Numer. li. 16. c. 6. ciuit. l. 2. Moral. in c. 1. Iob.and confound their tongue. God turneth the offence of men to good.
Two miracles, in priuation of one tongue, & giuing a new.Where they also note Gods singular wisdome, mercie, and iustice, so punishing the offence, that he turneth it to his owne glorie, and the profit of al men: shewing his powre and soueraigne Maiestie by two great miracles. First by so suddainly and vtterly depriuing al those builders of their vsual tongue, that presently they could neither speake it, nor vnderstand it. Secondly, by geuing diuers distinct languages to seueral sortes or families, which they immediately vnderstood, and spoke most promptly, as if they had long before learned and vsed the same. But to no man was giuen more then one language. Diuision among euil men is profitable.And so, to the more commoditie of al mankind, they were forced to part into sundrie coasts of the earth, which they inhabited and replenished with distinct Nations, hauing the same Angels their spiritual Patrones and Protectours, which had seuerally changed their language. Li. 34. Moral. in c. 41. Iob. ho. 11 in Gen. li. 16. c. 11. & li. 18. c. 39. ci. S. Aug li. 6. c. 4. ciuit.In particular, it was profitable to the good, who being before oppressed by the vnited power of manie wicked, were relieued (as S. Gregorie teacheth) when their persecutours were diuided. These good were the familie of Heber, as S. Chrisostom and S. Augustin proue. The member offending is punished.
Heber and his familie consented not to the building of Babel.For seeing the change of tongues was inflicted for punishment, it appeareth that Heber and his familie were innocent of the vaine attempt, whose tongue was not changed, but remained the same, and of him was called the Hebrew tongue for distinction sake after there were manie tongues, which before had no distinct name, being the only tongue of al men. Againe, touching the offenders (who were punished in their tongues, that they could not be vnderstood commanding one an other, because they would not vnderstand God iustly commanding them al) they also reaped this profit, that they were forced to leaue off that bad worke, and withal to seeke more ample habitations, who If they had there more increased in number and strength, would without doubt (saith S. Chrisostom) haue attempted worse things. Ho. 30. in Gen. S. Greg. ho. 30 in Euan.And infinit man-slaughter would haue been committed amongst so manie, for possession of that one citie & towre. Guift of tongues most profitable to the Church.Finally the fathers note, that as God wrought here much good by diuision of tongues, so he wrought much more by communion of tongues, giuen to the Apostles, therby inabling them to gather one Church of al tongues and Nations.
1 Par. 1.
Luc. 3. v. 36.
Li. 16. c. 10. ciuit.
Mat. 1.Scriptures hard.12. Begat Sale.) Here is an intricate difficultie. For the Hebrew and Latin text, both here and in Paralipomenon, saying Arphaxad begat Sale, the 72. Interpreters and S. Luke place Cainan between them, as sonne of Arphaxad, and father of Sale. Eusebius also in his Chronicle, with most Greeke Doctours, and S. Augustine, count Cainan in this Genealogie of Sem. Some thinke Moyses omitted Cainan for a mysterie.Wherupon manie doe number him in this ranke, and suppose that Moyses omitted him for some Mysterie, and yet writeth truly, that Arphaxad begat Sale, not his proper sonne, but his sonnes sonne: as S. Mathew sayth, Ioram begat Ozias, who was his nephewes nephew. But against this solution it is replied, that then Arphaxad should haue been a grandfather at 35. yeares of age: which were strange in those daies, howsoeuer it is now. Refutation.And a greater difficultie, or rather absurditie must also be granted, that Arphaxad begat both Cainan at the age of 35. yeares, according to the 72. Interpreters, and that Sale was also begotten the same yeare, according to the Hebrew, being both true. Which inconuenience is not in the Genealogie written by S. Matthew. Others coniecture Cainan should not be in the text of the 70.Others therfore according to the Hebrew and Latin text, with most Latin Doctours, omit Cainan in this place and Paralipomenon, Quest. Hebra.namely with S. Hierom, who diligently examining and reconciling varieties between the Hebrew and the Greeke, maketh no mention at al of this difference. Which maketh some to coniecture, that in S. Hieroms time Cainan was not in the Greeke copies, at least not in those that he had, and held for the best. And at this day some haue him not. Editio quedam vaticana.Which may be admitted for a probable answer touching the Hebrew and Greeke of the old Testament. But neuer anie Catholike (nor heretike beforeBut for so much as al copies, both Greeke & Latin, also S. Hieroms Edition of S. Lukes Gospel haue Cainan, the difficultie stil remaineth between Moyses and S. Luke. How then shal this doubt be solued? We can not
