and their enactments exhibit a jurisprudence shaped and modelled by thinking men. These laws remained virtually the same under the Roman dominion. The tenure of land and trial by jury were in force long before the advent of the Saxon. The story that Alfred instituted the jury system, like other stories concerning him, is false. He was never king of England, but was a subregulus and tributary to the king of Denmark. His title of "the Great" is of comparatively modern invention. Juries of twelve were familiar to the Britons before the Roman invasion. The common law of England even at this day is the same as it has been from time immemorial. The same laws pervaded all the Keltic nations of the Isles, thus showing a direct identity. The law of gavel-kind, in Kent, and other parts which ordains, among other things, that a father's inheritance shall be equally divided among all his sons, is purely Keltic, and was in force all over Wales until the time of Henry VIII. No such law was ever known in Germany. The derivation of the word is purely Keltic: gavael means a hold, a grasp, and kind, probably from cenedl, a tribe, a nation. The British laws have always permitted a female sovereign; and at a very early date a queen ruled over West Anglia. The Saxons never permitted a female ruler.

26

Another problem must engage the attention of the ethnologist, and legitimately belongs in this discussion: Were the Saxon invaders more or less tinctured with Keltic blood? There are physical, historical and philological reasons for this belief. Of the first both have in common self-assertion, courage, hospitality, and power of generalization. Of the second much depends upon the Cimbri, defeated in the battle of Vercellæ, by Marius, in the year 101 B.C. They were probably Kelts. Did they march into north-west Germany, and there find a temporary rest?

Some ethnologists believe that the original home of the Kelts was beyond the Sea of Aral; 27 that from thence two 26 Some Keltic scholars think it probable that kind is from the Anglo-Saxon cind, kindred, relation. If so it only enforces the argument of amalgamation.

27 While there was unquestionably a great Keltic migration over Europe, I think Latham (see Prichard's "Celtic Nations") has clearly shown that the migration did not begin so far east. "Might not both Keltic and Sanskrit have been propagated from some intermediate point? Is not the Indus as far from the Severn as the Severn from the Indus?" (p. 382.)

streams of migrations started westward, the earlier one along the coast of northern Africa, thence into Spain, France, Italy, Greece, and finally spending its force in the Crimea. The second stream poured over central Russia, Scandinavia, Denmark, North Germany, thence into the British Isles, and from there one arm extended into France, thus uniting with the former migration. It is not necessary to suppose that the Keltic or any other migration swept over Europe like an avalanche. It is simply the gradual spreading or crowding process. As the advance is made the farther removed is it from the point of beginning, - regarding location, manners, or customs. Communication for a while may be kept up by means of runners; but eventually this must give way. Energy, pluck, perseverance, thrift move in the vanguard. The slow, staid, inflexible and indifferent remain. New impulses create new energies, which in turn produce new methods of thought, although a certain degree of unity pervades all. This would be more patent in religion than in any other form. Thus Druidism finds some of its expressions in the religions of Central Asia.

The various steps of migration above spoken of may be traced in the names left behind. Those relating to Germany only come within the limits of this consideration. No person is more competent to express an opinion than Leo.28 He states that the name of almost every river in North Germany is of Keltic origin. Among them are Lahn, Argana, Meina. Oder, Durbach, Dürrenbach, Duren, Rhine, Regen, etc. The line of migration passed through that country which afterwards is supposed to have been occupied by the ancient Saxons. When the great Gothic streams began to pour over Europe, it is reasonable to suppose that attempts were made to resist this mighty wave; but it is not even probable that those occupying the soil were literally put to the sword. If the Kelts had belonged to an entirely distinct stock, then it would be more than probable that the entire race was either driven out or else put to the sword. But belonging to the same great stock

28 Vorlesungen über die Gesh. des. Deutschen Volkes. Vol. I. p. 198.

(Indo-European), after the strife had ended, the remnants would gradually be swallowed up by the stronger power.

In that wonderful dictionary 29 of great and patient research, Dr. Charles Mackay discusses about thirty-six hundred 30 words of Gaelic origin alone. These words are shown to be in the languages of Western Europe, although especially in the English and Lowland Scotch. This would lend strength to the declaration of certain philologists of the last century, that fully one-third of our existing English is Keltic. It is more than probable that many words still assigned to the Saxon, on closer inspection will be discovered to belong to the older tongue.

To those who have not investigated the points here presented it might seem that extravagant claims have been made. The Keltic tongue takes a much wider range, and by some of the best philologists is considered of primal importance, as may be witnessed in Huddleston's Preface to Toland's "History of the Druids," 1814. "That the Celtic is a dialect of the primary language of Asia has received the sanction of that celebrated philologist, the late Professor Murray, in his Prospectus to the Philosophy of Language. That the Celts were the aborigines of Europe, and their language the aboriginal one, even Pinkarton himself is forced to admit:

"It is a point, on all hands conceded, that neither colonies nor conquerors can annihilate the aboriginal language of a country. So true is this that, even at the present day, the Celtic names still existing over the greater part of Europe,

29 Gaelic Etymology of the Languages of Western Europe. 1877. 30 This is my estimate of the number.

81 The English contains at this day such a collection of Celtic terms as nothing but an actual collation of the languages could induce us to believe. Many words, indeed, have been undoubtedly lost in one dialect, and so left the kindred terms of the other without any trace of the original correspondence. At present many English terms of a Celtic original, also, have had their descent effectually disguised by the primitive inflections of later substitutions of their constituent letters; and yet besides these, besides the many Celtic words which might assuredly be discovered in the English in a stricter examination of both languages, and besides such as an author is afraid to produce lest he should seem to his own judgment to be fancifully overstraining the point, and catching at ideal similarities, there remains a large catalogue of 3000 British terms even now in the English." Whittaker's "History of Manchester," Vol. III. p. 238.

and even in Asia itself, afford sufficient data whereby to determine the prevalence of the Celtic language, the wide extent of their ancient territories, and their progress from east to west. The Roman language unquestionably derives its affinity to the Sanskrit through the medium of the Celtic; and to any one who pays minute attention to the subject it will appear self-evident that the Doric dialect of the Greek, founded on the Celtic, laid the foundation of the language of Rome. The Gothic, over the whole extent of Germany and the greater part of Britain and Ireland; the Phoenician, or Moorish, in Spain, etc., are, all of them, merely recent superinductions ingrafted on the Celtic, the aboriginal root. Conquerors generally alter the form or exterior of the language of the conquered to their own idiom; but the basis or ground work is always that of the aboriginal language. The Roman language Gothicized produced the Italian. The Celtic in Gaul (with an admixture of the lingua rustica Romana) Gothicized produced the French. The old British (a dialect of the Celtic) Saxonized produced the English, etc. Whoever would rear a philological system radically sound (as far at least as regards the languages of Europe) must, therefore, commence with the Celtic, otherwise he will derive the cause from the effect, the root from the branches.'"

Thus it may be seen that upon physical, ethnological and philological grounds, the English people are only in part derived from the Saxons, and hence the term Anglo-Saxon is a misnomer. Even should it be admitted, for the sake of the argument, that the Saxon Chronicles, Asser's "Life of Alfred the Great," and other apocryphal writings, are authentic, it would by no means invalidate the conclusion. Even if the story of Gildas be correct, that the natives were put to the sword, the constant influx of Keltic blood from the Highlands of Scotland, Isle of Man, Ireland, Wales, and Cornwall, would justify the appellation Kelto-Saxon to the English people. Rev. J. P. MacLean.

NEW SERIES. VOL. XXIV

21

ARTICLE XX.

Inspiration.

PART II.

IN a former part we considered the subject of inspiration. We showed that all Divine inbreathing may be called an inspiration, even to that whereby man became a living soul. But man being constituted a living soul by the Divine Spirit, we showed that God can and does inspire him in four ways: through nature, through history, or the experience of men as moral beings, through highly developed or exalted spirits, and directly by the touch of His own spirit. We then explained that this direct or immediate inspiration is inspiration proper, inspiration in a primary sense; that all other inspiration is so only in a secondary sense. We then showed that it was concerning this immediate or direct inspiration that conflicting views prevailed, some claiming that it is universal, others that it is special. We then made a study of the mediate or indirect inspiration, with the view of ascertaining whether this inspiration is universal, or special, or both. We found that

it is both; that in nature, in history, in highly developed spirits, there is that which answers to both universal and special inspiration. The question before us now, therefore, is, Is this true of inspiration proper, of direct or immediate inspiration? Is this inspiration universal, or special, or both? Does God directly inspire all men alike, or does He inspire some and not others, or does He, while inspiring all, inspire some more than others?

To answer this let us first get as clear a view as possible of the theory of the universal inspirationist. It is that God's inspiration is absolutely the same always and everywhere, that He inspires all men precisely alike, that He never gives one man any more of His spirit than He does another. By no sort of special volition does God ever enrich the world by His truth and life. God pours His spirit upon the world as the sun pours its light and heat, in an unvarying stream of Di