the faculty of human speech, concerning the origin of which
there have been entertained different opinions among philosophers and
learned men. The Mosaic history, which gives us an account of the
formation and first occupations of man, represents him as being
immediately capable of conversing with his Maker; of giving names to the
various tribes and classes of animals; and of reasoning consecutively,
and in perfectly appropriate terms, concerning his own situation, and
the relation he stood in to the other creatures. As in man’s first
attempt at speech, according to this account, there appear no crudeness
of conception, no barrenness of ideas, and no inexpressive or
unappropriate terms, we must certainly infer, that God who made and
endued him with corporeal and mental powers perfectly suited to his
state and condition in life, endued him, also, not only with the faculty
of speech, but with speech or language itself; which latter was as
necessary to his comfort, and to the perfection and end of his being, as
any other power or faculty which his Creator thought proper to bestow
upon him.
Among the antediluvians there was but one language; and even now the
indications that the various languages of the earth have had one common
source are very convincing. Whether this primitive language was the same
with any of the languages of which we have still any remains, has been a
subject of much dispute. That the primitive language continued at least
till the dispersion of mankind, consequent upon the building of Babel,
there seems little reason to doubt. When, by an immediate interposition
of divine power, the language of men was confounded, we are not informed
to what extent this confusion of tongues prevailed. Under the article
_Confusion of Tongues_ some reasons are given to show that the primitive
language was not lost at that event, but continued in the form of the
Hebrew.
There are, however, other opinions on the oft disputed subject as to the
primitive language. The Armenians allege, that as the ark rested in
their country, Noah and his children must have remained there a
considerable time, before the lower and marshy country of Chaldea could
be fit to receive them; and it is therefore reasonable to suppose they
left their language there, which was probably the very same that Adam
spoke. Some have fancied the Greek the most ancient tongue, because of
its extent and copiousness. The Teutonic, or that dialect of it which is
spoken in the Lower Germany and Brabant, has found a strenuous patron in
Geropius Becanus, who endeavours to derive even the Hebrew itself from
that tongue. The pretensions of the Chinese to this honour have been
allowed by several Europeans. The patrons of this opinion endeavour to
support it, partly, by the great antiquity of the Chinese, and their
having preserved themselves so many ages from any considerable mixture
or intercourse with other nations. It is a notion advanced by Dr. Allix,
and maintained by Mr. Whiston, with his usual tenacity and fervour, that
the Chinese are the posterity of Noah, by his children born after the
flood; and that Fohi, the first king of China, was Noah. As for those
which are called the oriental languages, they have each their partisans.
The generality of eastern writers allow the preference to the Syriac,
except the Jews, who assert the antiquity of the Hebrew with the
greatest warmth; and with them several Christian writers agree,
particularly Chrysostom, Austin, Origen, and Jerome, among the ancients;
and among the moderns, Bochart, Heidegger, Selden, and Buxtorf. The
Sanscrit has also put in its claims; and some have thought that the Pali
bears the character of the highest antiquity. All these are however
useless speculations. The only point worth contending for is, that
language was conveyed at once to the first pair in sufficient degree for
intellectual intercourse with each other, and devotional intercourse
with God; and that man was not left, as infidel writers have been
pleased to say, to form it for himself out of rude and instinctive
sounds. On this subject the remarks of Delaney are conclusive: “That God
made man a sociable creature, does not need to be proved; and that when
he made him such, he withheld nothing from him that was in any wise
necessary for his well being in society, is a clear consequence from the
wisdom and goodness of God; and if he withheld nothing any way necessary
to his well being, much less would he withhold from him that which is
the instrument of the greatest happiness a reasonable creature is
capable of in this world. If the Lord God made ‘Adam a help meet for
him,’ because ‘it was not good for man to be alone,’ can we imagine he
would leave him unfurnished with the means to make that help useful and
delightful to him? If it was not good for him to be alone, certainly
neither was it good for him to have a companion to whom he could not
readily communicate his thoughts, with whom he could neither ease his
anxieties, nor divide or double his joys, by a kind, a friendly, a
reasonable, a religious conversation; and how he could do this in any
degree of perfection, or to any height of rational happiness, is utterly
inconceivable without the use of speech.
“If it be said, that the human organs being admirably fitted for the
formation of articulate sounds, these, with the help of reason, might in
time lead men to the use of language. I own it imaginable that they
might: but still, till that end were attained in perfection, which
possibly might not be in a series of many generations, it must be owned
that brutes were better dealt by, and could better attain all the ends
of their creation. And if that be absurd to be supposed, certainly the
other is not less absurd to be believed. Nay, I think it justly
doubtful, whether, without inspiration from God in this point, man could
ever attain the true ends of his being; at least, if we may judge in
this case, by the example of those nations who, being destitute of the
advantages of a perfect language, are, in all probability, from the
misfortune of that sole defect, sunk into the lowest condition of
barbarism and brutality. And as to the perfection in which the human
organs are framed and fitted for the formation of articulate sounds,
this is clearly an argument for believing that God immediately blessed
man with the use of speech, and gave him wherewithal to exert those
organs to their proper ends; for this is surely as credible, as that
when he gave him an appetite for food, and proper organs to eat and to
digest it, he did not leave him to seek painfully for a necessary
supply, (till his offence had made such a search his curse and
punishment,) but placed him at once in the midst of abundant plenty. The
consequence from all which is, that the perfection and felicity of man,
and the wisdom and goodness of God, necessarily required that Adam
should be supernaturally endowed with the knowledge and use of language.
And therefore, as certain as it can be, that man was made perfect and
happy, and that God is wise and good; so certain is it, that, when Adam
and Eve were formed, they were immediately enabled by God to converse
and communicate their thoughts, in all the perfection of language
necessary to all the ends of their creation. And as this was the conduct
most becoming the goodness of God, so we are assured from Moses, that it
was that to which his infinite wisdom determined him; for we find that
Adam gave names to all the creatures before Eve was formed; and,
consequently, before necessity taught him the use of speech.”
It is true that many languages bear marks of being raised to their
improved state from rude and imperfect elements, and that all are
capable of being enriched and rendered more exact; and it is this which
has given some colour to those theories which trace all language itself
up from elemental sounds, as the necessities of men, their increasing
knowledge, and their imagination led to the invention of new words and
combinations. All this is, however, consistent with the Scripture fact,
that language was taught at first by God to our first parents. The
dispersion of mankind carried many tribes to great distances, and wars
still farther scattered them, and often into wide regions where they
were farther dispersed to live chiefly by the chase, by fishing, or at
best but an imperfect agriculture. In various degrees we know they lost
useful arts; and for the same reasons they would lose much of their
original language; those terms being chiefly retained which their
immediate necessities, and the common affairs of a gross life, kept in
use. But when civilization again overtook these portions of mankind, and
kingdoms and empires were founded among them, or they became integral
parts of the old empires, then their intercourse with each other
becoming more rapid, and artificial, and intellectual, their language
was put into a new process of improvement, and to the eye of the critic
would exhibit the various stages of advancement; and in many it would be
pushed beyond that perfection which it had when it first began to
deteriorate. See LETTERS.
there have been entertained different opinions among philosophers and
learned men. The Mosaic history, which gives us an account of the
formation and first occupations of man, represents him as being
immediately capable of conversing with his Maker; of giving names to the
various tribes and classes of animals; and of reasoning consecutively,
and in perfectly appropriate terms, concerning his own situation, and
the relation he stood in to the other creatures. As in man’s first
attempt at speech, according to this account, there appear no crudeness
of conception, no barrenness of ideas, and no inexpressive or
unappropriate terms, we must certainly infer, that God who made and
endued him with corporeal and mental powers perfectly suited to his
state and condition in life, endued him, also, not only with the faculty
of speech, but with speech or language itself; which latter was as
necessary to his comfort, and to the perfection and end of his being, as
any other power or faculty which his Creator thought proper to bestow
upon him.
Among the antediluvians there was but one language; and even now the
indications that the various languages of the earth have had one common
source are very convincing. Whether this primitive language was the same
with any of the languages of which we have still any remains, has been a
subject of much dispute. That the primitive language continued at least
till the dispersion of mankind, consequent upon the building of Babel,
there seems little reason to doubt. When, by an immediate interposition
of divine power, the language of men was confounded, we are not informed
to what extent this confusion of tongues prevailed. Under the article
_Confusion of Tongues_ some reasons are given to show that the primitive
language was not lost at that event, but continued in the form of the
Hebrew.
There are, however, other opinions on the oft disputed subject as to the
primitive language. The Armenians allege, that as the ark rested in
their country, Noah and his children must have remained there a
considerable time, before the lower and marshy country of Chaldea could
be fit to receive them; and it is therefore reasonable to suppose they
left their language there, which was probably the very same that Adam
spoke. Some have fancied the Greek the most ancient tongue, because of
its extent and copiousness. The Teutonic, or that dialect of it which is
spoken in the Lower Germany and Brabant, has found a strenuous patron in
Geropius Becanus, who endeavours to derive even the Hebrew itself from
that tongue. The pretensions of the Chinese to this honour have been
allowed by several Europeans. The patrons of this opinion endeavour to
support it, partly, by the great antiquity of the Chinese, and their
having preserved themselves so many ages from any considerable mixture
or intercourse with other nations. It is a notion advanced by Dr. Allix,
and maintained by Mr. Whiston, with his usual tenacity and fervour, that
the Chinese are the posterity of Noah, by his children born after the
flood; and that Fohi, the first king of China, was Noah. As for those
which are called the oriental languages, they have each their partisans.
The generality of eastern writers allow the preference to the Syriac,
except the Jews, who assert the antiquity of the Hebrew with the
greatest warmth; and with them several Christian writers agree,
particularly Chrysostom, Austin, Origen, and Jerome, among the ancients;
and among the moderns, Bochart, Heidegger, Selden, and Buxtorf. The
Sanscrit has also put in its claims; and some have thought that the Pali
bears the character of the highest antiquity. All these are however
useless speculations. The only point worth contending for is, that
language was conveyed at once to the first pair in sufficient degree for
intellectual intercourse with each other, and devotional intercourse
with God; and that man was not left, as infidel writers have been
pleased to say, to form it for himself out of rude and instinctive
sounds. On this subject the remarks of Delaney are conclusive: “That God
made man a sociable creature, does not need to be proved; and that when
he made him such, he withheld nothing from him that was in any wise
necessary for his well being in society, is a clear consequence from the
wisdom and goodness of God; and if he withheld nothing any way necessary
to his well being, much less would he withhold from him that which is
the instrument of the greatest happiness a reasonable creature is
capable of in this world. If the Lord God made ‘Adam a help meet for
him,’ because ‘it was not good for man to be alone,’ can we imagine he
would leave him unfurnished with the means to make that help useful and
delightful to him? If it was not good for him to be alone, certainly
neither was it good for him to have a companion to whom he could not
readily communicate his thoughts, with whom he could neither ease his
anxieties, nor divide or double his joys, by a kind, a friendly, a
reasonable, a religious conversation; and how he could do this in any
degree of perfection, or to any height of rational happiness, is utterly
inconceivable without the use of speech.
“If it be said, that the human organs being admirably fitted for the
formation of articulate sounds, these, with the help of reason, might in
time lead men to the use of language. I own it imaginable that they
might: but still, till that end were attained in perfection, which
possibly might not be in a series of many generations, it must be owned
that brutes were better dealt by, and could better attain all the ends
of their creation. And if that be absurd to be supposed, certainly the
other is not less absurd to be believed. Nay, I think it justly
doubtful, whether, without inspiration from God in this point, man could
ever attain the true ends of his being; at least, if we may judge in
this case, by the example of those nations who, being destitute of the
advantages of a perfect language, are, in all probability, from the
misfortune of that sole defect, sunk into the lowest condition of
barbarism and brutality. And as to the perfection in which the human
organs are framed and fitted for the formation of articulate sounds,
this is clearly an argument for believing that God immediately blessed
man with the use of speech, and gave him wherewithal to exert those
organs to their proper ends; for this is surely as credible, as that
when he gave him an appetite for food, and proper organs to eat and to
digest it, he did not leave him to seek painfully for a necessary
supply, (till his offence had made such a search his curse and
punishment,) but placed him at once in the midst of abundant plenty. The
consequence from all which is, that the perfection and felicity of man,
and the wisdom and goodness of God, necessarily required that Adam
should be supernaturally endowed with the knowledge and use of language.
And therefore, as certain as it can be, that man was made perfect and
happy, and that God is wise and good; so certain is it, that, when Adam
and Eve were formed, they were immediately enabled by God to converse
and communicate their thoughts, in all the perfection of language
necessary to all the ends of their creation. And as this was the conduct
most becoming the goodness of God, so we are assured from Moses, that it
was that to which his infinite wisdom determined him; for we find that
Adam gave names to all the creatures before Eve was formed; and,
consequently, before necessity taught him the use of speech.”
It is true that many languages bear marks of being raised to their
improved state from rude and imperfect elements, and that all are
capable of being enriched and rendered more exact; and it is this which
has given some colour to those theories which trace all language itself
up from elemental sounds, as the necessities of men, their increasing
knowledge, and their imagination led to the invention of new words and
combinations. All this is, however, consistent with the Scripture fact,
that language was taught at first by God to our first parents. The
dispersion of mankind carried many tribes to great distances, and wars
still farther scattered them, and often into wide regions where they
were farther dispersed to live chiefly by the chase, by fishing, or at
best but an imperfect agriculture. In various degrees we know they lost
useful arts; and for the same reasons they would lose much of their
original language; those terms being chiefly retained which their
immediate necessities, and the common affairs of a gross life, kept in
use. But when civilization again overtook these portions of mankind, and
kingdoms and empires were founded among them, or they became integral
parts of the old empires, then their intercourse with each other
becoming more rapid, and artificial, and intellectual, their language
was put into a new process of improvement, and to the eye of the critic
would exhibit the various stages of advancement; and in many it would be
pushed beyond that perfection which it had when it first began to
deteriorate. See LETTERS.