yet disbelieve the truth of the other; and hence, were we to content ourselves with affirming that the tower was certainly built, because it is so stated by Moses, we should do enough. But here, as in a variety of other instances, the details of Holy Writ receive a strong corroboration from ancient and universal tradition; for there is no tradition more ancient, nor any more general, than that which refers to the commencement of this memorable structure, and the interference of Divine power to check its progress. Thus Abydenus, as quoted by Eusebius, declares, that "the first race of men, big with a fond conceit of the bulk and strength of their bodies, built, in the place where Babylon now stands, a tower of such prodigious height that it seemed to touch the skies; but that the winds and the gods overthrew the mighty structure upon their heads." In like manner Eupolemus, as cited by Alexander Polyhistor, affirms, that "the city of Babylon was first built by giants who escaped from the flood; that these giants built the most famous tower in all history; and that the tower was dashed to pieces by the Almighty power of God, and the giants dispersed and scattered over the face of the whole earth." Again, whatever may be the value of the Sibyl's testimony, nothing can be more certain, than that she is referred to by Josephus as vouching for the truth of the Mosaic account. Indeed, there is not a scrap of ancient history extant, with one solitary exception, which fails to give the weight of its assurances, however these may be estimated, to the details of Holy Writ. All unite in asserting, that a huge tower was built by gigantic men at Babylon; that there was then but one language among mankind; that the undertaking was offensive to the gods; and that therefore they demolished the tower, overwhelmed the workmen, confounded their language, and dispersed them over the face of the whole

earth.

But though such be undeniably the case, it is not necessary to suppose with some authors, that the tower in question was really a structure of prodigious dimensions, far less to confound it with that tower, or rather temple, of which Herodotus, in his history, gives an elaborate description. The language of Scripture is frequently figurative, even when it describes historical events, and that the expression "whose top may reach to heaven," is not to be understood literally, we possess ample ground for concluding. It could not be so understood by men who had look

ed upon such mountains as those of Ararat, whilst we know that it is elsewhere employed with reference to the cities of Canaan to denote no more than that they were surrounded with lofty, and probably, strong walls. But though quite distinct from the temple of Belus, and perhaps, as compared with that structure, both rude and of trifling dimensions, the tower of Babel might still deserve, in times so remote, to be accounted wonderful; whilst the proportion which it bore to the temple of Babylon in Xerxes's day, was, probably, not more extraordinary than that which the city of London now bears, to the Londinium, or Londinum of the Trinobantes. On the whole, therefore, we are bound to conclude, not only that some such tower did exist, but that it existed on the spot which afterwards supported Babylon, and that it would have been, when completed, at least sufficiently capacious to serve the purposes which it was designed to serve. What these purposes were we have already taken occasion to explain; but it is worthy of remark, that many able writers suppose it to have served the double purposes of a place of defence, and a temple. Among others may be particularized the authority of Archbishop Tennison, who contends that the shape of the edifice was pyramidical; that it was so formed in order to assimilate it to the flame, which always ascends conically; and that it was erected in honour of the sun, as the god who dried up the waters of the great flood. There is, at least, nothing impossible in this; and if Nimrod was the founder of the Zabian idolatry, as all antiquity seems to indicate, the notion is highly probable.

We come now to the last objection urged against the truth of the Mosaic history, namely, that which would denounce the idea that a diversity of languages was originally brought about by a miracle. As this is a mere question of fact, all reasoning about it seems useless, for all must end here, either that the case is so, or that it is not. Such as believe the Bible will believe the account given there; such as disbelieve the Bible will, in the face of it, and of universal tradition, look elsewhere for a cause adequate to account for an undeniable phenomenon. For our own parts we consider the history of Moses to exhibit so much more of probability than any theory which has yet been advanced, that independently of our reliance upon him as an inspired author, we are at once disposed to adopt his sentiments; whilst, taking the belief of his inspiration into

consideration, we know not how his assertions are to be contradicted.

The whole of the arguments against the Mosaic account, may be compressed within a very narrow compass. They amount simply to this;-that the cause of the variety of languages in the world is grounded in reason and nature, in the difference of climates, in the unsettled temper of mankind, in the necessary mutability of sublunary things, in the rise and fall of empires, in that constant change, in short, which is continually going on throughout the whole compass of human affairs. It is useless, therefore, to have recourse to miracles in a case where miracles are not needed; since it is only necessary to suppose that all languages now extant sprang from one common root, and that they are no more than different forms and dialects of the same tongue, which the lapse of time, assisted by certain incidental causes, has produced.

We have already said, that no man who believes the Bible can have recourse to this theory, however plausible it may appear, seeing that the matter of fact is differently accounted for in the inspired volume; but the theory itself, independently of all recourse to other grounds of objection, seems scarcely to be supported by experience. Not to affix a higher value than they deserve to the numerous, and as it were radical contrarieties which abound between the constitution of the eastern, the western, and the northern tongues, it may be observed that languages vary but little, even in the lapse of many centuries, unless those who speak them be either overrun, or drawn into close and intimate connexion with states which employ other languages. The Roman language, for example, was brought to considerable perfection before the time of Plautus; and though some obsolete words may occasionally appear in his writings, yet any man who understands Latin may read with ease every work which appeared in that language from the days of Plautus down to the era of Theodoric the Goth. This, however, comprises a period of no less than seven hundred years; and, but for the irruption of the barbarians from the north, there is little doubt that the Latin would have continued unchanged during many ages after. In like manner, we may safely assert, that had not the Turks when they overran Greece, brought darkness and ignorance along with them, the Greek might have continued to this day much as it was in the days of Homer; since we see from that poet's

works, and the commentaries of Eustathius upon them, that it remained for upwards of two thousand years, with out undergoing any material alteration. Now, supposing that all mankind originally made use of the same language, and that no miraculous interference took place in order to confound it, how can we account for the first origin of those dialects which we find corrupting and introducing varieties into others. Mere change of place never causes men's language radically to change, unless it be aided by other causes; for we know that the Greeks of Asia Minor spoke a dialect of the same language which was spoken by the Greeks of Europe. The French of the Isle of Bourbon speak a dialect of the same language with the French of Paris; and the English of North America, employ few expressions which are not occasionally employed in the vicinity of London. There must, then, we apprehend, have been something more than a natural cause, for the diversity of speech which we find among men; and that cause is satisfactorily stated only in the Book of Genesis.

But though we thus express ourselves, it is very far from our intention to argue that Almighty God obliterated in a moment all trace of the original language from the minds of the Cushites, and substituted in its room other languages, differing radically and entirely from one another. The Hebrew text by no means asserts this, indeed it clearly implies that God interfered, not with the formation or groundwork of the language, but with the articulation of those who employed it. Improper articulation, however, renders a language quite as unintelligible to those by whom it is spoken correctly, as if the language itself were absolutely strange to them; and among persons of the violent and irascible temperaments which seem to have possessed the builders of Babel, such misunderstandings would soon lead to quarrels. Nay, we much doubt whether a band of English_labourers, collected at random from Cornwall, Devonshire, Yorkshire, Somersetshire and Kent, would either comprehend, or patiently bear with one another; though nobody can deny that such persons employ the same language, though they give to it a great variety of articulation. That changes in the pronunciation of the original language equal, or perhaps greater than this were produced by divine interference cannot, we think, be doubted; and, as such a commencement would gradually lead to greater and more important contrarieties, it sufficiently accounts for facts which, without it,

must be absolutely inexplicable. But we are not called upon by Moses to believe more, far less to imagine that three, or four, or five original tongues were all made to start up, as it were, in a moment. On the contrary, as that author represents Abraham to have held converse, independently of any interpreter, with Chaldeans, Assyrians, Egyptians, and Canaanites, it is very evident that the language in use, throughout these countries at least, must have been radically the same; whilst the book of Job, if really written by that patriarch, distinctly proves that even so late as his time, the Arabic and Hebrew were but dialects one of the other. It is indeed possible that into the minds of the children of Magog, who seem to have been driven, by some divine impulse, far to the north, a totally new language may have been infused; and, if so, the fact sufficiently accounts for their remote wanderings; but it is abundantly evident that the different nations which were settled in the vicinity of the original seat of mankind, whether descended from Ham, Shem, or Japheth, all spoke languages, which, at an era far removed from the time of the dispersion, were essentially the same. On the whole, therefore, we are forced to conclude, that the Mosaic history deserves implicit credit, even on the ground of extreme probability; since it satisfactorily explains a phenomenon inexplicable without it, yet asserts no more than what the experience of every man may confirm.

CHAPTER VI.

Colonisation of the Earth.-Progress of Idolatry.-Traditions among different nations, of a flood.-Call of Terah.-His death. A. M. 3318 to 3333.-B. C. 2093 to 2078.

Or the events which occurred between the dispersion and the call of Abraham, so little is said in Holy Scripture, that it appears as unnecessary as it would be uninteresting to attempt, in this place, minutely to describe them. Let it suffice to state, that whilst Moses contents himself with giving a brief genealogical table, by means of which the descent of the illustrious ancestor of the Jewish nation from Shem is made manifest, he says no more of other tribes than