Page:Observations on Man 1834.djvu/225

 might arise, appears from the great diversity of alphabetical characters expressing the same words. Thus the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Syriac languages, agree nearly in sound and sense, but differ entirely in characters. Thus also, amongst modern languages, several are written in different characters, as English in the common round-hand, in various law-hands, and various short-hands.

Let us now return to Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their posterity. They must be supposed to proceed in the same manner, in general, as Noah and his immediate posterity, till the confusion of tongues at Babel; excepting that Shem, Ham, and Japheth, with their wives, would be more apt to alter their character and language, and suit them to their present exigences, than Noah and his wife, on account of their being all young persons; also that, being all as it were equal to each other, they might each of them be the authors of certain diversities in the common character and language, and establish them in their respective posterities. However, if Noah be supposed to have continued with them till the division of the earth by God’s command, and then only to have departed from his postdiluvian posterity for China, the country assigned to him, whilst Shem, Ham, and Japheth, with their posterity, began to build the tower of Babel in opposition to God’s command, then Noah, and all his sons, &c. must be supposed to have suited their character and language to the new world in nearly the same manner.

The confusion of tongues at Babel appears to me to be miraculous for the following reasons.

First, This appears to be the most natural interpretation of the text.

Secondly, Thus the confusion of tongues will correspond to the gift of language imparted to Adam at his creation, which must be supposed; also to the gift of tongues at Pentecost.

Thirdly, Learned men seem to have shewn, that the diversity of ancient languages does by no means favour the supposition of a natural derivation of them all from one original form.

Fourthly, The original plan of the Greek and Latin tongues (which I consider as sister languages derived from the same mother or original plan), appears to have been very uniform, yet with a considerable variety. Now I think this uniformity and variety could scarce be invented and established by rude multitudes, almost entirely occupied in providing necessaries for themselves, and much less as alphabetical writing seems to be of a later date than the diversity of languages. And in fact we do not find, that barbarous nations do by length of time improve their languages so as in any measure to approach to the perfection of the Greek or Latin, or of their common mother. It adds strength to this argument, that the original plan of the Greek and Latin, i.e. the rules of etymology and syntax, as grammarians call them, is entirely different from that of the