279 
(iii.) Dr. Thornton says : — I think that Dr. Bavlee wants to point out that 
the language of Scripture is very peculiar. 
Reply . — The leading object of my observations on the Hebrew language 
was to deal with it on the same principles as other languages, viz., — to 
examine its structure, and its usus loquendi. 
(iv.) Dr. Thornton thinks that the question of language was fully discussed 
on a former occasion, when he read a Paper on the Logic of Scepticism ; and 
that Dr. Bay lee cannot have read the Journal of Transactions. 
Reply . — I read that Paper carefully, but do not think it would be quite in 
place to criticise it here, as my sole object is to defend my own statements. 
Nothing was further from my thoughts than to assume any previous writer’s 
ignorance of the science of comparative philology. I am thankful to say I 
had in view a much higher object. 
(v.) Dr. Thornton thinks “ that the language which it pleased God to give 
to us first was a language very similar to Chinese, a monosyllabic language 
capable of inflection, and of all sorts of richness, but still originally monosyl- 
labic, derived from the imitation of the sounds of animals, or from the result 
of man’s action on himself, and on all around him.” 
Reply . — This is a conjecture wholly unsupported by any known language, 
and at variance with all ascertained facts. 
(vi.) Dr. Thornton says : — Dr. Baylee, however, apparently considers that 
the Hebrew tongue was revealed to mankind, and that the Biblical Hebrew 
in which the Pentateuch was written was exactly the language in which 
Adam conversed with Eve. 
Reply. — I do not think that God revealed a language to Adam beyond 
such limits as to enable Adam to receive the necessary admonitions and in- 
structions which belonged to his primeval state. I consider the language of 
the Pentateuch to be a considerable modification and enlargement of that 
limited primeval language, retaining its original features. 
II. — Mr. Warington. 
(vii.) Mr. Warington says : — “Dr. Baylee gives us a curious argument to 
prove that Hebrew is the primeval language. He tells us that the names of 
Adam and Eve, of Cain and Abel, are all significant in Hebrew, and that 
they are not so even in the cognate languages.” 
Reply . — In attempting to deal with the argument, Mr. Warington could 
only find two names which he even alleged to have cognates. Mr. Waring- 
ton’s failure in all the rest confirms the validity of my assertion. The following 
test will enable the reader to judge for himself : — Adam : man in the divine 
image. Seth : substituted by. Enosh : man in misery. Cainan : lamenting. 
Mahalaleel : the Blessed God. Jared : shall come down. Enoch : teaching. 
Methuselah : his death shall send. Larnech : to the smitten. Noah : conso- 
lation. Mr. Warington has referred to Persian, Greek, Arabic, Syriac, 
Sanscrit, and German. Let him write out those proper names in any one 
of these languages and show them to make a significant sense, and then, but 
