determined by the historian himself, there is a' diversity of sentiment. Some suppose that the words only imply a misunderstanding among the builders; and that he set them at variance, by causing a division of counsel.. Others understand by them a temporary confusion of speech; causing them to misapply terms, ̈and misconceive each other, in the use of the same language. Others are of opinion, that a variety of inflexions were introduced, and perhaps some new words; which disturbed and perverted the former manner of expression. But the plain and express terms of the history go beyond these hypotheses; it is evident that the inspired historian designs to exhibit a complete confusion of tongues; which will account for the endless diversity of languages, and the source of the division of mankind into different and distinct nations: There are languages which have no visible connection with any other tongue whatever; and the Chinese is an exemplification of our assertion. This could never have been, had the confusion consisted of a mere variation of dialect; and we wish it to be understood, as our decided opinion, that at the destruction of Babel, new languages were framed; and this by the miraculous and immediate interposition of divine power. THE DISPERSION OF THE PEOPLE, which followed, we do not imagine was a disorganization of the whole mass of mankind, as a tempest terrifies and scatters a multitude: but simply a division of them; as at the quiet separation of an orderly assembly, every man falls into his respective party, and seeks his home. Every man, it is probable, betook himself to the com pany that spake his own new language; and consented, with them, to separate from others. We think that this is implied by the language which Moses adopts, in speaking of the division of the earth by the several bands. Of the sons of Japheth, it is said" By these, were the "isles of the Gentiles divided." Respecting the descendants of Ham, he concludes, "These "are the sons of Ham, after their families, "after their tongues, in their countries, in their "nations;" unquestionably referring to their situation after their dispersion. The same language is used in relation to Shem. Nothing here wears the appearance of hurry and disorder on the contrary, the inference appears to us to be, that the dispersion of the people was regular, and the division of the earth performed without confusion. ཟ With respect to THE ORIGIN OF NATIONS, at this distance of time from the great event, little can be said with certainty. A mere out line of the larger divisions can only be made; and this, with scarcely any degree of precision. SHEM, appears, for the remainder of his days, to have hovered about the plains of Shinar. From his descendants, sprang the inhabitants of Persia, Nineveht, Chinat, Mesopotamia, and Phrygia; comprehending the countries westward of Assyria, as far as the Mediterranean. HAM, probably, dwelt in Egypt. His descendants occupied Shinaars, Arabia, Ethiopia**, Africatt, Phenicia, and the land of Canaan‡‡. When JAPHETH left Babel, it is uncertain where he settled. His descendants dwelt in Phrygia|||| the eastern part of Asia Minor§§, Cappadocia, and Galatia¶¶. Most of these divisions, after all, must be considered as conjectural***. So far we have followed the Mosaic history: we shall produce, 2. THE TESTIMONY OF OTHER ANCIENT WRITERS. The confusion of tongues "is men❝tioned by profane historians, who write, that "mankind used the same language till the * From Elam. ||From Aram. + From Ashur. 1 From Arphaxad. § From Nimrod. ¶ From Cush. ** From Mizraim. From Gomer. §§ From Ashkenaz. ¶¶ From Togarmah. *** See, on this perplexed subject, the laborious researches of the writers of the Anc. Univ. Hist. vol. I. book i. chap. 2. § 6. "overthrow of the tower of Babylon." The fable of the attempt of the giants to climb the heavens, probably owes it's origin to some traditions relative to this fact. It was a common mode of speaking in many nations, and in the East especially, when things exceeded the ordinary height, to say, that "they reached to "heavent. When, therefore, it was said, "Let us build a city, and a tower, whose top may "reach to heaven," no more was intended, than "Let us build a tower exceedingly high." But when the design descended, by tradition, in it's native boldness of expression, to nations unacquainted with the Mosaic history, and with eastern language; who were, also, fond of the marvellous, and skilful in fable; they raised the story of the giants' war with heaven, and celebrated this imaginary contest in verse, as harmonious as majestic Josephus quotes one of the Sybils, in the following words: "When "all mankind spoke the same language, some "of them elevated a tower immensely high, as if they would ascend up into heaven: but * Anc. Univ. Hist. vol. I. book i. chap. 2. § 5. p. 439. + Consult Homer, in various places; and read Deut. I. 28. also IX. 1. ↑ Homer. Odys. 30. Ovid. Met. lib. I. Virg. Georg. I. &c. See also note 2, at the end of this Lecture. "the gods sent a wind, and overthrew the (c tower; and assigned to each a particular "language; and hence the city of Babylon "derived it's name*." Abydenus uses similar language: "There are, who relate, that the "first men, born of the earth, when they grew proud of their strength and stature, suppos ing that they were more excellent than the "gods, wickedly attempted to build a tower, "where Babylon now stands. But, the work advancing towards heaven, was overthrown, ས upon the builders, by the gods, with the "assistance of the winds; and the name, Baby"lon, was imposed upon the ruins. Till that period, men were of one language: but then, "the gods sent among them a diversity of tongues. And then commenced the war be"tween Saturn and Titant." Before we dismiss this part of the subject, we will only add, that "it is a false tradition of the Greeks, that Babylon was built by Semiramis; and this "error is refuted by Berosus, in his Chaldaics, Josephus in his first book against Appion," and others. It remains, that we attempt, * See note 3, at the end of this Lecture. |