from the modern German, though these are most probably but fo many Derivations from the old German Language that was spoken in Julius Caefar's Time. The Inftances I give have all of them been certainly and exactly traced, and fuch as we are fure of. If then, fay those who think that this Confufion was not miraculous, fuch Alterations are actually vifible in Dialects which have been formed from Languages ftill extant, in fo few Years, what may we reasonably fuppofe to have been in Languages that exifted above three Thoufand Years ago? Especially when Men were fo totally divided from one another, as we may imagine the firft Inhabitants of this Globe to have been after that great Difperfion.

This Objection is, as I take it, fairly stated. The Fact is certainly true; and yet even this to me is a convincing Argument that the first : Confufion was miraculous. For, 1. we fee in all these Instances, manifest Deviations from one common Original, tho' not all from the fame. Your Specimens of the Lord's Prayers fhew that the French, Grifon, Catalan, Portugueze, Italian, and Caftillan Tongues, all come from the Latin; and we fee there a common Mother to them all, which Mother is certainly two Thousand Years old. The fame is vifible in the Teutonic or Gothic, and its Subdivifions, tho' we have but flender Remains, (fcarce any, unless we may reckon fome Monuments written in the Runic Character, which have been published

published by Wormius and Verelius) of any of thofe Languages that are fo ancient as the Heathen Writers of old Rome. And there are feveral fuch common Originals in the World. So that though this will invincibly prove the Gradation and Derivation of different Dialects from a common Stock, yet it will not prove the actual Formation of fome effentially different Tongues which I here contend for. But then, 2. we see other Languages, which tho' they may have fome few Words in common, yet have a quite diftinct Frame and Make from many others; and this Frame and Make runs thro', and is manifeftly visible in their Subdivifions, and has been fo from all Antiquity.

The clearing of this Propofition will fully explain what I have to fay, and will, if I miftake not, fufficiently prove my Affertion, which in general is, that fome Languages, (I enquire not how many) were formed at once at the Confufion of Babel, by the fame Almighty Hand that taught Adam and Eve to speak at the Creation, and impowered the Apostles to speak with new Tongues at the great Pentecoft.

To understand this Notion of mine the better, I must crave Leave to enlarge upon what I apprehend to be the Matter, and what the Form of every Language. The Matter of every Tongue are the Words by which the Men that speak that Tongue exprefs their Ideas. An Englishman, fays Man, when he would name

a Crea

a Creature of the fame Species with himself. A Roman would fay Vir, or Homo; a Greek, "Avbewπ; an Hebrew, Ib. This I call Material in thefe Languages. But the feveral Ways by which thefe Nouns are declined, is what I call formal in these feveral Tongues. The Latins and Greeks vary their Nouns by Terminations, as Vir, Viri, Viro, Virum. "Av θρωπο, ανθρώπε, ἀνθρώπῳ, ἄνθρωπον, άνθρωπε. So did the antient Germans, Saxons and Danes; fince the Norman Invafion we have shortened our Nouns, and what the Romans and Greeks call the Nominative Cafe, denotes now with us the whole Noun, as it always did in the Eaft. We decline by the Prepofitions to, from, of, the, in both Numbers. The Hebrews have no different Termination in the fame Number, but only vary thus, Ifh, Man, Ifhim, Men; Ifhab, Woman, Iboth, Women. The reft is

varied by Prepofitions infeparably affixed to the Words, as Ha-ifh, the Man; Le-ish, to the Man; Be-ish, in the Man; and the like. Thefe Prepofitions thus joined make one Word with the Noun to which they are affixed; which Way of altering the Signification by these fingle Letters (for the Vowels in Ha, Le, Be, stand for nothing) which answer the End of entire Words in other Languages, is peculiar to those Eastern Tongues which have an Affinity with the Hebrew, and is no where seen in the Languages which come from a Latin or Teutonic Original.

Original. In this Manner are Nouns which are Names of Things declined.

In the Way of declining and conjugating Verbs, this Difference between the Eastern and Western Languages will appear yet more furprizingly. Verbs may in general be defined to be Names of Action, or Paffion, or Quality, as moveable; or actually in Motion or at Reft; as I ftrike, I am ftruck, I love, I ftand, and the like. Whether this Definition be full, it matters not now to examine. It is enough to me that I am understood. And fince a Verb in its Nature implies Motion or a Capacity to move, or be moved, or to be at Reft, it is manifeft that it may be confidered, as paft, prefent, or to come, to which Head all the other Alterations may be reduced. Now nothing can be conceived more different than the Way of inflecting Verbs ufed by the Eastern Nations, and thofe of the West and North. All the Western and Northern People, whofe Languages I have had an Opportunity to confult, confider every tranfitive Verb either actively or paffively, and then they have done; Amo in Latin is I love; Amor I am loved. So in Greek ἀγαπάω & ἀγαπῶμαι. And whether we form our Verbs with others that are Auxiliaries, as all the Languages that come from the antient Celtic and Teutonic feem to do, and as the Ro"mans did in fome of the Tenfes of the Paffive Voice, d yet ftill we confider a Tranfitive Verb

As, Amatus fum vel fui, I have been loved, amatus ere vel fuero, I shall be loved, &c. D

only

only as it is Active or Paffive; and Subftantive Verbs, and those which the Latins call Neuters and Deponents are formed after the fame Manner.

But the Eastern Nations have a Method of forming Verbs which is effentially distinct from these, by which every Verb is formed in all their Languages. By Eastern Nations here I mean thofe, and only thofe, whofe Languages have both in Matter and Form, fo great an Affinity with the Hebrew, that they are generally supposed to be immediately derived from it.

In Hebrew the Way of forming Verbs is this. Every Verb has, (or is fuppofed to have) what their Grammarians call feven Conjugations. Three active ones, Kal, Piel, and Hiphil; three paffive ones, Niphal, Pual, and Hophal; and one reciprocal one which they call Hithpael. Pakad, for Inftance, he barely vifited, in Kal; Niphkad, he was barely vifited, in Niphal; Pikked, he vifited diligently, in Piel; Pukkad, he was vifited diligently, in Pual; Hipbkid, he made or caufed to vifit, in Hiphil; Hopbkad, he made or caufed to be visited, in Hopbal; Hithpakked, be vifited himself, in Hithpael. Every one of thefe Conjugations has its preterperfect and future Tenfes diftinct by itfelf, with its own Participles, Imperative and Infinitive Moods, all which are distinguished from each other, by fervile Letters which are easily discerned by those that are but moderate

ly