of leading to sceptical views, as has been sometimes imagined, they afford a remarkable confirmation of the Mosaic narrative.

"The unhappy sons of Misraim, the son of Ham, appear to have wandered forth from their habitations, disabled from any longer articulating the sounds of that which from the first had been the language of the whole human race; and also had erased from their memories all recollection of the meaning of that language.

"Diodorus Siculus and Plutarch were informed by the Egyptian priests, that, when the twice-great Thoth first came among mankind, they were not able to speak, but only uttered cries like brute animals: and, however lightly we may be inclined to value such traditions, it is perhaps not assuming too much to say, that generally they are not without some foundation in fact. Now, let the very peculiar structure of the language of ancient Egypt be taken into consideration. It appears that the language and the writings have formed and modified each other; the writing as often assisting the language, as the language the writing. It is a writing of pictures, expressing the ideas of a language of pictures. The roots of this language prove to be, according to the tradition, literally the cries of animals: every thing, as far as possible, being named from the sound produced by it. The verbs and adjectives were, many of them, (probably all, for the subject is still under investigation,) the names of objects, animate or inanimate, suggesting the peculiarities of their appearance and habits; as a cameleopard, to be long, to extend; a wolf, to be cunning; a scarlet ibis, to be red. To this extent all was picture in the language, as well as in the writing. It also consists of comparatively a small number of sounds; the same sound expressing many different ideas; probably because different qualities of the same animal were thus variously employed. So that it seems scarcely possible to arrive at any other conclusion than that the language and writing arose together.

"But we have observed the same intimate union between

the writing and the idolatrous system of this singular people, and shown the probability, we might perhaps say certainty, that it also was invented together with the writing, and therefore with the language. Yet are all the three, as we have seen, systems of great intricacy and refinement. These are also facts, resulting from the recent researches into the antiquities of Egypt. And how, we ask again, are these strange anomalies to be reconciled? A generation of men highly cultivated, possessed of great mental powers, yet without religion, writing, or even language! It is contrary to all experience, that a civilized state of society should exist without religion: it is equally opposed to all analogy to assume that men may be civilized without writing; but without language civilization is clearly impossible. There are traces, nevertheless, of much thought and reflection in the construction of the language, writing, and religion of ancient Egypt; and the three appear to have arisen together. Its inventors, therefore, must have acquired the mental culture which enabled them to construct those systems by the help of some other language, at any rate. How came they, then, to lose this language? We leave to those who deny or lightly esteem the revelation of God, the suggestion of any theory they can devise whereby to answer the question. Those who reason rightly upon it, who follow the process of close induction by which the mode of reading hieroglyphics was discovered, will scarcely fail to perceive the conclusive and satisfactory nature of the answer which is afforded by that revelation. The language of the first settlers in Egypt had been miraculously confounded, and in that melancholy condition they had to frame for themselves a new language and system of writing."

*

Thus, then, does the history of mankind, when fairly and fully investigated, corroborate and explain the teaching of holy scripture. All the circumstances concur in showing, that as the rebellion under Nimrod consisted in a union of the three great branches of the Noachic family, and a

"The Antiquities of Egypt," p. 174.

determination to reside at Shinar; so Almighty God, determined to frustrate their purpose, secured their separation by confounding their language. And all the details of the case make it probable that this was effected by giving at least to two of these tribes an entirely new language, and perhaps at the same time creating several dialects of these parent tongues, which not only constrained them to divide the population into three grand bodies, but also, in process of time, induced further and extensive subdivisions.

A mighty manifestation of the power of God, a standing miracle attesting the verity of revealed truth, is clearly presented to us in this multiplication of tongues. We have, however, specially to regard it as accomplishing the Divine purpose. 66 They left off to build the city." (Gen. xi. 8.) Their purpose was abandoned. The idea of a universal government, and of enforcing one intolerant creed, was given up; and, although Nimrod and some of his adherents remained on the spot, and succeeded in raising a city and establishing a kingdom, yet his original purpose had been completely frustrated, the multitudes had departed; for, God having confounded their language, they were scattered abroad from thence upon the face of the whole earth.

It only remains for us to present a rapid sketch of the Dispersion; as it refers especially to the different countries occupied by the several tribes which journeyed from Babel.

The posterity of Shem appears to have occupied Southern Asia.

Elam, his eldest son, settled in Persia: the locality is determined by Daniel, who informs us that Shushan, or the chief city of Susiana, was situated in this country. (Dan. viii. 2.) Hence we find the Persians generally called

Elamites in the scriptures.

Ashur, the second son of Shem, occupied the land which the Bible, from his name, calls Assyria. Moses informs us that this patriarch built Nineveh, Rehoboth, Calah, and Resin, soon after the first occupation of the country. have already stated, that Bishop Patrick, Sir William

name

Drummond, and several other writers, adopting the marginal trauslation of Gen. x. 11, 12, contend that Nimrod went out into the land of Asshur, and, having subdued it, founded these cities. Than this, no position appears more improbable, or opposed to a greater weight of evidence. Nimrod was only one generation younger than Asshur, and both (even if Asshur himself was alive) were old men at the time of the Dispersion. How, then, if Asshur did not occupy this country, could it have been called after his ? And if he did, is it not reasonable that he who first occupied the country founded its most ancient and important cities? But the prophet Micah is cited as an authority; and Sir William Drummond says expressly, that this "prophet calls Assyria the land of Nimrod." Now the text referred to says, "They shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof." (Micah v. 6.) It is astonishing that respectable authors can give such evidence as this! Instead of calling the land of Assyria "the land of Nimrod," the prophet simply points out two contiguous countries, and threatens both with the same calamity.

The third son of Shem was Arphaxad. We read nothing of his personally taking possession of any country. It is probable that he remained in Chaldea; for here, in after-times, we find his descendant Abraham. All the information we possess respecting the posterity of Shem, is mostly confined to the line of descent through Cainan and Salah to Eber, whose family was separated into two branches, in Peleg and Joktan. The first of these was the ancestor of Abraham of his other descendants we have scarcely any information.

Respecting the sons of Joktan, it is said, "Their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest, unto Sephar a mount of the east." (Gen. x. 30.) Josephus adds, "These inhabited from Cophen, an Indian river, and in part of Asia adjoining to it." * Mr. Faber, on this point, observes, "I am inclined to believe that they were the ancestors of the great * Antiq. Jud. lib. i. cap. vi. sect. 4.

T

body of the Hindoos. To this opinion I am the more inclined, from finding among the Hindoos very vivid traditions, even by name, of the patriarch Shem, or Sama, or Sharma. They describe him as a being of a most benevolent disposition, but of a weak constitution; they speak of him as travelling (that is to say, by his descendants) into their country; and they represent him as instructing all the four principal castes in their religious duties. He is likewise supposed to be one of the many incarnations of Buddha: and this, I think, will account for the mild and philosophical character with which that god is invested by the Hindoos; while the more warlike Goths exhibit him as the ferocious, though literary, deity of war. Ophir, one of the sons of Joktan, is often mentioned in scripture as inhabiting a land abounding in gold, to which voyages were made by ships that sailed from the Red Sea. Now Moses tells us that Ophir, in common with the other sons of Joktan, settled far to the east. The voyages, therefore, from the Red Sea to the land of Ophir must have been in an eastern direction. But the whole sea-coast of Persia, as far as the Indus, was inhabited by Cush mingled with Elam. Hence it will necessarily follow, that the land of Ophir must have been beyond the Indus. And this will bring us to the great peninsula of Hindostan, for the seat of Ophir and his brethren: to which, accordingly, we find that regular voyages have in the earliest times been made from the mouth of the Red Sea across the Indian Ocean.'

Notwithstanding the plausibility of this reasoning, we feel satisfied that the Arabians are descended from the sons of Joktan. Whether the posterity of this patriarch also extended to India, we will not decide; the preceding evidence makes it probable, and the very early intercourse which subsisted between the two nations strengthens the supposition; but all antiquity teaches that the ancient Arabians descended from Joktan.

Of the descendants or settlements of Lud the scriptures

* FABER'S "Origin of Pagan Idolatry," vol. iii. p. 453.