360 
convince me. He says the Almighty is represented as speaking to Adam. 
Of course, I take this as an historically true and credible narrative ; but it 
does not follow that the conversations took place in audible tones. The 
human being does contain such a principle as conscience,— an innate spiritual 
sense, — and we know that inspiration has spoken to people by dreams and 
other means which we cannot understand ; therefore, when we find it stated 
that the Almighty conversed with Adam, we cannot at once conclude that it 
was in audible speech. Then comes the further statement that man gave 
names to particular animals. Well, this, to my mind, rather contravenes 
the argument of the last speaker that language is a divine gift ; for 
if the beast of the field and the fowl of the air were brought to Adam 
to see what he would call them (Gen. ii. 19), Adam invented the 
names, they must have originated in Adam’s mind, and were not directly 
given to him. Of course, I admit that the faculties were given to him ; 
but the question is, whether the language was a divine gift ? I do not 
think the evidence establishes that. If we consider the further idea started 
by the Archbishop of York, we find he tells us that language was “ a divine 
gift ; but the power and not the results of its exercise, the germ and not the 
tree, was imparted.” You have the faculty, and not the words themselves. 
Language is said to be not only a mode of communicating our thoughts but 
also our feelings and ideas, and some persons have started the theory that even 
other animals than man do possess a certain language which we do not under- 
stand. I think that as far as we can apply the Baconian theory of philosophy 
to this experimental question we must admit they do. For instance, we 
hear the hen calling her chickens, and the chickens understand, and obey 
the call. Of course, the language these and other animals possess is of a 
very low description, and primarily appertains to the appetites. It does 
not prove the existence of any intellect, or mind, or conscience, but 
it corroborates the theory to which I incline, that language is evolved, 
and not to be traced to the Creation, although it may have existed 
at the Creation. Another reason for saying this is that the Almighty in His 
miracles seldom goes beyond the actual necessity of the case. When Lazarus 
was raised from the dead, those who stood around him were told to take off 
the clothes. When man was in a primeval state, having no society, he did 
not greatly want language, as when woman was created he was sure to do. 
We all know the expressive power of the countenance, and how quickly ideas 
are communicated by a pleasing glance or an angry look, — by a smooth brow 
and a pleasant smile. These things doubtless amounted to all that 
was necessary in a primitive state of society for some time ; but of 
course it is easier to demolish than to create. Mr. Brown adduced 
many arguments against some of the theories he quoted ; but it seems to 
me that, on such a subject, we can only reason from very slight grounds. 
Having said so much as to the main question involved, — the existence of 
language, as a divine gift, in the first instance, or its being developed 
according to the necessities of the case, I would remark that the doctrine 
