Tongue

TONGUE. This Word is taken in three different Senses. 1. For the material Tongue, or Organ of Speech. 2. For the Tongue or Language that is spoken in any Country. 3. For good or bad Discourse: Thus we say a bad Tongue, a slanderous Tongue, or, simply to have a Tongue is to speak much. Many Questions are proposed about Tongues, taken in the second Sense, or for Language. For example, ‘tis asked, 1. If God was the Author of the first Tongue, and if he gave it to Adam by Infusion; or if Adam invented it, and acquired it by Industry and Labour? 2. If this Tongue is still in Being? 3. If so, then which is it?

Profane Authors,¹ and such as had no Knowledge of the holy Scriptures, or of the History of the Creation of the World, imagined that Men were produced by Chance, in different Parts of the World, and came out of the Ground, as also all other Animals besides; that at first they had no Language, nor any Notions of things; that first of all mere Necessity, and afterwards Conveniency, taught them to invent certain Sounds, or Words, by which to communicate their Notions to one another: That hence Languages were formed, which became different from each other, because they were invented seperately, and their Authors had no Communication with one another.

But the Knowledge we have now of the Origin of Mankind, does not leave us any room to doubt, but as God created Adam perfect, so he endued him with Language to express his Thoughts and Conceptions. Therefore we find, that the first Man, presently after his Creation, returns Answers to God, speaks to his Wife, and gives Names to the Brute Creatures. His Children and Successors probably spoke the same Language as himself, down to the Deluge, and after the Deluge till the Confusion of Tongues that happened at Babel. See BABEL.

Men are not agreed as to the Manner in which this famous Confusion was brought about. ‘Tis doubted whether all of a sudden God might not make all Men forget their own Language, and give them a new one, entirely different from the former; or whether, by confounding their Ideas, and disturbing their Imaginations, he put into their Mouths different Dialects of the first Language: So that the primitive Tongue remaining uncorrupt in some Families, became at once a foreign Tongue to those that spoke it before; as also that the Dialects of the primitive Language became barbarous and unknown to those who were the Depositaries (as it were) of the ancient Language. Or, lastly,

Y² lastly, whether God might not permit, that Men should be perplexed, and become unintelligible to each other, and therefore separate, and that their Separation should give occasion to this Change of Language, by the necessary Consequence of distance of Place, and want of Communication with each other. These several Opinions have each had their Patrons and Maintainers, as may be seen by the great number of Books³ that have been published on this Subject; and particularly by the New Dissertation on the Confusion of Languages, which we have lately published, in the Collection of our Dissertations and Prefaces, printed by themselves at Paris.

As to the first Tongue which God communicated to Adam at his Creation, some learned Men maintain, that it is absolutely lost, and that no Knowledge of it now remains among Men. Others pretend, that there still remain some Ruins of it in the Hebrew Tongue, and in the other Oriental Languages; but that there is now no Monument remaining, where it can be found entire, and in its original Purity; and that there are no People that speak it, or that at any time have spoke it, since the Confusion of Babel. Others again maintain, that the Hebrew Tongue was the Tongue of Adam, and of the first Men; but others give this Honour to the Chaldee or Syriac Tongues, or to the Arabick, or to some other Languages; as the Armenian, the Persian, the Chinese, the Tudesk; there having been but few Nations in the World, which had not the Ambition of having their own Tongue to be thought the Language of Adam, and the most perfect of all Languages.

But the Opinion the most generally followed is this; That the first Language continued in some Families, which either had no share in the Undertaking of Babel, or at least had not those Views of Pride and Rebellion, which God punished by the Confusion of the Language of those that were found guilty. ‘Tis thought that Heber, the Father of Peleg, one of the Ancestors of Abraham, had the Privilege of preserving the first Language, and took great care to perpetuate it in his Family. This Opinion lies under great Difficulties, concerning which the Reader may consult the Article HEBER. But what is the most favourable Circumstance to the Hebrew Tongue, and which gives it some Probability of its having been the Language of Adam, are the Etymologies which it furnishes of the ancient Names of Men, of Countries, of Rivers, of Deities, which are the most ancient things now remaining in the World, and which are the least liable to Change; a Prerogative which is not to be met with so extensively in any other Language. For tho’ the Arabick, Syriac, Chaldean, and, perhaps, some other Languages, may supply us with the like Etymologies; yet they are neither so numerous, nor so natural: They often fail in the easiest and most obvious Cases. Lastly, the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabick Tongues, being to be regarded only as Daughters and Branches of the Hebrew, the Evidences that can be produced to their advantage will bring no Prejudice to the Hebrew, but rather support and confirm what may be said in its favour.

Rev. xvi. 10.To gnaw ones Tongue, is a Token of Fury, Despair, and Torment. The Men that were Worshippers of the Beast, gnawed their tongues for pain; and blasphemed the God of Heaven, because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.

Josh. xv. 2, 5. xviii. 19.Tongue of the sea, tongue of land, are Terms used in Scripture for the Extremity or Point of the Dead Sea. For example, Initium ejus à summitate maris salsissimi, & à linguâ ejus quæ respicit meridiem: Or, a Peninsula, a Cape, a Promontory of Eccles. vi. 5.Land, stretching out into the Sea.

Lingua eucharis, a Tongue of Blessing and Kindness, put in opposition to an ill Tongue, a Tongue of Reproach and Scandal: The first promotes Friendship, and maintains Love and Concord among Men; the other is the Cause of Destruction, and creates Hatred, Dissention, and Misunderstanding.Ecclus. xxvi. 9.

Flagellum linguæ, the Flail, the Lash of the Tongue, are malicious Discourses, Scandal, Calumny, insulting and offensive Speeches. The Wise Man says, that a jealous Woman is a scourge of the tongue: In muliere zelotypa flagellum linguæ omnibus communicans. In Hebrew Families, where Polygamy was frequent, Jealousy among Women was the Foundation of an infinite number of evil Discourses and Backbitings. Ecclus. xxviii. 17, 18.The same Author says elsewhere, The stroke of the whip maketh marks in the flesh, but the stroke of the tongue breaketh the bone. Many have fallen by the edge of the sword, Job v. 21but not so many as have fallen by the tongue. And Job says, A flagello linguæ absconderis: God shall defend you from the Lash of the Tongue; you shall not be exposed to its Strokes.

The Gift of Tongues, which God granted Acts ii. 3, 4, 5, &to the Apostles and Disciples assembled at Jerusalem, on the Day of Pentecost, was communicated to the Faithful, as may be seen by the Epistles of St. Paul, which regulate the Manner in which this great Privilege was to be made use of in their 1 Cor. xii. 10. xiv. 2, &c.Assemblies: And it continued in the Church as long as God thought it necessary, for the Conversion of the Heathen, and the confirming of the Believers. St. Irenæus testifies, Iren. l. 5. c. 6.that it was still subsisting in the Church in his time.

The Rabbins teach,⁴ that the Judges of the Sanhedrim ought to know several Tongues. Some extend the Number as far as Seventy, supposing there is only this Number of them in the World. It would be a shame to make use of an Interpreter before this famous Tribunal. Every one might present themselves here, either to accuse or to defend, without fear of not finding a Judge that could not understand his Language. This is what the Jewish Doctors pretend; but Josephus⁵ informs us, that the Jews made but little account of the Study of Languages, because they looked upon it as a thing in common both to Freemen and Slaves; and which any one might acquire, if he pleased, by a little Labour. They reserve their Esteem for such only as study the Law and the holy Writings, and that have a Knowledge of them extensive and profound enough to interpret them to others: Which is an Acquisition to which very few Persons arrive.

They bring the Example of a Jew, the Son of Duma, who consulting his Master about the Study of foreign Languages, received this Answer: That he must meditate upon the Law of God both Day and Night: If you can find an Hour, said the Master, that is neither Night nor Day, you may then leave the Study of the Law, and read Greek. We are also told, that when Jerusalem was besieged Mishnah, in Sota. c. 9.by a King of the Asmoneans, they let down every Day in a Basket, over the Walls, so much Money as was necessary for buying Lambs for the daily Sacrifices, which Lambs they drew up again in the same Basket. But a Man that spoke Greek having acquainted the Besiegers, that as long as they offered the Sacrifices the City could not be taken, they sent up a Hog in the Basket, instead of the usual Victim: And from that time they cursed every one that could speak Greek.

1 Cor. xiii. 1.The Tongue of Angels. St. Paul says, Though I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. Some of the Ancients have thought,⁶ that the Angels had an audible Language, founding themselves upon this, that the Scripture says, they speak to God, and discourse with one another. Others have pretended⁷ that they make use of the Hebrew Tongue among one another, as being the shortest and most expressive of all Languages. A Rabbin called Sochanan boasted⁸ that he knew the Language of Angels and of Devils, because he could exorcise the one, and conjure the other.

But these Opinions are now rejected by all the World. It is agreed that the Angels have no sensible Tongue, neither common, nor particular. If they speak to God, if they commune among one another, ‘tis by an Operation of their Spirit and Will, by which they reciprocally communicate their Thoughts. Souls and Spirits speak by their Desires, says Gregory the Great:⁹ Animarum verba ipsa sunt desideria.

When therefore St. Paul says, that tho’ he should speak with the Tongue of Men and of Angels, it would be nothing without Charity; he intends to use a kind of Hyperbole, like as when we frequently say, a Divine Beauty, an Angelical Voice, and such like. I would have every one set a due Value upon the Gift of Tongues, says St. Paul; but though a Man should have all the Eloquence that can be imagined, could he speak as well as Angels themselves, this inestimable Gift would be of little use to him as to Salvation, if he is without Charity.

Read this article in its place on the printed pages