] 67 
not really have thought : he would not have been man. Mr. Max Muller 
appears to be of the same opinion ; for he calls thinking “ speaking low.” 
In saying this, of course he does not mean, that, in thinking, there is an 
absolute articulation of words, but that there is necessarily the idea of words, 
or what words mean. But although man was so created in this perfect state, 
with every capacity for knowledge, with the power of speech, and with 
wisdom and intelligent instincts, all of the highest order,— he must still have 
been ignorant of that kind of knowledge which can only be gained by ex- 
perience. For instance, he could have no knowledge or experience of the 
sensation of fear, till he disobeyed God and fell from his original state of 
innocence. Therefore, his ideas, and correspondingly his language, would 
have to be increased, as of necessity; and by being thus increased, his 
language would also be “improved,” without implying any imperfection in 
his original gift of speech, but rather the contrary. If we bear in mind that 
the gift of speech was a faculty, a power intended to be exercised and de- 
veloped by man, rather than a mere vocabulary or complete set of words, it 
will be seen that its capability of thus improving in development is really 
the best proof of its perfection. Touching this question of the improvement 
of a language, I was somewhat surprised at one remark of Dr. Thornton’s 
with reference to the language of the Greeks. Philologists, I believe, con- 
sider the Sanskrit to be the most perfect language. But, at least, after the 
Sanskrit, I suppose the Greek will be acknowledged to be the most perfect 
and polished language with which we are acquainted. Now, I am inclined 
to think that it chiefly owes that perfection to what I thought Dr. Thornton 
was almost inclined to sneer at (though I do not like to use the expression), 
namely to their exclusive devotion and attention to the study and develop- 
ment of their own language, without much regarding the other languages 
spoken around them. I believe, as a consequence of this, that in Athens 
you would not have heard Greek spoken with such constant variation as we 
hear English spoken, even at our chief seats of learning, in the present day. 
At Oxford and Cambridge, more attention is certainly given to the pronuncia- 
tion and composition of Greek and Latin, than to English. At present, too, 
we make a point of knowing something of so many other living languages 
besides our own, that it does not improve, as no doubt it otherwise would. 
I do not say we are wrong in being so cosmopolitan. To a certain extent we 
may be forced to be so. But this certainly does not conduce to the improve- 
ment of our own language, which some even disparage and despise. In that 
respect, the French are now more like what the Greeks were: they are 
devoted to their own language especially, and pride themselves upon it ; and 
it is correspondingly improved. With reference to Mr. Warington’s criticism 
of Dr. Thornton’s argument, I must say I do not think he has quite done 
justice to it. It appeared to me that Dr. Thornton put the case upon the 
very lowest ground, and claimed to have proved much less than he was enti- 
tled to claim. He did not say that there was any strong positive argument 
in favour of the monogenist theory to be derived from comparative 
philology ; but only that there is a balance in its favour. He argued, that if 
