consequence that that kind of testimony, multiplied indefinitely, would command the highest degree of belief of anything to which it might testify. Hume himself, indeed, admits, that some kinds of probable evidence are as convincing as demonstration.

17. And, seventhly, that the mind is constituted to believe the evidence of certain kinds of testimony. This appears from the fact that the evidence in question is denominated credible; and that it is to the spontaneous belief of it, chiefly, that we are indebted for our knowledge of the uniform operations of nature, as well as for our power of conducting the affairs of social and civil life. From all which it follows, first, that this evidence of testimony is calculated to produce belief, just because the laws of nature are constant in their operation; and, secondly, that not to believe such evidence would be, not only to believe something else, and to believe it without evidence, but contrary to all evidence.

18. But what was the origin of language? and what the primitive language of mankind?

Respecting the first question, it might be premised that if a person, not acquainted with the history of the subject, were to tax his ingenuity to the utmost in imagining all the possible modes of accounting for the origin of language not shrinking from the most extravagant and absurd his fancy could devise the diversified, baseless, and absurd theories which have been gravely propounded by learning and philosophy, would yet eclipse his wildest conjectures. Lord Monboddo, Volney, Maupertuis, and others, represent man as originally without speech a mere "mutum ac turpe pecus". beginning with the inarticulate cries "by which animals call upon one another;" the last-named writer supposing that when separate dialects were formed, a language was constructed "by a session of learned societies convened for the purpose." Dr. A. Smith supposes that the invention of language began with substantives; Herder is in favor of interjections; Dr. Murray makes the syllable Ag the foundation of, at least, the Indo-European tongues; while Rousseau proposes the problem, "Whether a society already formed was more necessary for the institution of language, or a language already invented for the establishment of society?"

19. That man had originally to acquire even the capacity for speech-this is the first or lowest notion respecting the origin of language. It will, however, be time enough to point out the

inconsiderate folly of this view when anything rational has been advanced in its behalf.

20. That man was primarily endowed with the organic capacity for speech, though not to any degree with the actual knowledge of language-this may be regarded as the second hypothesis on the subject. "Speech," says Humboldt, "according to my fullest conviction, must really be considered as inherent in man; since, as the work of his intellect in its simple knowledge, it is absolutely inexplicable. This hypothesis is facilitated by supposing thousands and thousands of years; language could not have been invented without its type preexisting in man." Still, he considers language as evolved entirely from himself. Now to this idea of the absolute origination of language by a being merely preconfigured to employ it, it is obvious to object, first, that if mankind had not been previously endowed with "a natural language, they could never have invented an artificial one by their reason and ingenuity."* Secondly, that no tribe has ever been known to emerge from barbarism, except by civilizing influences from without. And, thirdly, that the uniform tendency of an uncivilized tribe, left to itself, is to sink lower in the scale of brutish degradation.

21. That man was originally endowed, not merely with the capacity for speech, but, to a certain extent, with the actual and intelligent use of language—this is the third theory, and most in harmony with the reason of the case, and with the brief intimations of Scripture on the subject. If to this view it be objected, that "the history of many languages shows a gradual progress from small beginnings to a more perfect state," we reply that this is perfectly compatible (admitting it to be true) with the idea that a scanty language was bestowed on man in the first stage of his existence. If it be further objected, that "the radical words of a language are clearly referable to the source whence our first ideas are derived - namely, natural and external objects," we reply that this also is quite compatible with the theory that a certain amount of language was originally taught by God; for it is to be supposed that it would be all derived from obvious sources, and be employed analogically. If it should still be urged, that the communication of a mature power, such as that which the theory supposes, is quite inconceivable, we reply that the creation of a man with immature

*Reid's Inquiry, &c., c. iv., § 2.

powers is not more conceivable. The great miracle is the creation of man at all. That admitted, the admission that he was literally endowed with the power of speaking from the first, appears to be as natural as that he could literally walk. It by no means follows that his language at first was copious. The probability is that the words Divinely taught were those only which denoted the objects most important for man to know, together with his most urgent wants, and with certain leading ideas and emotions. From these, as from a prolific root, the tree of language gradually developed and branched off in every direction, according to the laws of the human mind.

22. In strict accordance with this view, almost every new explorer in comparative language returns with some additional proof of the original unity of language, whereas, had it been left absolutely to man's origination, the probability is that almost every family would have had its own language. Further, the fact that man had a real and adequate language immediately after his creation seems to be implied and commemorated in the existence of a dual number in some of the earliest tongues. A single human pair would have occasion for a form of expression denoting duality; whereas, when society became complex, such a form would be likely to be superseded by the plural numbers; and accordingly it had disappeared even so early as the Latin language. But, chiefly, in authentication of this view, the Biblical account represents the first man as actually using language immediately on his creation; not only giving names to objects, but in the instance of Eve, assigning reasons for the names given, in calling her, first, woman, and afterwards Eve, reasons having no connection whatever with the sounds of the words or with any sounds in na

ture.

23. Our second question relates to the particular language originally spoken by man. Up to the close of the last century, philologers were occupied, chiefly, in aiming to determine the relative antiquity of languages, and in a fruitless search after the primeval tongue. The low Dutch, the Chinese, the Celtic, and the Biscayan, have each found learned advocates claiming for it the honor of having been the language spoken in Paradise. And even when the suffrages of the learned determined in favor of a Semitic language, the Abyssinian and the Syrian disputed the honor with the Hebrew. The most probable conclusion is that the primary language was one from which the Semitic or Syro-Arabian family of languages has sprung; and

one, therefore, not now actually in existence, except as variously represented by the different members of this family. It is by no means unlikely that the Hebrew retains many of the identical vocables uttered by the first man, especially of the names of objects. Beyond this, all is conjecture; and even in this respect, the Hebrew cannot be supposed to enjoy a monopoly of the distinction.

24. "So God created man in his own image; in the image of God created He him, male and female created He them.” And such was the mysterious and manifold constitution of the being to whom and by whom the perfections of the Deity were to be set forth. Some, indeed, have spoken of his knowledge, holiness, and actual powers, while in Eden, in terms of eulogy appropriate only to "the second Adam, the Lord from heaven." But to claim for new-made man a kind and degree of excellence which would have almost made progress impossible by placing him already at the goal,* is to err as egregiously in one extreme, as they err on the other, who represent barbarism as man's original state, or even a state of mere animal sensibility. The view which we are able to take of man's constitution at this distance of time from his creation, and which we have endeavored to give, is the result of ages of development. How much more rapidly the process of development would have proceeded in the hypothetical case of his having remained unfallen, we can only conjecture. That the first man only became gradually conscious of his capabilities, that he only potentially answered to the description given in the sections of this chapter, must, I think, be admitted by every one who duly considers the subject. Like the language of which we believe him to have been made the recipient rudimental and suggestive his early consciousness disclosed only so much of his intellectual and moral capabilities as was necessary to quicken his activity, and to justify the responsibility of his new and grave position.

SECT. IX. - Man's Primitive Condition.

From man's constitution, we pass to a survey of his primitive condition. His nature, we have seen, was a sublime novelty in creation. Did his circumstances exhibit corresponding pro

* As Dr. South does, for example, in the beautiful and oft-quoted, but purely imaginary passage on this subject, in his Sermon on Man created in the image of God.

gression? The great miracle of the introduction of such a subject prepares us to expect that all the objective arrangements necessary for his development and well-being will be found to await and to attend him.

1. Here, our attention is due, first, to the selected and prepared abode which awaited man. "And Jehovah Elohim planted a garden in Eden, on the East, and placed there the man whom he had formed. And Jehovah Elohim caused to grow out of the gound there every tree pleasant to the sight and good for eating..... And Jehovah Elohim took the man, and placed him in the Garden of Eden, to cultivate it and to keep it.... And Jehovah Elohim formed out of the ground every beast of the field and every fowl of the heaven; and He brought [each] unto the man to see what he would call it, and whatever the man called any living creature, that was its name..... Elohim blessed them, and Elohim said, 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over every living creature that moveth upon the earth.'"* But were any of these species now absolutely originated for the first time? or were they all reproductions of pre-existing species? or, were some of them reproductions, and the remainder newly originated species? It will never be possible, perhaps, to return categorical answers to these inquiries. The probability is that most of the species useful to man co-existed at a period antecedent to his creation, with mammalia long ago extinct. But man's true distinction, and his well-being, depended not on the Divine creation of new species immediately prior to his appearance. The tribes of animal and vegetable life which actually subserve his interests, were not the less designed to do him service because the primary origination of many of them may have preceded his own by an unmeasured period; rather, that period implied the importance of the being whose coming was so long anticipated.

2. That which truly marks the progress of the great scheme, is the special provision made by the Divine Creator for the security, instruction, and well-being of the new-made man. According to the inspired record just quoted, pre-existing nature was now raised to new relations, and was promoted to offices unknown before. As if Eden itself were not sufficiently

* Gen. ii. 8, 9, 15, 19; i. 28.

Owen's Reports to Brit. Assoc. 1842, 1843; and Introd. to Brit. Foss. Mamm. p. 31.