134 
rubbing, pushing, throwing, or cutting, because there are no 
two of such acts precisely the same, while the great majority 
of them call forth no sound from the operator, and never 
could have done. The only involuntary sound which is called 
forth by such acts is a grunt, when the strength is fully taxed, 
and it is the same sound whether occasioned by striking, 
throwing, or pushing. Then we have men able to get stones 
from a chalk-pit to build a beehive hut, — which would be 
beyond the skill of half the masons of England at the present 
day, — so far advanced in carpentering as to be able to con- 
struct and take to pieces the frame on which it was built, 
with tools sufficient to sink the chalk-pit, and expert lapidaries 
who polished stones, and yet so poor in words as to have only 
Mar to express all their actions. He that can believe this, 
let him believe it. The advancement in mechanical skill 
would be impossible without a language. 
Unsupported, however, as this theory is, Mr. Muller carries 
it on as a certain fact, and, from the assumption of its cer- 
tainty, proceeds to establish- the kindred theory of religion. 
In doing this, however, we do not think he fairly meets the 
difficulties by which he is confronted. It is easy to state a 
difficulty in such a manner that, while it contains the sub- 
stance of the objection, yet contains also certain elements 
which the objector would repudiate, and then, by replying to 
the incongruous element, to assume a full answer. This is 
what we think Mr. Muller has done in this case. He says 
(page 255) : — 
“ Without any warrant, either from the Bible or from any other source, 
nay, without being able to connect any clear understanding with such a 
theory, many mediaeval and even modern writers have maintained that 
language too owed its origin to a primeval revelation .... It is easy to 
understand that, even if a complete grammar and dictionary had suddenly 
come down from heaven, they would have been useless to beings that had 
not themselves elaborated their percepts and concepts, and that had not 
themselves discovered the relation in which one concept may stand to 
another.’’ 
W e have no intention of contending for language by reve- 
lation, or for a grammar and dictionary from heaven ; but we, 
notwithstanding, hold opinions contrary to those here pro- 
pounded, and which, so far as we can see, neither the theories 
nor the arguments of Mr. Muller in any way remove. When 
Adam, in maturity of body and intellect, came into being by 
the fiat of the Creator, we must suppose him to have possessed 
such powers of perception as would enable him to distinguish 
between the various objects of whose existence his senses in- 
formed him ; but in this there was a concept from the percept, 
and, as from the first he had the power of speech, there is no 
