such different languages. According to this supposition, then, a great miracle would have been wrought in behalf of our first parents, from which none of their posterity had reaped the least advantage. This is not according to the manner of God in his other works.

(b) The supposition that the original language of man was copious and finished, overlooks the fact that language cannot be such where objects and ideas are still scanty and imperfect. Ideas arise from the perception of ob

II. Original Language of Man. Speech is the great characteristic excellence of man, without which he would hardly be able to employ his rational powers, or to exist in social connexion with his fellow-men. Of this distinguishing faculty of man Moses makes express mention, Gen. ii. 19; cf. s. 52, II. There have always been very various opinions respecting the origin of human language. For the opinions of the ancient Greeks, vide Puffendorf, Jus naturæ et gentium, l. iv. c. 1, s. 3, and Mül-jects; and the number, clearness, and distinctler, Positiones, historico-philosoph. de origine sermonis; Argentorati, 1777. This subject has been often discussed in modern times, and has caused much controversy both among philosophers and theologians; and as it is usually made a topic of discussion in modern systematic theology, and can be more naturally introduced into this department than any other, we shall treat of it briefly in this place. Writers on this subject are divided into two principal classes-viz., 1. Some have maintained that an articulate language, consisting of arbitrary sounds, was imparted to man at his creation, and that he was able immediately to speak it; and moreover, that this original language was very copious and in the highest degree perfect. Man, they assert, not only did not, as a matter of fact, invent the language which he spake, but never could have done it; and so they suppose that speech was originally as special and miraculous an endowment as the gift of tongues to the apostles. The principal advocate of this opinion in modern times is Joh. Pet. Süssmilch, who has attempted, with no common sagacity, to prove that the origin of language is not to be traced to man, but directly to God. Vide his Essay on this subject, published at Berlin, 1766, 8vo. But,

(a) The nature of language itself, and the most ancient history of it, furnish conclusive evidence that man not only can invent, but has actually invented, articulated language, consisting of arbitrary sounds. All languages in their incipient state are indescribably simple, consisting of very few and short words and phrases, which are so insufficient for the communication of thought, that looks and gestures are called in to their aid. Such we observe to be the case still with children, who have more thoughts and feelings than words in which to express them. The same is true of savages, and generally of all who have but few words. Now, if God had communicated language in some such miraculous manner as is supposed to our first parents, it is hard to see why he should have suffered this language to be afterwards lost, and how it should have come to pass that all the nations springing from Adam should have begun back with the very elements of speech, and proceeding from these, have formed so many and

ness of our ideas is in proportion to the number of objects which we behold, either simply or in connexion with others. But language contains the signs and symbols by which we express our ideas of things, and communicate them to others. How, then, could there be a perfect language in that simplicity of human life in which there were but few objects to be seen or compared? The advocates of this supposition are driven to the absurdity of saying that man could have spoken of things which he had never seen or thought of. It was remarked by Samuel Werenfels, very truly, that if one should look through the most comprehensive and complete dictionary, he would find but few words which could have belonged to the language of Adam.

(c) Again; of what use could a rich and cultivated language have been to our first parents? And if of none, how can the supposition that such a language was miraculously given them be reconciled with divine wisdom, which does not work miracles except for some important object? Now it is perfectly obvious that to them, in their peaceful and simple life, when they had but few wants, and those easily satisfied, such a language would have been of no utility. They had as yet no ideas of innumerable things which became afterwards known as improvement advanced; and for such things, of course, they had no words in their language. The language of our first parents, in its incipient state, could not naturally have been more copious or perfect than the language of nations generally while they are still in their infancy and possess but few ideas, and of course have, and need to have, but few words to express them.

(d) We justly conclude, from what we see of the wisdom of God in all his other works, that he did not endow man, on his creation, with any advantage which he himself could attain in the diligent use of the powers and faculties of his nature. So we conclude that man has no innate ideas, because he can easily obtain the ideas he possesses by the use of his intellectual powers. And with still more reason may we conclude, on the same ground, that man has no imagines innatas, sive signa innata idearum de rebus. The Bible makes no mention of any such; on the contrary, it teaches that one way in which

our first parents learned language was from their intercourse with irrational creatures, in giving names to which they first exercised the faculty of speech.

2. The second class affirm that God did not bestow language itself upon man at his creation, but gave him powers and faculties which would enable him to form a language for himself, and gradually to refine and enrich it as his circumstances might require. Those who hold this opinion may have as sincere admiration for the wisdom of God and gratitude for his goodness as the advocates of the other theory. Among the ancients, Epicurus, (vide Lucretius,) and among the fathers, Tertullian and Gregory of Nyssa, assented to this opinion; and it was considered even by Quenstädt as entirely unobjectionable.

guage, to designate moral objects. In conformity with these views, we must interpret what God says, Genesis, iii., iv., which would have been unintelligible to our first parents if it had been expressed in such language and phraseology as is now common among us; but which, being expressed in a figurative manner, was level to their comprehension. This is the way in which missionaries are now compelled to proceed, when they have to do with men who have no ideas on religious and spiritual subjects, and of course no words answering to them in their language. Instruction intended for children, also, must be conveyed in the same figurative language and style; and they are always found to be most interested in allegories and fables, like those of Æsop. Those who object to this mode of instruction only prove, then, their own ignorance. Instruction imparted to uncultivated men must of necessity be given in a figurative manner, because they not only speak, but even think, in figures. From abstract expressions they derive but faint conceptions. The case is entirely different among cultivated men.

SECTION LVI.

These writers, however, differ among themselves respecting the manner in which man proceeded in the development and improvement of his faculties of speech. The strangest conjecture on this point is that of Maupertius, that language was formed by a session of learned societies, assembled for the purpose! The theory which derives the most support from history is, that the roots, the primitive radical words of articulate and conventional language, were originally oF THE PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN; HIS EXTERNAL made in imitation of the sounds which we hear ADVANTAGES; AND THE NOTION OF A GOLDEN from the different objects in the natural world, and that these original sounds, in imitation of which language is first formed, become less and less discernible in these languages in proportion as they are improved and enlarged, and the radical words are subjected to various alterations and inflexions. Vide Herder, Ueber den Ursprung der Sprache, (a prize Essay;) Berlin, 1772; 2nd ed. 1778; 3rd, 1789. Cf. the works of Tetens and Tiedemann on this subject; also Jerusalem, Betrachtungen, th. ii. s. 134, f.

These views respecting the origin of language are entirely consistent with the very natural representation which Moses gives, Gen. ii. 19, 20, of the naming of the animals. Vide s. 52, II. These were the first objects to which man directed his attention, and to these he gave names, sometimes derived from his calls to them, and sometimes from voices and sounds which they themselves made. In this way, then, man was first led to exercise his powers of speech; and it was perfectly natural for him to begin to speak by giving names to animals, as they are more interesting to him, and more nearly related to him, than the inanimate creation.

Now, when our first parents were to be instructed in moral objects, which could not be recognised by their senses, it must necessarily be done by images drawn from nature, and especially from animals, and so their names and the names of their actions were figuratively applied, in the poverty of the then existing lan

AGE.

I. Original External Advantages of Man. THIS is the second class of the distinguishing advantages of our first parents, as divided in the beginning of s. 54. They have their ground in the external relation of man to the other creatures of the earth; but they presuppose in him the possession of those internal excellences described s. 54, 55. These advantages are comprehended under the general description, the dominion of man over the earth, or over the creatures of the earth, Morus, p. 104, s. 21; and this is taken from Gen. i. 26, seq. coll. Gen. ix. 2. This dominion implies nothing more than that man possesses (a) the right and title to make all the creatures of the earth contribute to his own advantage, to the supply of his wants, and to the convenience of his life; and (b) that he possesses both the power and skill to compel them to that subservience to which their nature is adapted. Cf. s. 52, II. It is said by Plato, in a passage in Timæus respecting the creation of men, as translated by Cicero, "Tales creantur, ut Deorum immortalium quasi gentiles esse debeant, divini generis appellentur, (cf. Acts, xvii. 28, from Aratus, Tov yàp xai yévos oμév,) teneantque omnium animantium principatum." God has placed man, as lord, at the head of the animate creation; made him his image upon the earth-a subordinate god— a representative of the Deity. And the irra

"Epy. xai u. verses 109-201. Ovid, Met. I. 89-162. Virgil, Ecl. iv., and the selections from Plato and Diodorus in Euseb. Præp. Evan. i. 7; xii. 13. [Cf. Lucretius, De rerum nat, ii. 332, seq. Tibullus, i. 3, 35, seq. Seneca, Hipp. v. 524.] The same opinions substantially are found among rude and savage nations-the inhabitants of Kamschatka, Tartary, the Indians in North and South America, the South-Sea Islands, &c.

tional creatures, whose knowledge cannot ex- | silver, &c., are generally known. Cf. Hesiod, tend beyond what they can recognise by their senses, can conceive of nothing superior to man. Of God and of spiritual things they know nothing, and so can have no duties to perform to him. Their business is, to submit to man, as their lord and ruler; and God has given to man the means to compel them to this obedience, for which they were made. With many animals, even since the fall, this subjection to man seems to be natural and easy; they are inclined to his service of their own accord, or are readily prevailed upon by favours or chastisements to engage in it.

2. What is the source of these ideas, which are so universally diffused?

(a) It was formerly supposed very generally that all these mythological fables were only tra

This dominion which was conferred upon man over the animate and the inanimate crea-ditionary relics and fragments of a direct divine tion he still retains, at least in a good measure. It is represented as still the prerogative of man in Psalm viii. 6-9, the whole of which passage is a paraphrase of Genesis, i. 26, seq. (On the question, whether this dominion is only a part, or the whole of what is intended, when it is said that man was made in the image of God, cf. s. 53, I. II.) Theologians, however, frequently assert, that since the fall man does not possess this dominion over the inferior creation in its full extent; and it does not follow from the words of Moses, considered by themselves, that he ever did. Moses, however, and other sacred writers, clearly teach, that such wild, intractable, and cruel beasts, as are now found upon the earth, were unknown to man in his original condition, where they were all tame and subject to his will. This is clear, too, from the figurative description which the prophets give of the return of that happy age—e. g., Isa. xi. 6; lxv. 25. The same opinions respecting that happy age of innocence in the youth of the world are found among the Greeks, Romans, (cf. Virg. Ecl. iv.,) and almost all nations.

From the relation which man holds to irrational creatures, as their master and ruler, he owes them several important duties; the consideration of which belongs, however, rather to the department of morals than of theology.

II. The Notion of a Golden Age.

1. The notion of a golden age of the world is almost universal; and, although somewhat modified by the peculiar opinions and customs of each people, it is yet found diffused through all ages and nations, as far as history extends, and is everywhere substantially the same. All nations believe that the original state of the earth and of the human race was far more happy and cheerful, and in every respect better, than the present; and that either at once or more gradually the world degenerated. The notions which the Grecians, and the nations which adopted their mythology, the Romans and others, entertained respecting the different ages,-the golden,

revelation. The Mosaic history was regarded as the only source from which these various and wide-spread ideas were derived; and to shew how they were handed down from one age to another, and transmitted from the Hebrews to the Greeks, Romans, and others, has been very often attempted. But the arguments employed in support of this opinion have been generally far-fetched, and unsupported by history; as, indeed, all arguments must be which are adduced in support of the opinion, that the scriptures are the only source from which the ideas of the Greeks, Romans, and others, respecting the original state of man, are derived, and that these ideas have been only corrupted in being transmitted by the intermixture of fable. This opinion was advocated by Huetius, in his "Demonstratio Evangelica, where he endeavoured to shew that the scripture history was at the foundation of the whole Grecian mythology. But his theory is inconsistent with facts, as is very generally acknowledged at the present day. Much, indeed, of the scriptural account respecting the original condition of man may have been preserved and diffused among the nations of the earth. But it cannot be historically proved that our sacred history is the only ground of these ideas of a golden period, in which all nations agree. These universal ideas on this subject may have arisen partly from other sources. Men are everywhere alike in all the essential parts of human nature. And hence there prevails among them a certain universal analogy in respect to language, manners, modes of thought and opinion; and from this analogy their agreement on many points may be explained, without supposing them to have learned or borrowed from one another. Vide Introduction, s. 9, No. 6.

(b) One cause of this notion of a golden age so widely diffused among heathen nations is the disposition, which may be seen in all men, to think THE PAST better and more happy than THE PRESENT. This disposition has its origin in a certain urgent feeling of our natures, of which

fortable weather, there were no harmful beasts, and men were not as yet unjust and cruel. Such is the picture of the primitive state of the earth and of the human race, in which the ancient fables of almost all nations agree. It deserves, however, to be remarked, that Moses dissents from nearly all the heathen mythologists who have described the original state of

we shall in a moment say more. We shall here speak only of the disposition itself, as it is seen among men. And in accordance with it, the higher one ascends into antiquity the more happy and charming does the world become to his view; the nearer he approaches the times in which he lives, the more imperfect and dismal does everything appear. It was the same with men in respect to their views of the past a thou-man as one of indolence and perfect rest, and, sand years ago. And had the world actually on the contrary, makes it a state of activity and degenerated, physically and morally, a thousand labour. years ago as much as the old men, laudatores temporis acti, doubtless then thought and said, and had each successive generation of men since proved, according to the expression of Horace, progenies vitiosior, then the world by this time would have become a mere waste, and the whole human race would have long since perished! This prevalent belief that the world from the first had been constantly deteriorating was now clothed in an historical form, and taught as actual truth; and the fables thus invented respecting the early state of man, though they differ in some particulars, are yet everywhere essentially the same.

These mythological descriptions have, no doubt, an historical basis, but whatever of truth there is in them has been enhanced and beautified by the imagination in its attempt to bring up the golden age to its own ideal of perfection. For, in reality, that happy state of man of which so many dream, and which is depicted in heathen mythologies, is nothing more than the state of barbarism with its best side turned to the beholder, beautified by the imagination, and placed in that same magic and enchanting light with which we have seen the entire absence of cultivation covered over by the genius of Rousseau. Vide his "Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inegalité parmi les hommes." If the worst side of this state should be exhibited, instead of pleasing it would shock and disgust all who have ever enjoyed the blessings of civilization and refinement."

In this way we can account for the origin of these universal ideas respecting the original state of man, without supposing that they were altogether derived from the Mosaic record.

(c) These remarks respecting the manner in which the opinions and ideas of men respecting a golden age first originated and are gradually

The manner in which the ideas of a golden age may have originated, and have been gradually developed into those mythological descriptions which are found in all nations, may be shewn by the following remarks, founded upon experience :-When we have arrived at mature years, and especially when we are in the decline of life, the period of our youth appears to us far better than the present. We were then more free from anxiety than ever after; our susceptibility of pleasurable emotions had not then been blunted; our heart was open to the enjoyments of life. And when we look around, and every-developed are so obvious, and have so much inthing seems to us to have degenerated since we were young, it is not unnatural to conclude that the same has been true in every age; that at a very early period, in the infancy of the world, it was full of peace and happiness, and from that time to the present has been gradually growing worse and worse. And we are strengthened in this conclusion by hearing our parents and grandparents speak in the same way respecting the times which they have lived through. Thus at length we come to the conviction that old times were better than the present, and that the farther back we go, the more delightful, happy, and perfect we shall find the state of the world. We then proceed to fill up this general outline which we have formed of a happy age. And this we do by carefully removing from that golden period all the ills and imperfections of of our present state, the physical sufferings which we now endure, and also the evils arising from our social connexion, and from the progress of refinement. Then we suppose there was no need of clothing, there was no rough and uncom

ternal truth, that they occur of themselves to every observer of the world and of mankind. But for this very reason, that the universal ideas respecting the primitive state of man can be so easily accounted for, without supposing an historical foundation for them, the Mosaic history of this original state has, like the rest, been regarded by many as fabulous. But those who have taken this view of the Mosaic history have overlooked other very important aspects of the subject, and have but a very partial acquaintance with it. Should they look at this subject on all sides they would see the necessity of admitting some real truth as the basis of these wide-spread conceptions, and that the claims of the Mosaic account to our credence are greatly superior to those of heathen mythologies. This will be evident from the following considerations :

(a) The general disposition of all nations to regard the original condition of mankind as eminently happy, proves, beyond dispute, that they have felt a certain pressing necessity to