sed propter decentem ac suavem providentiae atque gubernationis suae rationem, quae poscit ut terrena per caelestia, corporea per incorporea moveantur atque gubernentur. Accedit hinc praeterea naturae angelicae magna quaedam nobilitatis ac dignitatis excellentia, dum adhibentur Angeli divinae providentiae et gubernationis administri in regendo et movendo mundo corporeo. Verum de his satis: et ad ultimam huius disputationis quaestionem expediendam pergamus.

Finally, that „Let us confound their tongue“ befits properly both God and the Angels. For that confusion of tongue proceeded from God not only as commanding and ordaining, but also as effecting; but because that effect of the confusion of tongue proceeded not from God alone immediately, but also from the Angels co-operating and ministering to God, therefore it was said in the plural, „Let us confound.“ And God uses the ministry of the Angels for perfecting many things, not on account of need of another's help (since He is most fully sufficient to Himself for all things), but on account of the fitting and gentle plan of His providence and governance, which demands that earthly things be moved and governed by heavenly, corporeal by incorporeal. There accrues from this, besides, to the angelic nature a certain great excellence of nobility and dignity, while the Angels are employed as ministers of the divine providence and governance in ruling and moving the corporeal world. But enough of these things: and let us proceed to the last question of this disputation.¹⁵

Translator’s notes

Gen 11:7 (verse lemma, for Disputation 6). ↩
§74. Disp. 6. Since Moses already said God ‘came down to see,’ why does He now call others to come down with Him? Augustine (City of God 16.5): this is prior, told by recapitulation — Moses declares HOW God came down, namely by associating others and using their ministry. Margin: Augustine, City of God bk. 16 ch. 5. ↩
§75. Disp. 6: to whom did God speak ‘let us go down’? Many: the mystery of the Trinity — the plurals (‘let us go down, confound’) show the distinction of persons, the singular (‘the Lord divided them’) the unity of nature. So a Greek Gloss, Rabanus, the Interlinear Gloss, and Rupert: God alone could work this dividing vengeance; ‘let us go down’ attests the whole Trinity present to strike pride — clearer from the opposite at Pentecost (the tongues restored in the Apostles, baptism ‘in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit,’ the true tower by which man ascends to heaven, Acts 2; Mt 28). Margins: Rabanus; Rupert, Commentary on Genesis bk. 4 ch. 42; Acts 2; Mt 28. ↩
§76. But the more convenient, plainer, and likelier view (Pererius's): the words were said to the Angels. Augustine (City of God 16.6): it could be of the Trinity (Father to Son and Spirit), were there nothing to suggest the Angels — to whom it rather befits to ‘come to God’ by holy thoughts, consulting the immutable truth (the eternal law in their eternal court); not being truth themselves but partakers of the creating truth, they move toward it as toward life's fountain, with a stable motion, never withdrawing from God. Margin: Augustine, City of God bk. 16 ch. 6. ↩
§77. So ‘let us go down and confound’ is said to the Angels. Why not ‘go down and confound’ (imperative)? Because God came down through and with the Angels, being in them. He shows His ministers are co-workers, yet He works the more in them. Cajetan: God works by the angels' ministry (hence the plural), being present as chief worker, not far off (as the Philosophers feign); ‘to go down’ befits God by likeness of effect, ‘to confound’ properly. Gregory (Morals bk. 2) agrees (quoted below). Margin: Cajetan on this place. ↩
§78. Philo too refers ‘let us go down’ to the Angels (as ‘faciamus hominem,’ Gen 1, to fellow-workers). His discourse: nothing equals God, the one king ruling all (‘one maker of one world’); yet He has many ‘associate powers’ that tend things and punish the harmful (a punishment not hurtful, restraining sin) — of these the incorporeal/intelligible world consists, the exemplar of the visible; whose chief parts (Sun, Moon, heaven) some wrongly called gods, so Moses called God the ‘God of gods,’ above the subordinates. Margins: Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues; Gen 1. ↩
§79. Philo (cont.): besides, a consecrated choir of incorporeal natures in the air, attendant on the heavenly — the divine oracles call them Angels. This whole well-ordered army executes the supreme Emperor's commands, obeying their one moderator with no deserter. The King uses these ministers only for what it does not befit God alone to handle — not from need (the Father of all needs no help) but seeing what befits Himself and the creatures, permitting the subordinate powers to effect some things (their faculty not wholly free, lest error creep into the work). ↩
§80. But Philo errs on man's creation: he takes ‘let us make man to our image’ as said to the Angels — false, since ‘to OUR image’ implies one shared image, yet God and the Angels share neither image nor nature; and man's soul (where God's image chiefly shines) was made by God alone, to God's likeness alone (‘God made man to His own image’). Augustine rightly refuted Philo (unnamed); Pererius too argued it in Genesis vol. 1 bk. 4. Margin: Augustine, City of God bk. 16 ch. 6. ↩
§81. An admonition (to hold good throughout): Philo was more devoted to and skilled in Platonism than in Scripture, treating Scripture allegorically but per Plato's tenets — so he mixes into Scripture impure Platonic matter contrary to its pure truth. Read him with great care and judgment, distinguishing true from false, lest the unskilled be deceived by his brilliant Platonic eloquence. Margin: an admonition to the reader to read Philo's books cautiously. ↩
§82. How God speaks to the Angels (Augustine, City of God 16.6): not as we speak to one another, but in His own ineffable way — God's speech prior to His deed is the immutable reason of that deed, a power eternally abiding yet operating in time; by this He speaks to the holy Angels; we draw near to them when we grasp such speech with our inner ears. Either the immutable truth speaks ineffably to rational minds, or through a mutable creature (spiritual images to our spirit, or bodily voices to our senses). Margins: Augustine, City of God bk. 16 ch. 6; how God speaks to the Angels (Augustine's notable view). ↩
§83. Gregory (Morals bk. 2, on God's words to Satan in Job 1) more fully: when the invisible, incomprehensible nature speaks, our mind must rise above bodily speech. We, hidden ‘behind the wall of the body,’ go out ‘through the door of the tongue’ to show ourselves; but the spiritual nature (not composed of body) is otherwise — God speaks to the holy Angels by the very showing of His hidden things to their hearts, so they ‘read’ what they should do in the contemplation of truth: ‘what is breathed into the seeing is as it were said to the hearing.’ Margin: Job 1. ↩
§84. Gregory (cont.): when God laid on the Angels' hearts the vengeance against human pride, He said ‘let us go down…’ — ‘Come’ to those present, since never to wane from but always to grow in divine contemplation, never withdrawing, is ‘by a stable motion always to come.’ The Angels ‘ascend’ in beholding the Creator, ‘descend’ in pressing (with strict scrutiny) the creature raising itself unlawfully. So God's ‘let us go down and confound’ = showing them in Himself what should be done, inspiring into their minds the tokens to be displayed. ↩
§85. So (per Augustine and Gregory) God's ‘let us go down and confound their tongue’ to the Angels = revealing to them His will's decree, that the building be stopped by confounding the tongue. God's ‘speaking’ to Angels = declaring what He wills them to know/do. Such revelations: some theologians — in the divine essence (the beatific vision, a ‘voluntary mirror’ showing only what God wills); more probably — by new intelligible species infused, or a new application of prior species, or new concepts to which God concurs with the angelic intellect (the theologians vary). Margin: what it is for God to ‘speak’ to the Angels, and how He reveals what He wills them to know or do. ↩
§86. ‘Come’ = God's command to the Angels, or rather His determining/applying them (ready of themselves) to one task rather than another. ‘Let us go down’ = what God willed done by the Angels was to be done not in heaven but on earth, in Sennaar. ‘To go down’ is said of God metaphorically (as to His operation/effect on earth, the lowest place); but of the Angels properly — not only by effect but by the real presence of their substance, since (not being everywhere) they can move from place to place. ↩
§87. ‘Let us confound their tongue’ befits both God and the Angels: the confusion proceeded from God as commanding/ordaining AND effecting, but not from God alone immediately — also from the Angels co-operating (hence the plural). God uses angelic ministry not from need (He is all-sufficient) but for the fitting order of His providence (earthly things moved by heavenly, corporeal by incorporeal) — which also confers great dignity on the angelic nature. (Closes Disp. 6.) ↩