[23] It should be, “to all living creatures;” for each creature had, probably, but one name.—­G.  Brown.

[24] Some recent German authors of note suppose language to have sprung up among men of itself, like spontaneous combustion in oiled cotton; and seem to think, that people of strong feelings and acute minds must necessarily or naturally utter their conceptions by words—­and even by words both spoken and written.  Frederick Von Schlegel, admitting “the spontaneous origin of language generally,” and referring speech to its “original source—­a deep feeling, and a clear discriminating intelligence,” adds:  “The oldest system of writing developed itself at the same time, and in the same manner, as the spoken language; not wearing at first the symbolic form, which it subsequently assumed in compliance with the necessities of a less civilized people, but composed of certain signs, which, in accordance with the simplest elements of language, actually conveyed the sentiments of the race of men then existing.”—­Millington’s Translation of Schlegel’s AEsthetic Works, p. 455.

[25] “Modern Europe owes a principal share of its enlightened and moral state to the restoration of learning:  the advantages which have accrued to history, religion, the philosophy of the mind, and the progress of society; the benefits which have resulted from the models of Greek and Roman taste—­in short, all that a knowledge of the progress and attainments of man in past ages can bestow on the present, has reached it through the medium of philology.”—­Dr. Murray’s History of European Languages, Vol.  II, p. 335.

[26] “The idea of God is a development from within, and a matter of faith, not an induction from without, and a matter of proof.  When Christianity has developed its correlative principles within us, then we find evidences of its truth everywhere; nature is full of them:  but we cannot find them before, simply because we have no eye to find them with.”—­H.  N. HUDSON:  Democratic Review, May, 1845.

[27] So far as mind, soul, or spirit, is a subject of natural science, (under whatever name,) it may of course be known naturally.  To say to what extent theology may be considered a natural science, or how much knowledge of any kind may have been opened to men otherwise than by words, is not now in point.  Dr. Campbell says, “Under the general term [physiology] I also comprehend natural theology and psychology, which, in my opinion, have been most unnaturally disjoined by philosophers.  Spirit, which here comprises only the Supreme Being and the human soul, is surely as much included under the notion of natural object as a body is, and is knowable to the philosopher purely in the same way, by observation and experience.”—­Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 66.  It is quite unnecessary for the teacher of languages to lead his pupils into any speculations on this subject.  It is equally foreign to the history of grammar and to the philosophy of rhetoric.