matical forms in these two families seem to have been known but once, by the creative power of an individual mind.' Now, that individual minds should have thrown out such 'primitive works of human art,' and left their stamp upon them for so many thousands of years, proves this much, at least, that minds there were in that primitive time capable of higher intellectual effort than has at any time since been evinced or exerted; and if the Aryan and Semitic forms are due 'to the creative power of an individual mind,' how thence is it to be proved that man invented the first language? If the Aryan and Semitic branches of language be but dialects of some earlier form of speech, that earlier form is still more likely to have presented evidence of the creative power of an individual mind.' But as each dialect of language must have had the advantage of a preceding example of speech, wherein the power of an individual mind was evident in its structure, the power of mind exhibited in the formation of a new dialect would have been exercised rather in the way of imitation than of creation. And as each new growth of variation in language was at most but a varied branch springing either from some other branch or direct from the original stock.or stem, that original must have been more surely the direct production of an individual mind than any of its branches. Therefore, as man has never shown himself capable of inventing a language or discovering one, but, at best, can only regulate by art the grammatical outgrowth of such spontaneous modifications of language as may

arise from change, admixture, loss, confusion, and imitation, we infer that the first language was not invented by man, but was actually taught to man by the creative Mind in actual converse with the human mind, according to the narrative which supplies the Presence and the Voice, as if essential to the conception of man's first condition as endowed with full reason and instructed to speak.

Doubtless, had man been inspired with wisdom to construct language and grammar for himself, the origin of language would be still in a very direct sense Divine. But as man is really not endowed by nature with any faculty ready for use without education, and as an adult and mature man, perfect in form and brain, would be absolutely without intelligence but as derived from instruction, it is more consonant with man's nature to conclude that he learnt language, not by his own unaided power of mind from creation, but from the Creator Himself, who always accommodates man in a manner unneeded by other creatures, that is by peculiar and even so-called miraculous interventions appropriate to his condition. This view of the matter is but consistent. It brings humanity more immediately into ' its right place, into fellowship with Divinity, into contact personally with the Life that is the Light of man. It is but the beginning of the fulfilment of man's created right, by which he claims to be a pupil of the Divine Logos. It is like Him that He by voice and presence should instruct man, when otherwise man inust have been but as a yearning soul left in utter destitution,

surrounded by a speechless solitude, with all to learn and none to teach; with faculties of reason, if awakened only to feel the burden of the mystery of all this unintelligible world,' like the heavens upon Atlas, an unmeaning weight and vastness, crushing the might of a lonely spirit to no purpose.

277

CHAPTER XXII.

THE PRIMEVAL LANGUAGE.

It is impossible to discover what was the structure and grammar of the primeval language, but there is something in the nature and character of the Hebrew which has induced many profound thinkers, as well as great scholars, to believe that, or a language of similar formation, the language first uttered. As Max Müller observes, it seems to be the production of an individual mind; a rational design runs through its whole formation. If, as some assert, it is unfit for the use of a speculative philosophy, it is so only because it is so perfectly adapted to express what is positive in relation to nature and to man. Since it is so completely in keeping with the nature of things as to be fully equal to the expression of all known qualities of mind and matter, it looks as if formed on scientific principles. No language can possibly be more simple, and yet none can be more comprehensive. While capable of expressing all conditions of things, it is also peculiarly adapted to express thought as well as emotion. It is evidently built up, shaped, adjusted, and regulated in a manner that could not possibly be unintentional or accidental.

All its native roots are formed of three consonants, with their inherent vowels, making two syllables, a fact in itself strongly indicative of design. Oken observes, in his usual oracular manner, that the most perfect language is that in which the consonants always hold their own vowels as space does time, never allowing the utterance of a vowel without a consonant.' * Judged of according to this principle, the Hebrew is the paragon of tongues, since it not only excludes the utterance of a vowel without a consonant, but by the vowels also expresses the grammatical and local relation of each word in a sentence. Thus, Hebrew is in thorough contrast with the speech of savages, in which detached vowels always abound, seemingly for the very reason that a vowel standing alone is an inarticulate sound, caught, as if without effort, to utter feeling without thought, as with brutes. Of all Semitic tongues the grammatical structure of the Hebrew is clearly the most ancient. Hence, of many forms the origin is still visible in Hebrew, whilst all traces of it are effaced in the sis ter dialects.'t 'A great number of Semitish roots are found also in the languages of the Indo-Germanic stock.' The affinity between Semitish and Indo-Germanic roots has been fully exhibited in the Latin edition of Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon.' Thus the extreme antiquity of Hebrew asserts itself.

It is a remarkable circumstance that the Hebrew has no

* Physio-Philosophy, § 2899.

† Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, Introduction.

Ibid.