be synonymous with the prevention of all marriages, I cannot comprehend. Thanking him, however, and other able correspondents,—and I hope to see " Alpha" in the field again,-for their contributions, and reserving myself for a future review of all arguments for and against, I am, &c. &c. CLERICUS FELIX, M.A. ON THE TENTH AND ELEVENTH CHAPTERS OF GENESIS. SIR,-In former papers in the British Magazine,* I endeavoured to establish against the German rationalists, that the first and second chapters of Genesis, instead of being two different and hardly consistent narratives of the creation, form a single consecutive history of two distinct events. I now propose to shew, in opposition to the views of the same school, that the tenth and eleventh chapters present us, on the subject of languages, with the narrative of two unconnected events: Eichorn and Rosenmüller do not scruple to say, that two distinct traditions were current among the Hebrews concerning the confusion of languages (duplex inter antiquos fama fuit); the one preserved in the name of Babel, which related that mankind were dispersed by the direct intervention of the Almighty; the other, connected with the name of Peleg, which stated that Noah portioned out the world among his posterity. But there are some reasonable grounds for supposing that these two statements of scripture relate to entirely different occasions. 1. The first argument I shall offer in favour of this opinion, and which I have not seen noticed by any of the commentators, is, the difference of phraseology in the two chapters; a difference which certainly implies that a difference of meaning also was intended. In chap. x., it is the word tongue, p, which is always used, and it occurs thrice. The descendants of the three sons of Noah were "divided in their lands, every one after his tongue," in the philological sense of the word. In chap. xi., instead of the word tongue, which seems carefully avoided, the phrase is constantly lip, DW, throughout five occasions, without any interchange of the word lip with tongue. This distinction, so regularly kept up, cannot be attributed to chance, which would rather have mixed up the two words in the eleventh chapter for variety of phrase, as is done in the English version. Even if it could be proved that the word lip was used by the later Hebrews, in the philological sense of a language, that meaning would hardly be admissible in the present case, where it is so carefully distinguished from the word tongue. 2. The peaceful and orderly distribution of the world among the descendants of the three sons of Noah, "after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations," as recorded in the * The last in Vol. X. p. 554, on "Buckland's Bridgewater Treatise." tenth chapter, singularly contrasts with the turbulent character of the scene at Babel, chap. xi. Also, the arrangement of the nations in their lands by their tongues, in the days of Peleg, chap. x., supposes that a diversity of languages had been already established before the occurrence at Babel, which is recorded subsequently in chap. xi. At a later period, Moses, in referring to the early history of the world, distinguishes between the two events, and places them in the same order as in the Book of Genesis : "When the Most High portioned out the nations-(Gen. x.), He settled the boundaries of the peoples By the number of the children of Israel." Deut. xxxii. 8. 3. It is stated by the sacred historian, that Babel was built by the "sons of men" (Hebr. of Adam): "And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men builded.”—(xi. 5.) If we had met with the phrase sons of men, or of Adam," for the first time in this passage, we should have been at liberty to give it the most extended and natural sense of all mankind; but as it occurs shortly before with a more limited meaning, and in marked opposition to another class of me., it becomes necessary to compare the two places, in order to determine the true sense of the passage under consideration. In vi. 2, we read, "that the sons of God (Elohim) saw the daughters of men (Adam), that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose." By which passage it is generally understood that the members of the church, or the Sethites, intermarried with the apostate families of Cain. The title "sons of God" was evidently selected in direct contrast with the term "sons of Adam," (vi. 4 ;) and its first use seems to have taken place in the time of Enos: "Then began men to call themselves by the name of the Lord" (marginal reading), iv. 26. Now we know that this distinctive title continued in use under the patriarchal dispensation after the flood. In the time of Job there were certain days "when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord," (Job, i. 6; ii. 1;) and this circumstance renders it almost certain that the other phrase, sons of Adam, was also retained among the descendants of Noah in the same limited sense as before the flood. If we apply this meaning of the phrase to the transaction at Babel, we find that the infidel Hamites were alone concerned, in building the tower of Babel in the land of Shinar, "lest they should be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth;" whence it appears that their principal object was to defeat the will of the Almighty, according to which the families of the sons of Noah were divided in the earth after the flood. 4. It is a common opinion that Nimrod, the son of Cush, was the leading Hamite in this undertaking. I seem to see a confirmation of this view in the account which is given of Nimrod himself, x. 8. The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, in the land of Shinar; out of which land he went forth into Assyria, and probably, in consequence of the dispersion from Babel. Of this Nimrod it is said, that "he began to be a mighty one in the earth," like the infidel offspring VOL. XIV.-Nov. 1838. 3 z of the marriages between the sons of God and the daughters of men: "The same became mighty men, which were of old men of name," (vi. 4 ;) and an additional object with the builders of Babel was thereby to become men of name : "Let us make us a name." 5. It is quite clear that the existing diversity of languages must be attributed to a supernatural origin; but it is not so clear that it is to be considered as the effect of a divine judgment. There is every reason for supposing that one common language was in use among the Antediluvians; and it is very possible that the diversity of tongues in the new world held some necessary relation to the altered circumstances of man. I would place the curtailment of human life, and the use of animal food after the flood, on the same footing with the diversity of languages; and suppose that all three were equally introduced without any reference to the transaction at Babel. W. B. WINNING. PARENTS NOT TO BE SPONSORS. SIR, It has not unfrequently occurred to me, when on the point of administering the sacrament of baptism, that one or both of the parents has expressed a wish to be permitted to stand sponsor for the infant. I have urged, that the intention of the church evidently is, that the sponsor should be bound to perform a charitable Christian duty to the child, in the event of the decease of the parents, or of their neglecting to perform their Christian duty of educating it in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and that I should be doing an act of unkindness to the child if I were to defeat this charitable purpose of the church, by depriving it of such aid, in the case it might hereafter be unhappily required; and that the parents were already bound by every tie of nature and religion to perform for the child the very duties which the church wisely and kindly requires that certain sponsors besides them should be engaged, if requisite, to perform. But as a canon often may have influence where my own arguments might fail, I have thought it desirable that the twenty-ninth canon, which is headed, "Fathers not to be godfathers in baptism," &c., and beginning, "No parent shall be urged to be present, nor be admitted to answer as godfather for his own child," &c., should be inserted before the office of baptism, in what are called the "books of offices," used by the clergy upon such occasions. The canons not being inserted in all the prayer-books, I have sometimes not been able to point at once to the canon which made it imperative upon me to deny what those who made it doubtless thought a very reasonable request; though a sight of the canon would at once have convinced them that I was not at liberty to comply. CLERICUS. STOPPING UP FOOT-PATHS THROUGH CHURCHYARDS. SIR,-Would you allow me to ask, through the medium of your Magazine, whether there is any less expensive and more summary way of stopping up foot-paths through churchyards, than by the regular legal process? As is not unfrequently the case (in many parishes), my churchyard seems to have been the spot chosen, above all others, to be intersected by foot-paths. There is an entrance at each of the four corners, and they are joined to each other by footpaths in all imaginable directions. Perhaps some of your correspondents, who have had experience in these matters, would kindly give me the benefit of it. Two of the entrances might be stopped up without requiring the public to go twenty yards out of their way, which would reduce the number of paths to one, and that simply along one side of the churchyard. But I understand that the expense of stopping them by the ordinary way would be from £25 to £30 at the least. Has the incumbent, or the churchwardens, any power in such cases? I am, Sir, your obedient servant, G. M. WALDENSES IN ENGLAND. MY DEAR SIR,—Though I am sure that the article extracted from Blair's History of the Waldenses, in this month's Magazine, page 387, was inserted with a view to shew what absurdity is seriously published, and how people are hoaxed by ignorant writers on that subject, yet I do not think that it ought to pass without some remark and explanation. There may be readers even among those of the British Magazine, who when they find it broadly stated, in a work of a good deal of pretension, in two pretty full octavo volumes, with a vast many references to books which they do not know, that "Sometime between the years 1182 and 1197, a company of Waldenses was allowed to settle in peace, as tenants of the manor of Darenth, in the county of Kent;" and just after, without its being very clear how much is included in the attestation, "These facts are attested by the original deeds still extant in the library of Lambeth House, and by the archives of the Dean and Chapter of Rochester;" there may, I say, be readers who will be afraid to question such authority, and suppose themselves bound to believe that, notwithstanding all that is said of the horrible. persecution of the Waldenses, even in England (as Mr. Blair and other writers pretend), only a few years before, yet the Archbishop of Canterbury had a settlement of pet heretics living hard by his metropolitan city, under his special protection as his tenants; and this too while the said archbishop was chief justiciary of England. I know not how far Mr. Blair has correctly copied the Archæologia, to which reference is made, for I have not the work at hand. That he was ignorant and absurd enough to copy almost anything that could come to his hands, his large book testifies; as well as that he was quite capable of making nonsense where he did not find it. But if he has fairly copied the Archæologia, is it not a disgrace to a Christian nation that such matter should be found there? And does it not indicate a state of sad ignorance as to the history of that church to which we belong? The simple explanation is, that "these facts," attested by deeds, are the facts, or rather the single fact, of the exchange of lands, by which the archbishop became possessed of Lambeth; and I apprehend that the deeds contain nothing about Waldenses. That part of the business belongs, I imagine, to a more modern document; but whether or no I think that when it is once suggested, nobody will doubt that these Waldenses were the same persons who were otherwise called in the "latinized English" documents relating to that part of the country, "homines de Walda," or men of the Weald of Kent. That thelatinized English" has been ignorantly and incorrectly translated seems pretty clear; but if I had the book at hand, it would be absurd to occupy your pages with such rubbish as a criticism of the translation would be. I am, dear Sir, yours very truly, S. R. MAITLAND. MR. FABER ON PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION AND THE PAULICIANS. SIR,-As you have inserted in the "British Magazine" for this current October two attacks by Mr. Crosthwaite and by Mr. Dowling upon my work on the Vallenses and Albigenses, you will, I conclude, not refuse to insert also some few remarks upon those attacks. I. That your readers may understand the matter in hand, it will be necessary to begin with giving a correct statement of the case, so far as respects the attack of Mr. Crosthwaite. 1. The apostolical institution of bishops, with the power of govern. ing superintendence over the clergy, is so clear, both from scripture and from ecclesiastical history, that no sane person would ever think of disputing it. Hence it follows, that any question respecting episcopacy does not, in the slightest degree, hinge upon this point. But, while all must admit the apostolical institution of governing bishops, a question forthwith arises touching the aspect under which the apostles thought it good to institute governing bishops in the church. (1.) Did they institute bishops, as a new and distinct order in the ministry, with certain privileges, such as that of ordination, EXCLU SIVELY INHERENT in them quoad ordinem? (2.) Or did they, under the official name of bishops, institute certain presbyters to preside over other presbyters, only as the first among equals, with certain privileges, such as that of ordination, WISELY INTRUSTED to them quoad disciplinam? 2. Here, I take it, lies the true question. Consequently, if any person, when entering upon the subject, merely sets himself to prove the apostolical institution of bishops, he throws away his valuable time and labour in establishing what (as I have said) no sane person would ever think of disputing. 3. Now the possible, not the certain, case of the Vallenses and the Albigenses led me to notice the FACT of the consecration of Pelagius |