by natural historians, but these are sufficient for the present purpose. The physical condition of these persons seems to have been excellent; their health sound, their strength great, and their swiftness unparalleled. But what is chiefly of importance, with regard to the present enquiry, all accounts agree in representing these, and other unfortunate persons found in similar situations, wholly destitute of the use of speech.

May it not then be inferred from these circumstances, that man in a state of solitude is utterly incapable of inventing language; and, that as the sacred historian represents the first man, whilst yet without a companion, as using words to distinguish the objects around him, that for its first elements he must in some degree have been indebted to his Maker?

The first intimation we have respecting the use of language, is that recorded in the book of Genesis, where we are informed that " God brought every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air unto Adam to see what he would call them, and whatsoever Adam called every living thing, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field."

Children learn to speak in imitation of their parents and of those who are about them; and since the Deity condescended to converse with our great progenitor, is it not natural to suppose that he, finding himself possessed of the power of producing sounds, might be led to imitate what he heard? In this way man might have acquired the use of speech, without any direct instruction, and if once acquired, it could not in any ordinary circumstances be lost; but even if we admit that he was assisted, we cannot reasonably suppose that he obtained any other aid than what served his present necessities, being now able to improve it as his future emergencies might require. We are not to imagine that words were given to Adam, to be stored up in the repository of his memory, till he should find occasion to use them. He must have learned the properties of objects by experience, and being now able to apply sounds to designate his ideas, reason would direct him in giving them names.

ON THE PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE, AND THE CAUSES OF ITS PRESENT DIVERSITY.

LANGUAGE, being the picture of thought, must, in its progress, equal, but never outrun, the progress of knowledge; and though from some preceding observations, it does not appear that man was originally in a savage state, yet his knowledge would correspond to the circumstances in which he was placed, and could not therefore be extensive. The number of words which he employed, would be commensurate with his knowledge, and must have been inconsiderable.

New objects would necessarily give rise to new names; and every varied combination of thought must have produced a variety of expression. The words formed on such occasions, must either have been entirely different from those already in use, or some change must have been made on the latter, to accommodate them to new ideas. An examination of any language will show, that, in adapting it to the progress of knowledge, men have more frequently had recourse to a change of termination, than to invention. The radical words of all languages are comparatively few. Even in the Greek, which, of

ancient languages, has generally been thought the most copious and the most elegant, some grammarians affirm that the primitives do not exceed three hundred. This however is perhaps below the truth, if we consider that nearly thirty words are required to name the different external parts of the human body; yet those who are acquainted with the composition and derivation of words, will at once perceive, that even from the small number mentioned, some thousands might thus be formed.

Were we to admit with some philosophers, that different races of men were created in different parts of the earth, our theory of the origin of language would fall to the ground; nor would it be surprising that so great a diversity of languages should now prevail. But believing, as we do, that "God has made of one blood all the nations of men that dwell on the face of the earth," it must follow, that in whatever way language was at first formed, our first parents being in possession of it, their offspring must have spoken as they did, and consequently, while men continued to have intercourse with each other, their language must have been the same.

The particulars recorded in the sacred volume respecting the Antediluvians are few; and nothing is mentioned of a change of language till after the

deluge. From the account given by Moses, it is generally believed that the present diversity of languages is owing to a miraculous interposition of Providence at the building of Babel; and certainly the language employed on the occasion naturally leads to such a conclusion. It is, however, a well known fact, that long after the period in question, the same language, or different dialects of the same language, prevailed, from the Gulf of Persia to the Straits of Gibraltar, and from the south point of Arabia to the Black Sea. This circumstance has led some com.. mentators to conclude, that the confusion of tongues mentioned in the book of Genesis was temporary, or that it must be understood figuratively, as implying that discord was disseminated in their councils, to make them desist from an enterprise which was in its nature contrary to the will of Heaven.

Whatever were the effects of the building of Babel on the language of men, every one at all acquainted with the nature of language, and with the history of mankind, must perceive, that the languages of different nations must, of necessity, have become as different as they now are, though no such event had ever happened.

Whilst men continued to form one society, they would of course employ the same words, but when