-Egypt was formerly called Mizraim; and Seba, Havilah, Sheba, Lybia, Philistina, Sidon, &c. unequivocally declare their origin.

William. Have we not a proof that events are antedated in the narrative, or that the order of narration is not always the order of events, in the sixth and twentieth verses of this chapter. Olympas. Wherein, William ?

William. We are told in the fifth verse that the Isles of the Gentiles were settled by the sons of Japheth according to their language; and yet there was but one language in the world: for in the first verse of the next chapter we are told the whole earth was of one language and of one speech?

Olympas. William, I believe you are right; and in the twentieth verse also of the tenth chapter we are informed, as you say, that the sons of Ham according to their tongues settled certain countries -those of one tongue going together.

William. Was I not justified, then, in saying that the ark was one hundred and twenty years in building; for the mention of the birth of Shem, Ham, and Japheth before the narrative of the order to build the ark, no more proves that they were born before the order, than that there were many tongues in the earth before the building of Babel, because we are informed of many languages before we are informed of the building of the tower which occasioned the cleft tongues.

Olympas. I think, William, you are triumphant in this potent fact against all the world, should they attempt to prove either the order of Christian worship or any other events, merely from the uniformity of historians in narrating things in the

order of occurrence. But to keep to our lesson, tell me, James, how many sons had Shem? James. Five, sir-Elam, Ashur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram.

Olympas. What countries, Eliza, think you, are denoted by those five chiefs of the Shemites?

Eliza. Elam was the ancient name of Persia; Asshur, of Assyria; Arphaxad, of Artacata, first called Arrapacha, in Armenia; Lud gives Lydia, in Asia Minor, and Aram gives the Aramians, afterwards called Syrians.

Olympas. Very true. We have, then, the Persians, Assyrians, Arminians, Lydians, and Syrians, deriving their names and origin from the five sons of Shem. And what, Sarah, can you tell about the grandsons of Shem ?

Sarah. I read of Uz, Hul, Gether, Mash, Salah, and Eber, Peleg, and Joktan.

Olympas. Yes, my daughter; but Eber was the great grandson of Shem, and Peleg and Joktan were the great great grandsons.

Sarah. I think if they were so far off, they should be called the little grandson, and the little little grandsons of Shem.

Olympas. Well, custom says great great grandfather and great grandson, and we cannot change it now; but great applied to ancestors and little to descendants, might perhaps have done as well. Thomas. Were the Hebrews so called from Eber, their father?

Olympas. What do you say, William ?

William. I think they were, if Eber was one of their progenitors; but I cannot learn that he was from this chapter; for we have only the descen

dants of one of his sons, Joktan, and not those of Peleg.

Olympas. In other chapters we are informed that Eber was an ancestor of Abraham; still it is not certain that they were called Hebrews from Eber. Aber, or, according to other orthoepists, Eber, signifies passing over; and because Abraham passed over the Euphrates on his way to Canaan, some learned men with more plausibility argue that they were called Hebrews, or Pilgrims, from their passing over the Euphrates, and because for a long time they had no country of their own. I incline to this opinion. They confessed, said Paul, that they were pilgrims (i. e. Hebrews) in the land of promise. By dwelling in tents in their own land, they lived as foreigners or as persons on a journey. So ought Christians to live as pilgrims

here.

Edward and Henry, as you have been sick for some days, I have not interrogated you, not having had time to prepare your lessons by previous study; but now that you have heard the last two lessons, I must see what attention you have bestowed on our examination. Tell me, then, Henry, how you would compute the relative population of the three branches of Noah's family from all you have heard.

Henry. Do you mean their present population, or their population at any given time?

Olympas. I mean their population in all time since the first settlement of their families; for we calculate upon this principle, that the drawbacks from climate, soil, wars, pestilences, famines, &c. are equal or nearly so.

Henry. I would count all their descendants

mentioned by Moses at the time of their settlement, and making the aggregate amount the denominator, and the descendants of each the numerator, I would thus display their relative numbers now.

Olympas. And how, Edward, would you go to work to solve this problem?

Edward. I would not take all the descendants mentioned by Moses, because he gives more generations of one than of another. Now had he given the same number of generations of them all, Henry's rule would be correct. I would, therefore, take the sons, and leave the other descendants.

Olympas. Edward, you are right; but Henry's principle and yours are the same-you only differ in the application of it. Well, Henry, give us your denominator and your three numerators.

Henry. Japheth, maximus natu, the oldest, had seven sons; Ham, the senior, the second born, had only four sons; and Shem, the minimus natu, or the youngest, had five sons. Now add all their sons for a denominator, and we have sixteen in all. Then the relative data are, Japheth has seven-sixteenths of the human race; Ham, foursixteenths; and Shem, five-sixteenths.

Olympas. Very good, Henry. You suppose the same ratio of daughters as sons, and that is reasonable. But is not a difference of one in the starting a great deal in a thousand years-more than the mere relative value at the beginning?

Edward. No: the relative number is still the same. For example: Suppose that they all had exactly the same number of grandsons-that is to say, four each; then Japheth's grandsons would

be twenty-eight; Ham's sixteen; Shem's twenty. The denominator would then be sixty-four, and Japheth would have twenty-eight sixty-fourthsthat is just equal to seven-sixteenths; Ham would have sixteen sixty-fourths, that is just foursixteenths; and Shem twenty sixty-fourths, that is five-sixteenths.

Olympas. You have carried your point. We may safely conclude, then, that in all probability while only one-fourth of the human race have sprung from Ham, and a little more than a third from Shem, nearly one half are sprung from Japheth. But, Thomas, what does all this prove?

Thomas. It all proves that Japheth received his name by prophecy, and that Noah spake by the Spirit when he said, “God shall enlarge Japheth." His name is ENLARGEMENT.

Olympas. Make room for Japheth! God gave him a large estate-the north of Asia, all Europe, and the most of America. But better still, "He shall dwell in the tents of Shem." What of this, my sons?

[All silent.]

He"

William. It is difficult-because 1st. 66 may refer to God or to Japheth. Then it would be, "God shall dwell in the tents of Shem."

Olympas. This was true; but still, although it might be so answered, I prefer to read, "And he, Japheth, shall dwell in the tents of Shem." This denotes not only what has often happened, viz.— that the sons of Japheth in the persons of the Scythians, Greeks, Romans, Tartars, Britons, &c., have taken the lands and houses of the sous of Shem, but that his descendants should partake of the blessings of the Lord God of Shem, and be