166 
Eve and reasoning with her implies that there was a current language with 
which he made himself acquainted. And the facts which I think go far to 
prove the unity of speech are the remarkable traditions we have, and their 
palpable identity. We must deny history altogether if we deny tradition. 
We have a tradition of the Flood and of the dispersion of mankind prevail- 
ing amongst the Chinese and amongst the Mexicans. It is not, perhaps, so 
remarkable to find it amongst the Chinese, who had a written language ; but 
it is very remarkable to find it existing amongst nations which had no written 
language. With respect to the remarks in the paper, as to the facility with 
which people slide out of the original language of their ancestors, it might be 
supposed that in China, where they have a written language, these modifica- 
tions would be the least likely to occur. Yet it is a most extraordinary thing 
that in that country there is the greatest difference between the dialects 
spoken in the various and even in adjacent provinces. I remember on one 
occasion being at Nankin, and, wishing to communicate with certain indi- 
viduals, we were only able to reach them through a chain of four or five 
interpreters, in consequence of the amazing difference in the dialects. I never 
yet saw two Chinese persons, even belonging to the same district, and speak- 
ing the same language, who yet spoke with perfect intelligence one to the 
other. So nice are the inflections, that two persons in China cannot converse 
for five minutes together, without having recourse to the employment of the 
signs or characters, which they make on their hands, to explain what they 
mean. If you observe them conversing, you can see at once that there is a 
great diversity in their dialects. And this diversity is becoming greater 
every day, so that, in the course of time, instead of having nine hundred 
languages, we shall have a thousand, or perhaps more. 
Mr. Ince.— I rise for the purpose of making one remark. An expression 
was introduced into the paper implying that man had improved upon the 
language which he originally possessed.. Now, I cannot agree with Dr. 
Thornton in that matter. I think that, as God Ahnighty created Adam, He 
created him a perfect being with perfect speech, and He did not leave His 
work for man to mend. Man might have increased the number of words, 
but I do not think it was possible for him to improve upon what God had 
imparted to him. 
Mr. Reddie. — With reference to the observations of Mr. Ince, I quite 
hold with him that language must of necessity have been a gift to man from 
his Creator ; and, if so, that it would be a “ perfect gift.” I was glad to find 
it plainly advanced in the admirable paper we have all listened to with so 
much pleasure, that language was a gift from God, and not a human 
invention. I think I may also venture to say that it was not Mr. Ince’s 
intention to attribute to Dr. Thornton anything contrary— 
Mr. Ince. — My objection was only to the word “ improve.” 
Mr. Reddie. — So I understood. I was about to point out, that if man, 
as created by God, was endowed with the highest wisdom and capacity for 
knowledge, he must also have been endowed with the power of speech ; for 
without speech, as Capt. Fishbourne has very properly observed, he could 
