361 
of the evolution of language does not in any way support the theory that 
the human creature is evolved from the lower animals. Man is distinguished 
by his intellect and conscience, and by those ideas he possesses, which 
cannot be traced in lower animals. An interesting comparison between the 
incidents of religion and language was elaborated in the first head of the 
lecture, and an inference drawn therefrom that they are inseparable, ex- 
hibiting diversity in unity. From this tenet I dissent. Religion and 
language, inasmuch as they are properties of a particular being, may, when 
that being is compared with others, exhibit much in common. But, as 
properties, they are essentially distinct. Natural religion binds man to his 
Maker ; language may connect him with his fellow. In the former the con- 
science dimly apprehends the Infinite, and manifests its truth and honesty by 
actions. In the latter a different subjective faculty, intellect, or reason, and 
not faith or spirit, predominates, and may end in talk. The most silent men 
may be the most genuinely pious, while the infidel may carry off the prize in 
logomachy. Again, the literature of the religions of Mahomet, Buddha, and 
Brahma — Confucius is by some called a philosopher, and not a religionist — 
may be highly intellectual, while their practices and ritual are most degrading. 
Or, supposing true religion is essentially connected, false religion, on account 
of its falsity, cannot be. But not wishing to play with words instead of 
sentiments, I prefer, to pursuing the last argument, to thank the lecturer for 
the pains he has taken, and for the large amount of information he has laid 
before us in so pleasant a form. As to which was the primeval language, 
I do not think we can decide that, although some have ventured to do so ; 
some advocates for Hebrew basing their theory on the fact that Eber lived 
at the dispersion. 
Mr. D. Howard, F.C.S. — There is so much in the paper we have just heard 
that it is difficult to know where to begin and where to leave off. I think 
that the point which the last speaker has handled so ably is a curious and 
interesting one, and one which I hope Mr. Brown will endeavour to work 
out and give us the benefit of, namely, — What necessary connexion is there 
between religion and the moral sense and language ? There is, I think, a 
very subtle connexion between thought and language. Undoubtedly western 
thought and language have acted and interacted one on the other, and it is 
a very curious historical question, as well as a mental question of the present 
day, — How far are our modes of thought governed by our modes of speech l 
If you trace through the various families of the human race, you find the 
same great differences in the modes of thought caused by differences in the 
modes of speech ; while there are great differences in the modes of speech 
caused by differences in the modes of thought. If we trace this peculiarity 
back, it will probably throw a vast amount of light on the history of man- 
kind, and I should be far from thinking lightly of the hint the lecturer has 
given us, namely, as to how far the modes of religious thought — I 
do not mean in the sense of natural as against revealed religion — are 
caused by modes of religious expression. There may be two ways of 
