men, and to beasts and to birds of prey, might have been converted into so many inanimate masses, into pompions, as Archbishop King expresses it, fitted to support the lives of men and beasts; but it is obvious that by this contrivance ere would have been much less of life, and, therefore much less of enjoyment in the world than at present. Sheep and oxen, and even the more timid animals of the chase, enjoy life whilst it lasts, and are not rendered uneasy by the pros pect of death, which they do not anticipate; and when death comes, as come it must to every living creature, whose origin is in the dust, it is of no consequence to them by what means, or to what purpose they die, provided the agonies of death be not protracted. It may be thought that the antelope and the stag suffer much anxiety in their repeated alarms by the roaring of the lion, and perhaps they do; but, probably their anxiety, like the anxiety of men, called upon repeatedly to face danger, is more than compensated by the satisfaction arising from escape.

Though we consider this answer as perfectly sufficient to satisfy the rational inquirer, we deem it proper to add, that many excellent divines have argued that God changed the diet of man, because he had already determined to abbreviate the span of human life. This may be true, because we believe experience has established the fact, that a diet, of which animal food forms no part, if it tend not to increase the muscular power of man, renders him much less liable to disease. But if we are to seek for a solution of the enigma in reasons such as this, that of Theodoret appears still more worthy of credit;—"God," says he, "foreknowing that men in future ages would idolize his creatures, changed their diet from the fruits of the earth to the flesh of animals, that he might aggravate the absurdity, and make it more ridiculous by their consuming at their tables that to which they sacrificed at their altars, since nothing is more absurd than to worship what we eat."

Besides this objection, it has been urged that the account of Noah's drunkenness and indecency accords but little with our notions of a man taken, as the reward of his piety, under the especial protection of God; whilst the cursing of Ham, and the blessing of Shem and Japheth, have been ridiculed as the acts of a person still labouring under the influence of intoxication.

To the first part of this objection we reply, that though in our own version, Noah is represented as drinking of

66

wine and being drunken," the original expresses no more han it elsewhere does, when Joseph's brethren are represented as drinking with him, and being merry. It may be, therefore, that Noah's drunkenness amounts to nothing more than that he refreshed himself with wine after the labour of the day, whilst the form of the garments worn by the ancients in general, may sufficiently account for his ex posure, after he fell asleep. But granting that the translation ought to be viewed in the light in which it is usually represented, what do we learn from it? Simply that

Moses was too faithful an historian to hide the faults even of the most upright among the characters of whom he makes mention, and that human nature was, in the days of Noah, the same frail and fallible thing that it is now. Not only, therefore, is the detail to be received, but a great moral is to be drawn from it, because it is a happy illustration of what the apostle means when he says, "Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall." It will be seen, that in accounting for Noah's error, we have not attended to the opinion prevalent among the rabbins, that the pa triarch having accidentally effected the invention of wine, became overpowered in consequence of his ignorance of its intoxicating qualities. If the vine grew, as it doubtless did, in the antediluvian world, there is no reason to suppose that men should remain, during two thousand years, ignorant of the uses to which its fruit might be turned; whilst accidentally to discover a phenomenon, which depends upon a process so remarkable as fermentation, is nearly impos sible.

With respect to Noah's conduct in blessing Shem and Japheth, and in cursing Canaan, were we bound to suppose that it took place immediately on the patriarch awaking out of sleep, then indeed it might not be easy to vindicate him from the charge of having acted under the impulse of momentary irritation; but there is nothing in Scripture to authorize such an opinion. On the contrary, though Moses, in his anxiety to render the details of the ancient world brief, subjoins the account of Noah's blessings and curses to the history of his exposure, we are no more bound to believe that the one event occurred immediately upon the other, than that the planting of the vineyard and the drinking of the wine were both the operations of a single day. Noan's dealings with his children have accordingly been regarded by the best authorities, in all ages, to have corres

ponded entirely with Jacob's behaviour towards his sons, whom he blessed before his death, and this is the more probable, seeing that Noah's predictions could not possibly affect the individuals to whom they were addressed. Nay, nor were the descendants of the person cursed, affected by that curse so long as they continued righteous, since we find in Abraham's days, Melchizedek among them, whose name was expressive of his character, King of Righteousness and Priest of the Most High God; whilst Abimelech, whose name imports Paternal King, pleaded the integrity of his heart, and the righteousness of his nature, before God, and his plea was admitted.

The curse upon Canaan was, that he should be a servant to Shem; and it was accomplished many centuries after, when the Israelites, the descendants of Shem, drove the Canaanites from their country, destroying multitudes by the sword, and reducing still greater multitudes to the condition of bondsmen. In like manner Canaan was doomed to be the servant, when the Greeks and Romans, descended from Japheth, subdued the relics of the Canaanites at Tyre, at Thebes, at Carthage, and throughout Africa; whilst the condition of the Africans at this day, as contrasted with the states and people of Europe and Asia, seems to be but the continuation of the destiny imposed upon the children of Ham by their great ancestor.

The blessing of Japheth implied that his territories should be enlarged. How this has been fulfilled, every one may judge for himself when he beholds, not Europe only, and Asia Minor, but Media likewise, part of Armenia, Iberia, Albania, with the extensive regions peopled by the Tartar tribes, all owning his sway; whilst the declaration that "he should dwell in the tents of Shem," became strictly verified, when first Alexander, and afterwards the Ca sars, became masters of Jerusalem, and made the surrounding country tributary. But the blessing of Shem was of far more importance than this: it referred to the coming of the Messiah; that great event, to which all other occur rences, in time, have been but as accessories, and it corresponded in every particular with the promise first made to Adam, and afterwards renewed to Noah. Like the curse of Canaan, and the less important blessing of Japheth, it, too, has received its accomplishment, the Redeemer having come from the stock of Shem, through Abraham and Judah.

It appears, therefore, that Noah's blessings and curses, so far from originating either in the fumes of undigested wine, or in momentary irritation, were the deliberate outpourings of a prophetic spirit, which, like that which in aftertimes possessed Israel, burned up with its brightest ustre just before it expired.

CHAPTER V.

Nimrod's ambition.—Building of the tower of Babel.-Its consequences.---Objections noticed and answered.

A. M. 2857 to 3318.-B. C. 2554 to 2093.

WE have every reason to suppose, that for some years after the flood, Noah and his family dwelt together in the immediate vicinity of the mountains where the ark rested. As their numbers increased, however, and the means of subsistence became scanty, they gradually extended their settlements till they embraced the whole of Armenia; and when that province was found too narrow to contain them, they took possession of the adjacent fertile and pleasant regions of Assyria, Mesopotamia, and Media. That every movement made during the lifetime of Noah, was made at his suggestion, as it carries with it a great degree of plausibility, so has it been held to be true by the ablest writers; indeed, St. Paul himself, at Acts xvii. 26, seems to inculcate the belief, that to each of his sons the great patriarch distinctly allotted a particular portion of the world as an inheritance. It is of course impossible to argue this point on any other ground than that of probability; but the following opinion of Abulfaragi, supported as it is by that of the learned Dr. Hales, appears to us to deserve the deepest attention: "To the sons of Shem," says he, "was allotted the middle of the earth, namely Palestina, Syria, Assyria, Samaria, (a town of Babylonian or Chaldean Irac,) Babel, Persia, and Hagiar (or Arabia Petrea ;) to the sons of Ham, Tiernan, (or Idumea,) Africa, Nigritia, Egypt, Nubia, Scindia, and India (or western and eastern India, on both sides of the Indus.) To the sons of Japheth also, Garbia, (the north,) Spain, France, the countries of the Greeks, Sclavo

nians, Bulgarians, Turks and Armenians." Of course these countries could be peopled only in succession, and by very slow degrees; nor is it necessary to believe that the family of mankind actually broke up into distinct commonwealths till after the decease of their common father.

These several migrations were already begun, and had, to a certain degree been carried into execution, when that memorable event befell, to which Scripture teaches us to trace back the diversity of languages which now prevails upon the earth. "In the 70th year of Reu,* the sixth in descent from Shem, about sixty years after the final division of the earth, and in the two hundredth year of the life of Peleg a tribe of Cushites, descendants of Ham, which had estab lished themselves beyond the Tigris, either dissatisfied with the portion which had fallen to them or instigated by cap rice, suddenly turned back from the east, and directed thei faces westward. The leader of this tribe was Nimrod, a word signifying "the Rebel," who by his great boldness in attacking, and his success in destroying wild beasts, had acquired from those around him that respect which, in a semi-barbarous state of society, is granted to no qualities so freely as to courage and bodily prowess. This man, arriving with his followers at a settlement of the Arphaxadites, the children of Shem, of remarkable fertility in the plain of Shinar, took forcible possession of the country; and rebelling against the divine decree, which through the medium of Noah, had assigned to each branch its portion, determined to establish himself there. It would appear, moreover, that the Cushites, not content to thwart the will of Providence in one particular, resolved totally to defeat its designs by extending their sovereignty over the whole earth. With this view they fell upon the device of building a tower, or fort, within which, if hard pressed, they might find refuge; whilst they carried arms, without hesitation, against all their brethren, whom they strove to bring under their arbi*rary dominion.

Up to this moment, the human inhabitants of the world seem to have employed one common language. What that language was, whether as some imagine, the Hebrew, or as others, with at least equal plausibility suppose, some dialect pow totally lost, it is impossible to determine; but of the fact, whether we trust to scriptural authority or to the hardly

* Hale's Chronology, with his account of Abel's sacrifice.