two, six, or even ten years, engaged, but not venturing to wed. "But at any rate," Mr. Buckle would here interpose, "the majority of these prudent pairs did ultimately get married in a year of plenty." Of course they did. Between a good harvest and a bad harvest there is financially the difference to Britain of not less than two millions sterling. In such prosperity hundreds, nay thousands, become (either directly or indirectly) participants. The peer finds his rents coming in easily his tenants do not beg for an abatement of ten or fifteen per cent; and he intimates to one of his younger sons, that the engagement with that fair but scantily-dowered lady, which had hitherto been frowned upon, now receives his sanction, and may forthwith blossom into matrimony. The farmer informs his daughter that the preparations for her long-deferred wedding may now commence in good earnest, as he can this year spare something wherewith to stock the little farm on which she and her betrothed have long cast their yearning looks. The incipient trades

man discovers that money is easy, that the local bank will permit him to borrow at a low rate of interest, and that he may safely open that little shop over which he has long, in thought and intention, placed a comely mistress, though his design has hitherto remained in the region of dreamland. Such cases, and hundreds of a like character, no doubt, vastly increase the list of wedded couples. But these people did not, as Mr. Buckle absurdly imagined, have their affections aroused in consequence of the abundant harvest. It was simply that such abundance gave them the means of realising what a great poet has called their

3. The influence of race is a patent fact to any who have been born, or who have even lived for some time in Scotland. Here we are familiar with the fact, that even different families and clans have long been noted for special characteristics; and what is a race, but a family upon a larger scale? To intimate to any Scotchman that the differences between the Highlander and the Lowlander arise solely from "climate, food, and soil," and are totally unconnected with blood, would seem an absurdity. That such a sentiment is justifiable is evidenced, we think, by the following remarks of Mr. Lewes, a writer whom no one will accuse of opposition to Mr. Buckle on any ground of religious prejudice :-"Unless parents transmitted to offspring their organizations, their peculiarities, and excellencies, there would be no such a thing as a breed or a race. The cur would run the same chance as the best bred dog of turning out valuable. The greyhound might point, and the cart-horse win the Derby. Daily experience tells us that this is impossible. When the paternal influence is not counteracted (i.e., by defects on the mother's side) we see it trans

The

mitted. Hence the common remark, "talent runs in families." proverbial phrases, "l'esprit des Mortemarts," and the "wit of the Sheridans," imply this transmission from father to son. Bernardo Tasso was a considerable poet, and his son Torquato Tasso inherited his faculties, heightened by the influence of the mother. The two Herschels, the two Colmans, the Kemble family, and the Coleridges will at once occur to the reader; but the most striking example known to us is that of the family which boasted Jean Sebastian Bach as the culminating illustration of a musical genius, which, more or less, was distributed over three hundred Bachs, the children of very various mothers."* It is a curious fact that Mr. Buckle lived long enough to suffer from the powers of a recipient of that "hereditary talent," which he denied. The fanatical and foul-mouthed attack upon Sir John Coleridge, which Mr. Buckle contributed to Fraser's Magazine, met with a deservedly severe and crushing reply from the pen of the ex-Judge's son, Mr. J. D. Coleridge.

It must, however, be admitted that these instances of the faultiness of this author's mode of speculation, do not directly touch the question whether he was fair or unfair towards Scotland, though they render it probable that a mind so prejudiced on some points, would not be found to have remained unprejudiced upon others. How much can be gained on these points at issue, from the replies to Mr. Buckle's attack on Scotland ? We fear not very much. We may have been unfortunate ; but we have only met with two replies that arrested our attention; and of these, one fails us at the most interesting parts of the problem. The two to which we refer are the set of papers by Professor Masson in the third volume of Macmillan's Magazine, and the critique in the North British Review.

Mr. Masson's papers display great ability, courage, and good humour. His summary of the leading questions in course of ventilation, is certainly not deficient in liveliness. We can only find room for a part of it :-" How much of the good and how much of the bad in the Scottish mind, has been caused by the Scottish theology; whether almost every really eminent Scotchman for a century past has not been a recreant from the Kirk; whether there is or can be such a thing as free thought, except profoundly under the rose, within six miles of Dr. Candlish; and whether, in all the earth, there is such another city as Glasgow for the theological use of sulphur, combined with the physiological use of alcohol." But though we learn much from the Professor's articles, we do not obtain a distinct reply to any of the above demands. It is enough to say that they do not seem to bring down the history much later than 1637.+ Now the questions mooted by Mr. Buckle un

* Lectures on Physiology, Vol. I., sub. fin.

+ Macmillan's Magazine for 1861, vol. iv., pp. 177, 309, 370.

doubtedly extend to a period at least two centuries later: his topics are of the eighteenth and nineteenth, as well as of the seventeenth, and earlier centuries.

We turn then to the article in the North British Review.* If, as report says, it proceeds from the pen of that gifted Minister of the Free Church who has published poetry under the pseudonym of "Orwell," we can conscientiously pronounce it to be entirely worthy of him. It is calm, bold, and discriminating. It is free in admissions, and some of its sentences might be supposed to have been originally published in this Magazine rather than in an organ of Presbyterianism. Witness for example the following:

"During a great part of the 17th century, every citizen was subject to the Church's power, and the penalty of excommunication implied forfeiture of all his birthright. Under these circumstances we cannot defend the meddlesome intolerance of the clergy, and we believe it was well for the world that they did not prevail upon England to accept their form of government; for beyond all doubt it is to England chiefly that we owe the true idea of social and domestic freedom."

This is certainly not the language of a believer in the jus divinum of the Presbyteral form of Church government. The assertion in our next quotation, though often made by us, is less frequently admitted by Presbyterians. It is made by the reviewer in reference to the tone of Scottish theological teaching in the 16th and 17th centuries.

"On this head it must be borne in mind, that Scotland, though much given to theological questions, can hardly be said to have any properly indigenous theology. Her opinions on these matters have been always derived from others; only the intensity with which they have been held is her own. Patrick Hamilton was the pupil of Luther. Knox taught what he had learned of Calvin. Melville's doctrine was the first of Beza's learned prelections. The earlier English Puritans infected Rutherford with his unctuous style, and poured into Gray and Binning the very sap of their doctrine; while Boston got his covenants from Witsius and the Dutch. Certainly the doctrine of the 17th century was not a Caledonian product: whatever its character and tendency, it culminated among the English Puritans." On this subject we will only at present observe that Sir William Hamilton, in his "discussions," does name some Scottish writers who were really theologians. The reviewer was not, however, called upon to notice them, inasmuch as they were not referred to by Mr. Buckle. We need hardly add that they were Episcopalians.

There is indeed but little in this critique of the North British Review to which we can have any objection; with the greater we feel *No. for August, 1861, vol. xxxv., p 253..

agreement and sympathy. But as certain points have not been brought out by this writer, nor (so far as we are aware) by any other of Mr. Buckle's opponents in Scotland, we propose in the April or May number of this Magazine to consider the following points in connexion with the second volume of the positivist speculator.

1. The assault made by Mr. Buckle on the Presbyterian views respecting the nature of the Almighty.

2. The question of Toleration, in so far as it affects Scotland.

3. The needlessness of supposing opposition between the use of material and spiritual aids against suffering.

Anything like a candid attempt to deal with these problems will, we trust, prove at least suggestive, even though our treatment of them should be far from exhaustive and complete.

THE EDINBURGH MOVEMENT.

THE call upon the Churchmen of Edinburgh for assistance in the southwest district of Edinburgh, is a significant sign of the times.

It is within the memory of all of us, when Episcopacy, as they called it, was merely a "genteel" creed. It was the "proper" thing. All the fashionables attended it to a man, and why on earth they did so no people knew less than they did themselves. St. John's was the "fashion," as they said. Then it was supposed to be a Church of England in Scotland. Every thing was to be shaped after an English model. That vulgar old Episcopacy in the North the less said about the better, and hence a more thorough mass of dry bones could not be found in Christendom than this imitation Church of England in Edinburgh. The poorer classes were no part or parcel of the system. These were, in fact, an ostracised class. The opinion expressed by a so-called minister of the Gospel, when St. Peter's, Galashiels, was opened, that it was only the very lowest class who attended it, and respectable people were all warned against it," was very much the opinion of Edinburgh; viz., that the less we had to do with the poor the better. This was what was called the "gospel."

Dr Alexander was the first to turn the tide, and the success he met with, both in his schools and Church, first led to this "genteel" creed being knocked in the head. In almost all the Churches schools were started, higher views of the mission of the Church began to be entertained, when another character appeared upon the stage-the Rev. Daniel Sandford, through whose exertions the "movement” received a great impetus, and hence this movement upon the masses which, with the aid of the present Coadjutor Bishop, is likely to permeate through the whole body.

It is matter of regret to the whole Church that Mr Sandford should leave the field when his indefatigable labours are beginning to be felt; but he has sown the seed, and his reward will be in heaven. A reformatory has also been organised under his care, and this, and several other centres of missionary labour, are other legacies which he has mainly bequeathed to us. The question is fairly before the Church as to whether this Edinburgh movement is to receive its support. In Edinburgh, where the Church is gaining ground, the want is most felt, and we look with anxiety to its progress, inasmuch as it will most probably conduce to similar movements in Glasgow and Aberdeen.

Dundee has done her work nobly, and is a striking proof of what can be effected by faith, perseverance, and charity.

Instead of seeing the mere fashionable congregations we now see in Edinburgh-instead of seeing the miserable pew system, whereby merchandise is made in the sight of all men of the Church of God-instead of the coldness, the apathy, and the deadness which prevail in so many of the Edinburgh Churches, which impart so unfavourable an impression of our Church to strangers, we trust this missionary spirit will revive the ardour of many disposed to despond, and impart life to many who are as yet dead branches of the Church. There is much we know to do in the Church.

This mission, however, is a sign of life, and we hail it as the harbinger of better days.

Let it not be the movement of a clique or a party, but let it be the movement of the Church as one- 66 one faith, one baptism."

On all sides there are signs of life and movement. The institution of Lord Rollo, as a lay reader, we look upon as a proof of the yearning of the laity to take their part in the affairs of the Church, and we are glad to find that Edinburgh is putting herself at the head of the Missionary Movement, which, under the blessing of God, we fear not, will go on and prosper.

HUGH SCOTT of Gala.