cuous and natural order: the sentence contains a great many circumstances and adverbs, says Dr. Blair, which are necessary to qualify the meaning; only, secretly, as well, perhaps, now, with justice, formerly; yet these are placed with so much art, as neither to embarrass nor weaken the sentence; while that which is the capital object in it, viz. "Poets being justly esteemed the best and most honourable among authors," comes out clear and detached, and possesses its proper place.

Let us take another sentence, and one of different construction:

"Remember well,

The noble lessons by affliction taught:
Preserve the quick humanity it gives,
The pitying social sense of human weakness;
Yet keep thy generous fortitude entire,
The manly heart, that to another's woe
Is tender as superior to its own."

This sentence may be viewed either as presenting one entire picture of the speaker's mind, at the time when he commenced the sentence, or as exhibiting the progress of his mind as the sentence proceeds. In the former instance, the members of the sentence would be completely united, and this would be indicated by the speaker's utterance: that is to say, the third and fourth lines would be pronounced as a concession, and the fifth line as the assertion following it. According to this method of interpreting the meaning of the sentence, the voice would seem to connect the parts before and after the concession and assertion, with as much perspicuity as though the construction had been assisted by something like the following intervening parts of speech :

"Remember well,

The noble lessons by affliction taught:

(that is, while you)

Preserve the quick humanity it gives,

The pitying, social sense of human weakness:

Yet (remember to) keep thy generous fortitude entire,
(because) The manly heart, that to another's woe

Is tender as superior to its own."

But if the sentence be viewed as exhibiting the progress and modification of the speaker's mind as he proceeds in the utterance of it, the members of the sentence would be detached, and this would be signified by the inflexions of the voice. Thus, the following two lines, "Preserve the quick humanity it gives,

The pitying social sense of human weakness;" Would not be viewed as a concession, but rather as an amplification of the words which they follow: viz.

"Remember well

The noble lessons by affliction taught:"

And the succeeding clause,

"Yet keep thy generous fortitude entire,"

Would not signify an assertion; it would be merely an addition, or correction. The concluding two lines, assume the office of explaining the amplification and correction; i. e. the lines which they immediately follow. This method of reading the passage is altogether colloquial, and very unlike that which has been before explained. And though the procedure of thought is dif ferent, yet it may easily be perceived, that the sum total of thought or meaning in either, is the same. Now let it be asked, what WORD or individual expression could be adopted to correspond with this varied procedure of

thought and intellect? It is plain that the most simple sentence, whether it be affirmative or negative, cannot be formed without a sign, either expressed or understood, to signify the life and being of the substantive. "The sun shines." Though the assertion in this sentence were to be denied, the process, as far as relates to the signifying of the life and being of the substantive, is the same. The sun shines not. If the part of speech shines be omitted, and the negation be immediately annexed to the substantive, viz. "The sun not," and this be called a sentence, the meaning would not be the direct contrary of that in the former sentence, viz. The sun shines, but according to the Hebrew idiom, it would be reduced to-The sun is not-the simple, or primitive sign of affirmation, is, being understood. In the first instance of language, the primitive part of speech, the substantive, was, doubtless, a virtual sentence; the verb, or life of the substantive, being implied by gesticulation. The most simple sentence which can be devised, as expressive of the most elementary thought or proposition, must be composed, therefore, of at least. two signs or parts of speech; that is to say, the substantive and the verb, one of them expressed, and the other either expressed or understood: it follows, that as ONE WORD or individual sign, having no relation to another word or sign understood, is insufficient for the purpose of communicating the most elementary thought or proposition; so ONE WORD or individual sign cannot be sufficient for the purpose of communicating the varied procedure of thought and intellect, as employed in logical and rhetorical science, and as exhibited in the construction of almost every sentence composed of alphabetic

words. Here the present point of discussion ends, and with it I transcribe the language of Dr. Blair:

"Did men always think clearly," says this author, "and were they, at the same time, fully masters of the language in which they write, they would then, of course, acquire all those properties of precision, unity, and strength, which are so much recommended. For we may rest assured, that whenever we express ourselves ill, there is, besides the mismanagement of language, for the most part, some mistake in our manner of conceiving the subject. Embarrassed, obscure, and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed, obscure, and feeble thought. Thought and language act and re-act upon each other mutually. Logic and rhetoric have here, as in many other cases, a strict connexion; and he that has learning to arrange his sentences with accuracy and order, has learning at the same time, to think with accuracy and order."

CHAP. X.

Question respecting the origin of language--was it invented by man, or was it revealed to him by his Creator?-atheistical philosophy-remarks of Johnson-Selkirk-Juan Fernandez-the young man caught in the woods of Hanover-in France-arguments drawn from these circumstances, and from Genesis, chap. 1.-the knowledge and use of any language to be improved by an acquaintance with other languages-primitive language-the Scriptures afford the safest arguments respecting the transmission of it-writers on this subject not corresponding in their opinions-the claims of different nations-Arabians-Syrians-Ethiopians-Armenians and the Jews-etymology of names considered-the name of Babel-and the names which are assigned by Moses to eastern countries, &c.-proved by Mr. Maurice to be the very names by which they were anciently known over all the east.

THERE are questions yet remaining, which seem to be justly related to the topics already discussed, and which are closely connected with an inquiry concerning the nature and philosophy of language. It is interesting to know, by what means, in the first ages of the world, did man learn to speak? Was language invented by man, or was it revealed to him by his Creator? Next to these questions, in point of interest, is that respecting the primitive language;-Has the primitive language been transmitted to the latter ages, or is it extinct? In pursuing these topics, we shall be naturally led to a consideration of those circumstances which caused the changes and the diversity of tongues.

Respecting the origin of language, there can be but two opinions: either language must have been invented by man, or it must have been revealed to him by his Creator.

The ancient and modern professors of atheistical philosophy represent the faculty of articulate speech, or