Works, Book 1 · Discourse 49
DISCOURSE XLIX.
GENESIS 10. 5.
By these the Isles of the Gentiles [foreign] were divided [foreign] in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, [foreign] in their nations.
WHENAS after the great Deluge of waters the sons of Noah began to multiply upon the earth,Gen. 11. …. it is said, That they came from the East into the land of Shinar, the pleasant plain of Shinar, where God at the beginning had placed the first Father of mankind, our Father Adam. But when they saw that their numbers were like to be great, and that so small a plot of ground would not contain them all; yet that they might continue within the Body of one Society, and have as it were a common right in this place of Paradise, they agreed to build them a Citie which should have been the Metropolis of an Vniversal Monarchy, and an exceeding high Tower, that they might be famous and renowned among posterity. But this vain purpose of man's imagination seemed evil in the eyes of God, and therefore it is said,Gen. 11. 5. That he came down from heaven to overthrow the counsel of the sons of men. And because they were so loth to break Society, it pleased God to cut from them the common Bond of one Society, and to make them speak with many languages. For as Speech is termed the Bond of Society, Oratio (saith the Philosopher) est Societatis vinculum; and as the Unity of one common Language had knit all mankind into one Community: so God in his wisdom saw that Plurality of Languages was the best means to force mankind into a Plurality of Societies. Thus therefore and by this means did Almighty God cast man the second time out of Paradise, and dispersed him over the face of the whole earth by this memorable Confusion of languages.
Now concerning the Order of this Dispersion and the Manner of this Confusion, he that is but a little conversant in the writings either of Historical or Theological Antiquaries, shall find not only one but varieties of Confusions, not of Tongues only, but of Opinions also; one saying this thing, another thinking that thing: so that some having essayed this Labyrinth, and finding neither safe getting in nor likelihood of getting out, have quite disclaim'd any further search: And as Alexander, when he could not unloose the Gordian knot, drew his sword and cut it a-pieces; so they, meaning to make an easy dispatch of all difficulties, affirm, That Curiosity in this Argument is either frivolous or altogether needless.
But I would that these had remembred, That that knowledg ought not to be accounted needless, without which the Events and Complements of the Prophetical Blessings of the Patriarchs and the particular Predictions of the after-Prophets can never be understood.
For how shall we know How and When God was the Blessed God of Sem, and How and When God persuaded Iaphet to dwell in the tents of Sem, Gen. 9. 26, 27.if we know not Where were the tents of Sem, and Which were the Habitations of the sons of Iaphet? How shall we tremble enough at the horrible Curse of impious Cham, and know that he was indeed a Servant of Servants and a slave to all his brethren, Gen. 9. 25.unless we know Where was the land of his abiding? Or how should we know What were those Ships of Chittim, Num. 24. 24.whereof Balaam and Daniel prophesied, if we know not Where was the Inheritance of the posterity of Chittim? Lastly,Dan. 11. 30. How should we know who is that Tyrant Gog, Ezek. 39. 1.of whom Ezekiel speaks, who comes out of the land of Magog, and is described to be the Prince of Meshech and Tubal, if we know not Where is the land of Magog, and which is the off-spring of Meshech and Tubal?
As therefore S. Paul said in another case, so I think I may say in this, That God hath not left us without a witness, but hath given us certain Notes and Marks, if we were so diligent as to mark them, whereby we may easily point out the Original habitations of the first Colonies of Mankind.
And to omit other dispersed places in the Bible,Gen. 10. 5. I think that this Chapter contains the principal, and the grounds of the rest. Where because Moses begins first with the line of Iaphet, (and The first in every kind is a Rule to that which cometh after) and because also that we the inhabitants of the Western parts of the world have greatest interest in the stock of Iaphet; I have made special choice of this Verse which I now read, which contains A description both of the Place and Manner of the habitations of the Sons of Iaphet. Of these (that is, Of the seven sons of Iaphet before named) were divided the Isles of the Gentiles, &c.
Now therefore I will consider the words of this Text, First, Generally, as they contain A circumscription of the Place, and a description of the Manner and Order of the dwellings of Iaphet; Secondly, Specially, from Grounds drawn out of this Scripture, and by the Remainders of ancient names, I will assign to every one of his sons the particular lot of their inheritance.
The Territories of the sons of Iaphet are here termed The Isles of the Gentiles; Of these were divided the Isles of the Gentiles in their lands, that is, the Isles of the Gentiles throughout their lands, or, the lands of the Isles of the Gentiles.
Thus we have the Name; but What part of the World was called by this Name, that we have not. The Hebrew is foreign, which the Septuagint and Iosephus turn foreign the Chaldee and other Interpreters, Islands of the Gentiles.
We usually call Islands Regions or Countries encircled by the Sea: But because there were not such Islands enough near the place of Division to contain the Families of the house of Iaphet, there being but only Crete and Cyprus until we come unto the AEgean Sea; and because it is not likely that they would overpass the main land, to seat themselves in little Islands; or if they would so have done, yet was there not then such plenty of shipping to transport so great multitudes; and lastly, because we know assuredly that some of Iaphet's posterity were originally seated upon the main Continent; It followeth hence that by Islands here cannot be meant those which we call Islands.
Perhaps then there may be some Trope in these words, and that by Isles of the Gentiles are not meant indeed properly Islands, but Countries having many Islands lying about them, so that foreign may be expounded Terra insulosae Gentium: that is, Gentildome full of Islands. And this indeed sits very well those Countries where Iaphet's sons are said to dwell; witness the many Islands in the Mediterranean, AEgean and Ionian seas. But because it is manifest out of Scripture, that there are some Countries called by this name, which are neither encompassed by the Sea, not have any Islands lying near them; this Interpretation also must be rejected.
Now there remaineth only one Exposition more; That the Hebrews called foreign or Islands all Countries divided from them by Sea, or such as they could not come unto, or used not to go unto, but by Sea. So that their word foreign is larger than our Island: for we call an Island that which can no way be come unto but by Sea, and is every where divided from the Main; but they called also those foreign which were but secundùm quid Islands, which were at least by Sea divided from their main, or were in regard of themselves only not accessible but by Sea. In brief, They called Islands all beyond-sea countries, and all people Islanders which came to them and to the Egyptians by Sea. Neither did the Grecians use their word foreign only for a place encompassed by the Sea; as we see by Peloponnesus foreign, which joyned unto the main land of Epirus; and so likewise were their Chersonesi.
And that this last Interpretation is undoubtedly true, we need no other Argument but this, That the Hebrews called all Countries which were divided from them by Sea; Islands, and è converso they called no other Islands but such as were divided from them by Sea; that is, All countries which lye above the Mediterranean Sea, from the mountain of Amanus and the Hyrcane Sea westward, were called by this name of Islands of the Gentiles, and no other were called by this name but these.
The truth of this may be seen in many places of the Bible, whereof I will quote the most pregnant. Esay 11. 10, 11. The Prophet shewing the Calling of the Gentiles by an allusion of the restoring of the Iews from the places where they were dispersed, maketh an Induction of those places and countries wherein they were scattered, saying, The Lord shall recover the remnant of his people from Assyria, Egypt, Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar, Hamath, and from the Islands of the *In the Hebrew it is foreign the Isles of the Sea. But that the Isles of the Sea and the Isles of the Gentiles are of a like importance, the Author shews afterwards.Gentiles. Here by the Islands of the Gentiles are meant distinct places from those before named; and places too where the Iews were scattered: but these can be no other but the countries of Armenia the less, which together with the rest that he names were under the Empire of the Assyrians, Medes and Persians. And because this Prophecy is to be understood of the Calling of the Gentiles, the Prophet in his Induction would not omit those places where he only laboured who was surnamed The Apostle of the Gentiles, and which were from the beginning and are at this day the principal seat of Christian Churches. So that at this day there is no part of the world called by the name of Christendome but that which is divided from the Iews by Sea, even the blessed Iaphet and the happy Islands of the Gentiles. And this was foreshewed by the Prophets, in that they never spake of the Calling of the Gentiles, but they harped upon the Islands of the Gentiles. The same Prophet Esay (ch. 40. 15.) to shew God's Omnipotency and great power, speaketh after this manner, Behold, the Nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance; behold, he taketh up the Isles as a very little thing. Where if by Isles we mean those which we call Islands, the comparison of disparity will not hang together; because those which we call Islands are indeed very little things. It remains therefore that by Islands here are meant those huge Countries which were beyond the Sea in regard of Egypt and Palaestine. Again in ch. 42. he saith,*Vers. 4. The Isles shall wait for the Law of God. What is here meant by Isles, you may easily guess by that I said before; and that which followeth in the same Chapter will help you,*Vers. 10. Sing unto the Lord a new song,—ye that go down to the Sea, that is, ye which dwell low to the Sea-ward: and if ye ask who these are, the very next words will tell you, namely, the Isles and the inhabitants thereof. Where is plainly expounded who are meant by the inhabitants of the Isles, namely those that dwell downward to the Sea-ward. Moreover Ieremy 2. 10. we find, Pass over to the Isles of Chittim; but the Island of Chittim was no Island or place encircled by the Sea, unless Macedonia be an Island; for Alexander is said in (1 Maccab. 1. 1.) to have come forth of the land of Chettim; and in Ch. 8. 5. Perseus King of Macedonia is called King of the Citims. In Ezek. 27. 3. Tyrus is called a merchant of people for many Islands, because unto Tyrus came many people from beyond the Sea for merchandise. And lastly in 1 Maccab. 14. 5. (which I hope will be a sufficient testimony to shew what the Iews called by the name of Isles of the Gentiles) among the Commendations of Simon, one of the worthy Maccabees, it is said, That he took Ioppa for an haven and for an entrance to the Isles of the Sea: where it is more than manifest that by the Isles of the Sea the Iews meant those Nations which came to them by Sea.
Now if this be so, That the Iews called those Countries the Isles of the Gentiles which were divided from them by Sea, we may see how true that opinion is (though commonly received) which affirmeth that the posterity of Madai, one of the Sons of Iaphet, are those Medes who were compartners with the Persians in the Second Monarchy. For he that hath any skill in Geography knows that this Media is not divided from the Iews by Sea, and therefore cannot be one of the Islands of the Gentiles, unless Mesopotamia and Assyria be also Islands of the Gentiles. And yet my Text says, That Of these (namely of the seven Sons of Iaphet, whereof Madai is one) were divided the Islands of the Gentiles. The occasion of this Errour (for so I take it to be) was the mistaking of Iosephus, who says that of Madai came those people which the Greeks call foreign. But first, I doubt whether the Greeks called those Medes so famous in the Scripture foreign, or not rather foreign. Again, if by foreign Iosephus means those Medes which had title in the Second Monarchy, he can no ways agree with himself; for a little before he said that the posterity of Iaphet had their seat from the mountain Amanus Westward; but these Medes lie above the Persians from the mountain Amanus Eastward. But if any man ask where then was the original seat of the Sons of Madai, I will defer mine answer till I come to assign to the several Sons of Iaphet their several habitations.
HAVING found out that part of the Earth which was divided among the posterity of our Father Iaphet; I come now to the Second part of my General consideration, to make another search Concerning the manner of this Division, and the Order of their dwelling and neighbourhood one with another. And here my Text answers, That they were sorted every one according to his Language, according to his Family, and according to his Nation.
Whence (before we come to particular examination of every word) we may observe, That this great Division of the Earth was performed orderly, and that they are much deceived who dream of a confused and irregular Dispersion, wherein every one went whither he listed, and seated himself where he liked best.
For besides that these latter words of my Text imply the clean contrary, the word foreign also, which we translate divided, will bear the force of an Argument to this purpose; in that it signifies not a scattering or a confusion, but a most distinct partition.
Or if there were no such insinuation in my Text, yet there may be many Reasons drawn from the Circumstances of this Division which will enforce the same Verity.
1. As first, The Custome, and as it were the property, of Almighty God in all those Actions wherein he hath a special hand and directs by a special providence; according to that saying, God is not the Author of Confusion, but of Order. And if in any other, surely in this God's Providence was seen most especially, it being so principal an action, and as it were the ground and foundation of the Second propagation of Mankind.
2. Another Argument lieth in the End why God multiplied the Languages of these builders, which was (as it seems) lest dwelling altogether they should confound their families, and mingle together their generations, which God in his Wisdom would have severed and kept distinct for divers purposes. And that this should be the End or one of the Ends, it followeth naturally out of the proper Effect of Pluralities of Tongues, which is to sort men into Pluralities of Societies, as the Unity of one common language before had knit them into one Community. Now if this were the purpose of Almighty God, then it needs must be that for the prosecution of this End each Family should dwell by it self, and each Nation by it self, that so there might be an orderly Division.
3. Another Reason may be drawn from the Wisdom of the Patriarchs, who were all alive at this Division, and were as Kings in their generations. Seeing therefore that there is great difference in the parts of the Earth, for the goodness of the soil and temperateness of the Air; it was their parts to prevent the danger of contention among their Sons, who should have the better parts of the Earth: which could be done no otherwise but by instituting an orderly Division; and that either by casting of lots, or chusing according to the order of their birthright, after some survey taken, of a sufficient portion of the Earth, and portions border'd out according to the number of their Nations, than of their Families, &c. For otherwise Magog would not have gone so far into the North, not Arphaxad have been suffered to enjoy the pleasant land of Shinar.
But I leave these Generalities, and come to the Parts of this Order. Where for conveniency sake I will begin with that first which is last in the order of the words, to wit their sorting after their Families and after their Nations, or (as the words are in my Text) after their Families in their Nations.
Where first we must know what is meant by these two words in their proper use; for though elsewhere they may be promiscuously used, yet here being compared and conjoyned, they must needs have a distinct signification. Now what that is, the particle [in] doth insinuate. For in these words [after their Families, in their Nations,] Families are plainly subordined to Nations, as Parts to a Whole, or Specials to a more General. Families therefore are Parts of a Nation, and a Nation is an Off-spring that containeth many Families. As therefore the Logicians say of their Genus, that it is either Generalissimum or Subalternum: so we also may say of our Gens or Nation, that it is sometime Absolute, when there is no greater Off-spring in regard whereof it may be called a Family; or Respective, when though it be Gens in regard of those Families it comprehends, yet it self also is a Family in a greater generation. Now these Gentes or Nations are called sometimes by a more special name Tribes For those which the Scripture in the Off-spring of Iacob calls Tribes, in the generations of Ishmael are called Nations, as we may learn, Gen. 25. 16. These (that is, these twelve which he named) are the Sons of Ishmael, and these are their names by their Towns, and by their Castles; twelve Princes according to their Nations. Now these Tribes of Israel or Nations of Ishmael, though being compared with their own Families they were Gentes; yet in regard to the generations of Arphaxad they were but Families of the eighth or ninth order. But as for Nations and their differing ranks, the Scripture hath found two words, foreign and foreign Gens and Tribus; so the parts of these, which be of many Orders, are not always called foreign or Families, but sometimes foreign Housholds. Ios. 7. 14. 1 Sam. 10. 20, 21.So for the deprehending of Achan and election of Saul by lot, Israel first came out by their Tribes, then by their Families; where we must understand also their Sub-families; as it is easily gathered in the story of Achan, where these Sub-families are called sometimes Families, and sometimes Housholds.
And thus we know what are Nations and what are Families, and what are the Kinds of both. Now let us see what Nations and what Families Moses here meaneth. I answer, that Moses here meaneth those which are absolutely Nations, not secundùm quid Gentes or Sub-Nations; and absolute Families, not Housholds or Sub-families. My reason is, Because Moses here speaketh of that division which was made when Peleg was born, which was within an hundred years after the floud: But by this time there were no Families so much encreased that they could be called Tribes or Nations; for the name of Family in Genealogies remains until the third Generation, that is, so long as the Founder of a Family may truly say, foreign. And therefore when God in the second Commandment says, That he will visit the sins of Fathers upon their children to the third and fourth generation, the meaning is, that he will afflict the whole family for the sins of the Head of their Family. And when we say, De malè quaesitis non gaudet tertius haeres, we might as well say, That goods ill gotten, the same Family shall lose them which got them. Now that this Division was made before the third generation, it is sufficiently proved in that Eber, who was the Father of Peleg, and not then the Head of any house, was but the Second from Arphaxad, one of the founders of those Nations which were of the Off-spring of Sem.
The words and sense of the words being thus cleared, we see a Twofold order in this Division. First, they were ranged according to their Nations; and then secondly, Every Nation was ranked by his Families: So that every Nation dwelt and had his lot by himself, and in every Nation the Families also dwelt and had their lots by themselves. And thus much the words of Moses do imply: For in that the words stand thus [after their Families in their Nations,] it is as much as if it were said, That every Family was ranked and had his dwelling in his own Nation; which could not be unless the Division were also made to every one according to his Nation.
The Number of Nations which were of the Off-spring of Iaphet we may easily find to wit seven, according to the number of his Sons, who were all several Founders of several Nations. But the number of Families in these seven Nations we cannot so easily learn; for Moses nameth the Families only of two, Gomer and Iavan, three of Gomer and four of Iavan; and that because that these Nations were those that the Iews should have greatest knowledge of and most dealing with, because of their neighbourhood with the land of Canaan: and for the same end in the generations of Cham are named only the families of Canaan, Cush and Mizraim; and in Sem the families only of Aram and Ioktan.
Now out of this which hath been spoken we may pick Five Rules to guide us in the finding out the original habitations of the Off-spring of Iaphet.
First, We must seek for them in the Islands of the Gentiles and in Countries divided from the Iews by Sea; because by them were divided the Islands of the Gentiles.
Secondly, We must seek them within a reasonable Compass of the Earth, and not all the world over. For when this Division was made in the days of Peleg, the number of mankind was small; for besides women and children, their number in all could not be above seven thousand, as may be gathered out of this Chapter; so that it is not like they took the whole world before them.
Thirdly, Those Nations whose Families are named by Moses are to be sought for in places neighbouring to the Iews: for therefore did Moses name their Families, because they dwelt near unto the Iews, or dwelt so that the Iews might readily come at them.
Fourthly, Where we find the Nation, there also we must look for the Families of that Nation; because the Families were ranged in their Nations.
Fifthly, And therefore for the same reason, where we find any one of the Families, there we must look for the rest and for the whole Nation. But the practice of these Rules I must defer till hereafter.
Now I come to that which yet remains in my Text, viz. Languages: for Moses saith they were divided also [according to their languages.] Wherein we may see the very finger of God, who so caused them to speak with diverse tongues, that their tongues also were ordered after their Families and after their Nations. Which leaves no place at all for their opinion who suppose this Confusion of tongues to have been a privation of all language, and that they were fain to gather together by companies, and …o impose new names upon things by common consent: Nor yet for their opinion who think that this Confusion was a kind of depravation of the Original tongue; so that when the builders called for brick, they brought them mortar; and when they called for mortar, they brought them brick or something else. For this last the Event confutes, in that the Confusion of tongues does not consist in using the same words diversly, but in using diverse words. And the former cannot be true, for then should God have [*[This or the like word was wanting in the Manuscript.] made] mankind mute; the contrary whereto may be gathered out of God's own words where he saith,*Gen. 7. 11. Let us go down and confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech: he does not say, that they might not speak at all. It must needs be then that God himself inspired them with diverse tongues, else how could their tongues have been ordered according to their families and according to their nations? So that the tongues of the same generation, though diverse, yet have a greater cognation amongst themselves than with the tongues of another off-spring: As for Example, The languages of Sem in the East agree more one with another than with the tongues of Iaphet in the West.
But because that some out of this Chapter would pick out the certain number of Languages, let us a little also consider of this. The number of Languages cannot be fewer than there were Nations, nor more than there were Families. If there were no more than there were Nations or Heads of Nations, then the number is easily counted; seven in Iaphet, four in Cham, and five in Sem. But if they were as many as were Families at the Confusion, their number cannot be known, because Moses does not make a recension of all the Families or Heads of families.
The common Opinion hath been, That their number was according to the number of Families; and this Moses seems to infinuate, because he joyns throughout this Chapter Families and Tongues together. But this is denied by Iunius, because the Families of Canaan the first-born of Cham spake all one language at that time when the Iews cast them out. But this Reason compels not, because the Canaanites at that time spake a perfect Hebrew, as Ioseph Scaliger affirms. Nay*in his Poenulus, Act. 5. Sc. 1. See Mr. Selden in his De DIs Syris Prolegom. …. 2. & Peritus in lib. 2. Miscellan. c. 2. who more fully explains that passage in Plautus. Plautus brings in a Carthaginian speaking almost pure Hebrew: but the Carthaginians were of Tyre, and of the off-spring of Canaan. But without doubt the Canaanites spake not Hebrew from the beginning, this language being left only to Arphaxad the eldest son of Sem, of whom came Eber, Abram and the Iews. It must needs then be brought in by some Nimrodian conquest; for the off-spring of Cham seemed to envy God's favour to Arphaxad, even as Cain envied Abel, and therefore Nimrod of the house of Cush made himself Lord of Mesopotamia, which was the lot of Arphaxad, and (as should seem) endeavoured to make this language common to others through a spight he had to the House of Arphaxad. And hence it came to pass that all those nations where Nimrod ruled spake Hebrew, or a dialect of the Hebrew, as the Assyrians, the Syrians or Aramites, the Canaanites, the Arabians and the AEthiopians. But I doubt I have waded too far in this Argument, and therefore here I'le end.