(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.31 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

vine energy.

It never floods and it never dries, but it is ever

the same, flowing down upon all alike.

Is it denied then that men differ as to the amount of the spirit possessed? Is it held that all men have just the same amount of inspiration, that the highly developed spirits have no more of the Divine breath than the lowly developed or undeveloped spirits? By no means. The difference between men is admitted; but this difference, it is said, is due solely to man himself. It is caused by the difference in the receptivity of men. One man is more receptive to God than another, therefore he enjoys more of His spirit.

This receptivity, or rather the difference in this receptivity, is due exclusively to man's own efforts. One man develops a greater capacity for God than another; therefore he receives more of God. Divine inspiration is a great ocean, from which every man's cup is filled, whether it be large or small, but it has nothing to do with the size of the cups. God never directly makes one cup larger than another. He never, for any purpose whatever, directly enlarges the capacity of any man. If one man's cup is larger than another's it is because he makes it larger; if smaller it is because he makes it smaller. All God does is to fill the cups; He has nothing to do with the difference in the size of the cups. When a soul is ready for His spirit He imparts it, but He has no special interest or activity in getting the soul ready. Such is essentially the doctrine of universal inspiration as we understand it. It is that God gives His spirit to all alike, and that the amount each man receives of that spirit depends on the amount of his developed receptivity, and hence that the great leaders of humanity, Confucius, Buddha, Christ, are solely products of natural development.

Now let us admit all the truth there is in this doctrine. Let us admit that it is at least a half truth. Unquestionably there is such a thing as universal inspiration. "He besets us behind and before." "Whither shall I go from Thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from Thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, Thou

art there. If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall Thy hand lead me, and Thy right hand shall hold me." "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being." "I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness, is accepted of Him." How can these Scriptures be true, unless there is such a thing as universal inspiration? How can all souls be ever in the presence of God, and live, and move, and have their being in Him, without being inspired of Him? Clearly then the fact of universal inspiration must be admitted. All men are inspired of God in some degree.

Let us admit further that the degree of this inspiration depends upon the degree of receptivity possessed by each soul. No one can have more of God's spirit than he is capable of receiving. His cup cannot be more than full. He cannot receive what he has no capacity to receive. The amount of God in the world at any time is conditioned upon the receptiveness of the world to God. Still further let us admit that the degree of receptivity depends largely upon human effort. The soul being made for God, it has power to enlarge its own capacity for Him. We can, if we choose, increase without limit our capacity for the spirit of the Highest. "Ask, and shall receive; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you," is the condition, generally speaking, upon which God bestows His spirit. All this let us freely admit,

ye

for without doubt it is all true.

But is this all? Is it the whole truth? Has the shield no other side? Is there no more to be said upon this subject? Will this theory of inspiration explain all the phenomena of the world? Will it interpret human life and history as we know that life and history to be? Will it explain the variety, the low plains and the mountain peaks, of history? If this is all there is to be said, if this thought is sufficient to explain all the phenomena of life and history that depend in any way upon it for an explanation, let us see what follows.

1. It follows that inspiration gives no light upon the question of the variety of human life, of the great inequalities