suffix by another, is the result of that tendency to divergence which I hold to 
have been inflicted on mankind at Babel : the primaeval tongue of the 
Noachidae probably used both. With regard to the observations of Mr. Waring- 
ton, as to the similarity, in all languages, of the words used for father and 
mother, there are certain radical sounds which are accepted as word-roots in 
nearly all tongues. One of the first of these is “ P,” and “ M ” is a modification 
of it, — both implying “ that which is near.” We might add that the harder “ P” 
is probably used to distinguish the sterner, and the softer “ M ” the gentler 
parent. “ Ma ” is used in the Sanskrit in the sense of bringing into the 
world, and “ Pa ” in that of preserving or maintaining. It is certain that the 
radicals Pa and Ma exist in every language, however it may be accounted for. 
I come now to the question as to the probable meaning of a passage in Scrip- 
ture. Of course my explanation is given, off-hand, with the greatest diffidence. 
But the way in which I understand it is that in a future state the curse of 
Babel is to be done away. Man then being unwilling to speak that which 
is wrong, will be privileged to communicate in “pure language” with his 
Father. That language will not be the tongue of man, but what I will call 
the tongue of angels, which he shall use for glorifying God. (Hear.) As to 
the communications in Paradise, between the woman and the devil, and bet ween 
man and the Deity, we cannot argue or deduce much from the little we know 
of what went on in the Garden of Eden. Man, in a state of innocence, which 
he lost by his fall, had very simple ideas, which did not require any extensive 
knowledge of language to express. The devil, in his conversation with Eve, 
had only to use a little persuasion in addition to the negative reasons which 
he gave to her ; but to enlarge on this topic would lead us into metaphysical 
theology, which is beyond the range of our present debate. Captain Fish- 
bourne said that without speech we cannot think ; but I should modify this 
statement by saying that, granting that we think in words, we do not think in 
grammar. If you contrast a conversation which you hold with any one with 
a debate carried on in your own mind, you will find that the relations ex- 
pressed by grammatical means in the former case are, in the latter, necessities 
of thought rather than mentally-conceived inflexions. Here, again, however, 
we are getting into metaphysics. A farther objection was started with which 
I cannot agree, that language came from God perfect— that it was given as a 
gift to man, and was not given imperfect. I think that argument cannot be 
sustained. “ Whatever Adam called every living thing, that was the name 
thereof.” There was a work which was left to man to do. His power to arti- 
culate was absolutely perfect, but it was given to him that he should develop 
it, and use it for something higher. I do not suppose that the power of speech 
can be called an imperfect gift, any more than a grain of wheat which has not 
been put into the ground is imperfect ; but language, till developed, was so. 
I will only now refer to the observation of Mr. Peddle as to what I stated 
about the Greek language. As an Oxford man and a schoolmaster, I am not 
one who is likely to undervalue that language ; and when I stated that the 
Greeks were slavish in their devotion to their own language, I did not 
mean to sneer at this, as Mr. Reddie appears to think, but to express an 
