he endeavours to prove from Ifa. xix. 18. In that Day fall five Cities in the Land of Egypt Speak the Language (or Lip as it is in the Margin) of Canaan, and fwear to the LORD of Hofts. Speaking the Language of Canaan implies (fays he) no more than being of the fame Religion with the Jews who inhabited the Land of Canaan. But why may it not be interpreted literally as it is in our Verfion? Does any abfurd Senfe arife from that Interpretation? Might not thofe five Cities particu larly, to fhew the Value and Reverence that they had for the Religion of the Jews, learn their Language, especially fince they would be thereby better enabled to understand the Books of Mofes and the Prophets, which were writ ten in that Tongue? Do not the Mahometans wherever they are, Turks, Tartars, Perfians, Moguls or Mores, all learn Arabic; becaufe Mahomet writ the Alcoran in that Language? The Senfe to which he would confine the Words of the Prophet, is low and flat in Comparison of this literal one, and any one that reads the whole Chapter muft I think conclude fo. In that Day Egypt fhall be like unto Women, it UNO phe ehhad. Confentientes Pfeudo-prophetae ore uno bonum pollicentur, 1 Reg. xxii. 13. Hinc labio alicujus loqui perinde eft ac confentire, quod conftat ex loco Efaiae allato: Die illo erunt quinque Urbes in AEgypto loquentes labium Chanaan, & jurantes per Jehovam Deum exercituum; hoc eft, idem fentientes cum Hebraeis, qui Chanaanitidem incolebant. Clericus in Gen.

fhall be afraid and fear; because of the shaking of the Hand of the LORD of Hofts, which he shaketh over it, y 16. And the Land of Judah fhall be a Terror unto Egypt, 17. And again in the 19th Verfe. In that Day fhall there be an Altar to the LORD, in the midst of the Land of Egypt. They fhall become Profelytes to the Law of Mofes, and that they may not mistake in understanding the Senfe of the Law, which they shall then embrace, they will agree to learn that Language in which it is written. This I take to be the true meaning of the Place.

But we read, fosh. ix. 2. That the Kings of Canaan gathered themfelves together to fight with Joshua, and with Ifrael with one Accord; what we render with one Accord, in the Hebrew is one Mouth; and fo it is noted in the Margin of our Bibles. So alfo the falfe Prophets promised Abab Succefs, 7 D phe ehhad with one Mouth, i. e. unanimously, when he went against Ramoth Gilead, 1 Kings xxii. 13. Phe ehbad has no Prepofition affixed to it in Joh. ix. 2. which fhews that the two Words fo joined, are to be understood adverbially, and governed by a Verb either exprefs'd, as it is there, or neceffarily and plainly understood, as it is in 1 Kings xxii. 13. and confequently have no Relation to Shaphah, (Lip) here in Mofes. I would not accufe Mr. Le Clerc of Malignity here, as if he brought these Quotations to deftroy the Miracle; but I cannot acquit him of

Negligence,

Negligence, when he thought that his Interpretation of Shaphah ehhad, one Lip or Language in this Place, could be ftrengthened by this Phe ebbad, which is always used adverbially, for what in English we call unanimouf ly, or with one Accord. For though Shaphah, Lip, is figuratively used for Language in Hebrew, yet it does not follow that Phe, Mouth, fhould be fo too; and in Fact it is not; or that, because one Mouth may in that Tongue be metaphorically and adverbially used for one Accord, therefore one Lip fhould have the fame Sense: I believe he will hardly fhew us one fingle Inftance, but this in Ifaiah, (which we have no Reafon to give up, and by what Mofes fays, Gen. xi. 7. it appears ought not to be given up) in which one Lip properly fignifies, not a mutual Agreement, or one Mind of many Men who join in the fame Undertaking, but one Language which all they spoke, who joyned together in that Design. Ánd this I think is fufficient to deftroy his Interpretation, and what I believe he will yield to, especially fince he does not in the leaft difbelieve the Power of God to work this Miracle, no more than his Power of teaching Adam and Eve to fpeak at first, or of infpiring the Apoftles with the Gift of Languages at the great Pentecoft in the fecond Chapter of the Acts.

This certainly was the Reason why fo many of the ancient Interpreters, both Jews and Chriftians

C 2

Chriftians understood this Confufion of Babel, to be a Confufion of Languages, not Opini ons. They faw the Text, if literally undertood, required it: They obferved a furprizing Variety of Tongues, effentially different from one another. And they knew that this was not in the least inconfiftent with the Power of God. They did not queftion, but that he that made the Tongue, could make it fpeak what and how he pleased, and they acquiefced as all wife and honeft Interpreters ought to do, in the literal Explication, feeing that nothing unworthy of God, or in itfelf either impoffible or trifling, refulted from that Interpre

tation.

But it is here objected, that we need not recurr to a Miracle, fince a bare Separation of thefe Workmen, and a fubfequent Settlement in very diftant Regions, where all mutual Commerce and Intercourse was destroyed, would be fufficient. We fee in a thousand Years what Alterations and Deviations have been made from the Latin in France, Italy, Spain, and the Subalpine Regions. In France the Gafcon, and Provençal Dialects are hardly understood at Paris; and the Language of their Poets ftill exftant in thofe Dialects, is more different from the common French, by great odds, c than Chaucer's Idiom is from Waller's or Priors. In Spain, befides the Caftillan, there are two large and copious Idioms, the

See the Recueil des Poetes Gajcons, printed at Amfterdam in 1700.

Portugucze

Portugueze and the Catalan, neither of which are readily intelligible, efpecially the Portugueze, by one that knows only the Third. A Man may know all the reft of the Dialects that are derived from the Latin, and yet be wholly to feek in the Grifons Language. And yet all thefe Tongues, which have each one their particular Marks, which Marks are plainly different from each other, and fome of them very widely too, owe their Original within twelve hundred Years to the Latin; and befides, there has always been a mutual Commerce and Intercourfe between these feveral Nations, which derive their Languages from the fame common Stock. In the Languages which are derived from the Teutonic, there has happen'd full as great a Variation in the fame. compass of Time: How different is the ancient Saxon in AElfred's Time, from the Language about the Time of Hen. II. And that from the Language of Pierce Plowman or Chaucer? And their Idiom from ours? An Englishman cannot understand a Hollander; nor he a Saxon; nor any of them a Swede or a Dane. The Ilandish (or the old Norns, or Norwegian Language) which is the Mother of the Danish and Swedish Idioms, is not intelligible now without Study, by a Native of Copenhagen or Stockholm. The Fragments of the Gofpels, published by Junius, are written in a different Dialect from the Francic of Willeram and Otfrid, and their Tongue differs as much

from