nor singular; and being supported by such respectable authorities, I may say the concurring testimony of all ancient authors who have treated the subject, is, I think, entitled to a fair and candid examination, which, however, it cannot expect from vulgar prejudice, but only from men of liberal thought, and more than common learning; and it is for such only that I write." The author did not here mean to intimate that he himself entertained a shadow of doubt on the subject. On the contrary, he fully believed everything that he has advanced. "The orang-outangs (says he) are proved to be of our species by marks of humanity that I think are incontestable." (Ibid., p. 375.)

Now although his Lordship has exposed himself to much ridicule for having thus gratuitously provided his ancestors with tails, and has thereby brought his system somewhat into disrepute, yet we cannot help thinking that he has pursued quite as logical and philosophical a course as others have done, who, commencing with the same general premises, have yet stopped short of the same pleasant results. He has accomplished in this department of science what Berkley and Hume effected in metaphysics. He has reasoned consistently upon false, but hitherto almost undisputed principles. has arrived, by a legitimate process of induction and argumentation from unquestioned data, at conclusions, which shock as extravagant, or provoke laughter or pity as ridiculous or absurd. The true dignity of man, and his original character and condition, will probably be better understood and appreciated, in consequence of his

He

learned labours to degrade him. His book may possibly open the eyes of many, who will startle at what appears monstrous, while otherwise they might not choose to suspect the soundness of commonly received dogmas.

We could as soon go all lengths with Monboddo, as subscribe to the following statement or position of Adam Ferguson, in his Essay on Civil Society: "The individual in every age, has the same race to run from infancy to manhood, and every infant or ignorant person now, is a model of what man was in his original state." He evidently intends to avoid the extravagance of the former, and of the ultra Epicureans, for he adds, a few pages after: "If there was a time in which he had his acquaintance with his own species to make, and his faculties to acquire, it is a time of which we have no record, and in relation to which our opinions can serve no purpose, and are supported by no evidence." This is put hypothetically. It may, or it may not have been so. We know little or nothing about the matter, according to this sagacious political philosopher and able historian.

Again, in the progress of his work, he presents us with another view of the subject, a little modified, indeed, but in the main sufficiently consistent with the one already cited. "The inhabitants of Britain, at the time of the first Roman invasions, resembled, in many things, the present natives of North America; they were ignorant of agriculture, they painted their bodies, and used for clothing the skins of beasts. Such, therefore, appears to have been the commencement of history with all nations,

and in such circumstances are we to look for the original character of mankind."*

Dr. Beattie, speaking of the system of Epicurus, which had found so powerful an advocate in his erudite but eccentric countryman and contemporary, has the following very just observations:-"One would wonder, (says he,) what charms men could find in a system so degrading to our nature; or what evidence in that which has no other foundation than poetical fancy and wild hypothesis. The Pagans, indeed, who knew little of the origin of mankind, might be excused for favouring an opinion, which, as it appears in Lucretius, has at least harmonious numbers and elegant descriptions to recommend it. And yet, unseduced by poetical allurement, Quinctilian declares, in the language of true philosophy, that moral sentiments are natural to us, and that men had speech from the beginning, and received that choice gift from their Creator. And Ovid's beautiful account of the first men seems to have been composed, partly from Hesiod's Golden Age, and partly from traditions founded on the Mosaic history of the creation; that we were at first good and happy, and lost our felicity when we lost our innocence.-Is it not an idea more honourable to our nature, more friendly to virtue, and more consonant to the general notions of mankind, than that we were in the beginning a species of wild beast, and afterwards by improvement degenerated into wicked and wretched men? If there be, in the con

* Ferguson's Essay on Civil Society, p. 125. See also Robertson's History of America, vol. ii. pp. 34-51, where a similar opinion is maintained. Also Millot's Ancient History, at beginning.

sciousness of honourable descent, anything that elevates the soul, surely those writings cannot be on the side of virtue which represent our nature, and our origin, as such as we should have reason to be ashamed of. But he who tells me, upon the authority of Scripture, and agreeably to the dictates of right reason, that we were all descended from beings, who were created in the image of God, wise, innocent and happy; that, by their and our unworthy conduct, human nature is miserably degraded; but that on the performance of certain most reasonable conditions, we may retrieve our primitive dignity, and rise even to higher happiness than that of our first parents;-the man, I say, who teaches this doctrine, sets before me the most animating motives to virtue, humility and hope, to piety and benevolence, to gratitude and adoration." (Beattie's Theory of Language, p. 100.)

Again, he says: "We learn to speak, when our organs are most flexible, and our powers of imitation most active; that is, when we are infants. Yet even then, this is no easy acquisition, but the effect of daily exercise continued for several years from morning to night. Were we never to attempt speech till we are grown up, there is reason to think that we should find it exceedingly difficult, if not impracticable."

Mute savages have been found in deserts and forests who never could be taught to speak. In every language there are certain peculiar accents and articulate sounds which they only can pronounce with ease or accuracy, who have learned to do so when very young. "If, then, there ever was a time, when all mankind were mutum et turpe

pecus, a dumb and brutal race of animals, all mankind must, in the ordinary course of things, have continued dumb to this day.-For, to such animals speech could not be necessary; as they are supposed to have existed for ages without it; and it is not to be imagined, that dumb and beastly savages would ever think of contriving unnecessary arts, whereof they had no example in the world around them." Further, according to Dr. Johnson: "Speech, if invented at all, must have been invented, either by children, who were incapable of invention, or by men, who were incapable of speech." "And therefore reason, as well as history, intimates that mankind in all ages must have been speaking animals; the young having constantly acquired this art by imitating those who were elder. And we may warrantably suppose, that our first parents must have received it by immediate inspiration." (Beattie.)

Indeed, no other account of the origin of language is rational or philosophical, or even plausible,-to say nothing of Scripture. When it is said that our first parents must have received the art of speech by immediate inspiration, it is not necessary to suppose that the Creator inspired them with any particular original or primitive language; but that he made them fully sensible of the power with which they were endued of forming articulate sounds, gave them an impulse to exert it, and left the arbitrary imposition of words to their own choice. But however this might be, we find Adam in fact, as soon as created, giving names to all animals, and holding converse with his Maker, and with his Maker's