Page:Bible (Douay Rheims OT1, 1609).djvu/67

46 that they were forced to leaue of that bad worke, and withal to seeke more ample habitations, who if they had there more increased in number and streingth, would without doubt (saith S. Chrisostom) haue attempted worse things. And infinite manslaughter would haue benne committed, amongst so manie for possession of that one citie & towre. Finally the fathers note that as God wrought here much good by diuision of tongues: so he wrought much more by communion of tongues, geuen to the Apostles, therby inabling them to gether one Church of al Tongues and Nations.

12. Begat Sale] Here is an intricate difficultie. For the Hebrew and Latin text, both here and in Palalippomenon, saying Arphaxad begat Sale, the 72. Interpreters and S. Luke place Cainan betwen them, as sonne of Arphaxad, and father of Sale. Eusebius also in his Chronicle, with most Greeke Doctors, and S. Augustin, count Cainan in this Genealogie of Sem. Wherupon manie do number him in this ranck, 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 bene a grandfather at 35. yeares of age: which were strange in those daies, how soeuer it is now. And a greatter 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 therfore according to the Hebrew and Latin text, with most Latin Doctors, omit Cainan in this place, and Paralipomenon, namely with S. Hierom, who diligently examining and reconciling varieties, betwen 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. Which may be admitted for a probable answere touching the Hebrew and Greeke of the old Testament. But for so much as al copies, both Greeke & Latin, also S. Hieroms Edition of S. Lukes Gospel haue Cainan, the difficultie stil remaineth betwen Moyses and S. Luke. How then shal this doubt be solued? we can not solue it. And no maruel. For venerable Bede could not. Whose wordes are these: S. Luke vseth rather the Greeke testimonies then the Hebrew: wherof hapeneth that I much maruel at, and for dulnes of wit, being striken with great admirrtion, I can not throughly scan, seeing in the Hebrew veritie are founed only tenne generations from the floud vnto Abraham, by what meanes S. Luke, who (the Holie Ghost gouerning his penne) could in no sorte write false, would rather set downe eleuen generations in the Gospel, Cainan adioyned according to the seuentie Interpreters. Thus writeth S. Beda, reuerently admiring that he could not vnderstand. For being assured that the Holie Ghost gouerned the pennes both of Moyses and S. Luke, and that he is not contrarie to him selfe, it must nedes be true which ech of them writeth, though other learned men can not reach the profoundnes of some difficulties that occure. And therfore Beza was extreme saucie to dash Cainan out of S. Lukes Gospel, and that wittingly and most impudently saying, in his Annotations: Non dubitauimus expungere: We doubted not to put it out. The former English Editions, otherwise corrupt in manie places, haue Cainan in the text of S. Lukes Gospel, but their latter translaters are in this point pure Bezites.

The end of the second age.