by GoD to it; and as God gave no further directions in this matter until he appointed the priesthood of Aaron for the children of Israel; so Noah had no authority to make constitutions in this matter, but was himself the priest to all his children, and each of his sons to their respective families in the same manner, as before civil societies were erected. This I think must have been the true reason for their having no established priests originally in these nations. And from this circumstance, as well as from those before-mentioned, I imagine, 5. That civil goverument was in these kingdoms built upon the foundation of paternal authority. Noah was the father, the priest, and became the king of all his people; which was an easy transition; for who could possibly have authority to set up against him? It is not likely that his children who continued with him would not readily obey his orders, and rank themselves in political life according to his appointment. At his death the priesthood descended to the eldest son, and the rule and authority of civil governor followed of course; for how chould it well be otherwise? Something extraordinary must happen before any particular person would attempt to set himself above one, to whom his religion had in some measure subjected him; therefore the eldest son at the father's death being the only person who could of right be priest to his brethren and their children, unto him only must be their desire; and he must be the only person who could without difficulty and opposition rule over them. This method of erecting governments is so easy and

* Hebrews ▼. 4.

natural, that

some very learned writers cannot conceive how civil government could possibly be raised upon any other foundation. However, the most convincing evidences against their opinion will appear, when we come to examine the kingdoms erected by the men who lived at, and dispersed from, the land of Shinaar. It is natural to think, that Noah formed his children whọ lived under him, in this method. And if he had even divided the world between his three sons, as some writers have without any reason supposed, giving Africk to Ham, Europe to Japhet, and placing Shem in Asia; he no doubt would have instructed them to observe this method all over the world. But how can we imagine that Noah ever thought of making any other division of the world, than merely to direct his children to remove and separate from one another, when they found it inconvenient to live together? He taught them a method by which many families might join, and make their numbers of use and service to the whole community; but they who would not follow his directions took their own way, and travelled to a place far distant where they afterward settled upon different maxims, and at different times, as accidental circumstances directed and contributed to it. But, 6. By supposing that Noah founded the castern kingdoms of India and China upon the model I have mentioned, we see clearly how these nations came to be so potent and able to resist all attacks made upon them; as Ninus and Semiramis experienced, when they attempted to invade and over-run them" If Noah appointed a

"See vol. i. b. 4.

soldiery in each of these kingdoms almost as numerous as their husbandmen; and they began to form and exercise themselves so early as about A. M. 1736; since it appears that Ninus did not invade Bactria and India until almost three hundred years after this time; these nations must, before he invaded them, have become very considerable for their military strength, and far superior to any armies that could come from Shinaar. 7. The supposing these kingdoms to differ very little at present in their constitution from what they were at their first settlement, is very consistent with the accounts we have of their present letters and language. In both these they seem to have made very little or no improvement, but have adhered very strictly to their first rudiments; and why may we not very justly suppose that they have been equally tenacious of their original settlement and constitution. But let us now come to the nations and governors, which arose from

and in the land of Shinaar.

Polybius has con

jectured, that the first kings in the world obtained their dominion by being superior to all others in strength and courage; and it very evidently appears that this was the foundation of Nimrod's authority. He was a mighty hunter, and from hence he began to be a mighty one in the earth. When the confusion of tongues caused the builders of Babel to separate, they must have known that it was necessary not to break into very small companies; for if they had, the wild beasts would have been too hard for them. Plato

▾ See vol. i. b. 2, b. 4.

X Polybius lib. 6. p. 361.

› Gen. x.

8, 9.

a

thinks, that mankind in the first ages lived up and down, one here and another there, until the fear of the wild beasts compelled them to unite in bodies for their preservation. This does not seem to be true in fact i for mankind always from the beginning lived in some sort of companies; and the beasts, which in time be came wild and ravenous, do not appear to have been: so at first, or at least not knowing the strength of man,s they were not so ready to assault him: but the fear of man, and the dread of man was upon them. And man-” kind, in the ages before the Flood, tamed them, or reduced them to a great degree; which is evident both from Noah's being able to get all sorts of living creatures into bis ark, and from its being capable of containing some of every kind and species. But after the Flood, near a hundred years had passed, before any human inhabitant had come to dwell in these countries; and the beasts which might have roved hither, had had time to multiply in great numbers, and to contract a wild and savage nature, and prodigious fierceness; so that it could not be safe for individuals, or very small com panies of men, to hazard themselves amongst them. But Nimrod taught his followers how they might attempt to conquer and reduce them; and being a man of superior strength as well as courage, it was as natural for the rest of the company to follow him as their

* Ον τω δε παρεσκ εν ασμένοι οι κατ αρχας άνθρωποι, ώκων σποράδην πόλεις δε εκ ήσαν. απωλλυντο εν υπο των θηρίων, δια του · πάντα τη αυτών ασθενέτεροι είναι η δημιεργική τέχνη αυτοις προς μεν τροφην έκανα

βοηθος ην, προς δε τον των θηρίων πόλεμον ενδεής, Plato, in

Protag p. 224.

Gen. ix. 2. h.

d

с

captain or leader, as it is, to use Polybius' comparison, for the cattle to follow the stoutest and strongest in the herd. And when he was thus become their captain, he quickly became their judge in all debates which might arise, and their ruler and director in all the affairs and offices of civil life. In a little time he turned his thoughts from hunting to building cities, and endeavoured to instruct those, who had put themselves under him, in the best and most commodious ways of living; but whoever considers what age he could be of, when he began to be a ruler, and the hint which Moses gives of his hunting, must think it most reasonable to found his dominion upon his strength and valour, which certainly was the cause of his first rise. In the early ages a large stature, and prodigious strength were the most engaging qualifications to raise men to be commanders and kings. We read in Aristotle, that the Ethiopians anciently chose persons of the largest stature to be their kings; and though Saul was made king of Israel by the special appointment of GOD, yet it appears to have been no inconsiderable circumstance in the eyes of his people, that he was ɑ choice and goodly young man and there was not

Lib. 6. § 3. p. 631.

* Όταν ο προεςώς και την μεγίςην δύναμιν εχων αει συνεπισχύη τοις προειρημένοις κατα τας των πολλων διαλέξεις, και δοξη τος υποτατε τομενους διανεμητικός είναι τα κατ' αξίαν εκάςοις, εκ ετι βιαν διδιστές, τη δε γνώμη ευδοκανίες υποτατίονται, και συσσώζεσι την AxarqUTH. Polyb. Histor. lib. 6. p. 633.

See vol. i..b. 4.

Aristot. de Repub. lib. 4. c. 4:

e Ibid. p. 164.