that Dr Donaldson, notwithstanding the comprehensiveness of his views, and the narrowness of his creed, still believes, and that firmly, in a revelation from God, whether it be contained in the Book of Jashar, or in the Bible; and which, in so far forth as it is a revelation from God, and not corrupted by intermixture of foreign matter,-in so far forth as it is the word of God contained in the Bible, and not the Bible itself,-must, in the estimation of Dr Donaldson, be infallible, as surely as any Bibliolater holds the whole Bible to be so. But on what is that belief of his founded, if not on the very same principles and grounds of evidence as those on which rests the fact of inspiration, which he declares to be incapable of proof? In laying down the foundation of our argument for inspiration, we do not want "infallible testimonies for the fact," any more than for the corresponding fact of revelation; we are contented, in both cases, with those ordinary but sure grounds of faith, on which we believe other historical events the best accredited and most undoubted. We shall be happy to learn that, without " infallible witnesses to their own infallibility," and upon grounds of plain historical evidence, Dr Donaldson believes in the inspiration of the Bible with the same confidence that he does in his own restoration of the Book of Jashar.

In thus putting the fact of revelation and the fact of inspiration upon the same level in respect of evidence, and resting them both, in the first instance, on the grounds of ordinary moral and historical proof, we are quite aware that we are renouncing in their favour the "infallible testimony" which Dr Donaldson unfairly avers that the argument for infallibility secretly and illegitimately assumes. Nay, more than this: we are aware that, in basing our proof on the ordinary grounds and principles of historical evidence, we are admitting the theoretical possibility of "unintentional error" on the part of the witnesses for inspiration, when they assert the fact of their own supernatural endowments and commission by God. But this possibility is no more than the possibility which, from their nature, must belong to the testimony of fallible beings, and amounts simply to the concession, that the argument for revelation and inspiration is made up of probable and not demonstrative evidence, in the technical sense of these words. That a man could be subject to "unintentional error" as to the fact of his receiving or not receiving a communication from God, is possible, not more, but less, than that he could be so as to his receiving, a moment before, an important oral communication from a fellow-creature, in the words familiar to his ear of his most intimate acquaintance. That a man could deceive himself, as to recording or not recording the communication given from God, is a possibility not more, but less, likely to occur, than that he could do so as to whether or not, an hour

The Fact of Inspiration a Question of Historical Evidence. 253

ago, he sat down and wrote the words that now lie before him, as the record of the communication of his nearest friend. The possibility stands upon very much the same level, in point of evidence, as the possibility that no man in the world knows whether or not Dr Donaldson has addressed to it a lengthened book, misnamed "Christian Orthodoxy," although some few have actually read it; and that his printer does not know whether or not he transferred the manuscript thoughts to the printed pages, although it got him much labour and little wisdom to do so. As a matter of historical fact, the questions of a revelation or an inspiration being given or not from God, belong, from their nature, to the department of probable not demonstrative evidence,-the former admitting of degrees of certainty which the latter does not; and they stand, in this respect, on the same footing as our belief in any truth that rests on testimony, and any historical fact, the most familiar and certainly believed. Such probability, to use Butler's expression, is the guide of life, and must be so. while inspiration, in one sense, is an historical fact to be proved and legitimately established on grounds of historical evidence in the first instance, it is also a fact of revelation to be received, on the testimony of God, by all who believe that a revelation has been given. These two aspects of the fact are not contradictory or exclusive of each other. The fact that holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, is one that can be established, on strict grounds of historical evidence, as much as any fact of profane history, the most familiar and best accredited. The same fact is an announcement and doctrine of revelation, which, to those who receive a revelation on its proper evidence, comes to them in addition with the seal and authority of God.

But

But we must have done. We have made no attempt, in the course of these remarks, to indicate the amount of the positive evidence in favour of the inspiration of Scripture, nor have we touched upon the wide field of the objections that have been brought against the doctrine which, with many people, is the most difficult part of the discussion. Our limited space has forbidden us to do either.

For the present we content ourselves with stating our belief, that there is evidence, sufficient both in amount and in kind, to establish the fact of the supernatural inspiration of the sacred record; and that the objections which have been brought against the doctrine, whatever may be made of them as difficulties to be explained or not, ought not to be allowed to counterbalance the proof of the fact.

ART. X.-1. Selections from the Papers of Lord Metcalfe, late Governor-General of India, etc., etc. Edited by J. W. KAYE, Author of the "Life of Lord Metcalfe," etc. London: 1855. 2. Allen's Indian Mail; or, Register of Intelligence from British and Foreign India, etc., etc. July, 1857.

3. The Homeward Mail, from India, China, and the East. July,

1857.

4. The Mutinies in the East Indies. Papers presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of her Majesty. July, 1857.

THE prophets of evil are always unpopular. The howlings of Cassandra are answered with a howl. If this does not silence the ill-omened cry, it is bellowed down by a chorus of the nation. Neither states nor individuals can bear to be aroused from sleep, and to be reminded of danger. The intrusion upon our tranquillity is sure to be resented. We call the alarmist a fool, and betake ourselves again to our slumbers. The next time we wake up, we find our house in a blaze.

This has, unhappily, been the case with respect to our Indian possessions. For many years there have been prophets of evil, announcing, with more or less distinctness, that mighty dangers were casting their shadows before. Considering the nature of our tenure of India, it was really not a hazardous prophecy. We have been accustomed to contemplate, with quiet and level eyes, the most wonderful political phenomenon that the world has ever seen. The spectacle of a handful of white-faced men, from a remote island in the western seas, holding in thrall an immense oriental continent numbering a hundred and fifty millions of inhabitants, has long been so familiar to our sight that it has ceased to lift our eyebrows or to raise our hands with a look or gesture of astonishment. And yet it was altogether so strange and exceptional a case, that if any one declared that it was not in the nature of things that such an anomaly should last for ever, he uttered a mere truism to which every one might have been expected to yield assent. But if any one assented to it, it was in a limited and qualified sense. To hint at the existence of any impending danger, that might at any time descend upon us, was to raise a suspicion of the weakness of the alarmist's intellect; or, if the "howl" proceeded from a man of generally high reputation, this doubt of the stability of our rule was regarded as a whim-a crotchet-a spot upon his intellectual escutcheon. Thus, when, a few years ago, the life of Lord

Metcalfe's Predictions.

255

Metcalfe was published, and people gladly recognised the soundness and clearness of his intellect, as well as the marvellous sweetness of his temper under all provocation, and his almost unexampled patience and fortitude under suffering, they could not forbear from asking one another how it happened that a man of such strong sense and large experience could be perpetually doubtful of the stability of our Indian empire, and continually declaring that we should wake some day and find it crumbling beneath our feet. His biographer speaks of these as the "peculiar views of Sir Charles Metcalfe," and evidently seems to think-indeed he more than hints-that such opinions were not in accordance with the general wisdom of the man.1

In this respect, the Life of Charles Metcalfe, and the Selections from his papers now before us, were published some two or three years too soon. If the materials of these works were now placed, for the first time, in Mr Kaye's hands, he would, doubtless, take some pains to illustrate the extraordinary foresight of this great Indian statesman, and instead of speaking apologetically of the occasional prognostications of evil which, in the performance of his editorial functions, he seems to have inserted somewhat reluctantly in the published volumes, would have dwelt with laudatory zeal upon such evidences of prescient sagacity as now lie intelligibly before us. "Time's old daughter, Truth," has come to the rescue. The "barrel of gunpowder," upon which Metcalfe used to say that we were sitting, has now exploded; and we read such passages as the following, by the light of present history, with a right appreciation of their wisdom. The first which we have marked for quotation illustrates the feelings with which Metcalfe regarded what we now look upon as the paltry mutiny at Barrackpore in 1824. It is taken from a letter to a private friend :

"News has come from Calcutta-you have already seen it in the papers-of the blackest hue and the most awful omen, such as for a time must absorb all the faculties of a man anxiously alive to the dangers which beset our empire in India. I allude to the mutiny at Barrackpore. A regiment of Bengal Sepoys, ordered to Chittagong to form part of an army to be opposed to the Burmans, refuses to march, separates itself from its officers, turns the major-general of the station off the parade, quits its lines, marches to the race-course with forty rounds in pouch, and there threatens to resist any attempt to bring them to order!

As a matter of fact, however, Mr Kaye is quite right when he says, "There is no parallel of this in the antecedents of Indian history. It is commonly the home-bred statesman who is most alive to the dangers of our position. Lord Wellesley and Lord Minto were much more sensible of danger than Sir John Shore and Sir George Barlow."

All expostulation failing, two King's regiments, which happen by chance to be within call, the body-guard and the artillery, are brought against them. The mutineers refuse to lay down. their arms, are attacked, make no resistance, and flee. About 70-at first said to be 450-are killed on the spot. Six more (vide Gazette), I have heard, have since been hanged; others brought in prisoners and in chains in the fort. About 100 taken prisoners in the first instance. Now, what does this mutiny proceed from? Either from fear of our enemy, or from disaffection to our Government. The Sepoys have always disliked any part of Bengal, and formerly no corps marched thither from the Upper Provinces without losing many men by desertion. They detest the eastern part of Bengal more than the western; and the country beyond our frontier they believe to be inhabited by devils and cannibals; the Burmans they abhor and dread as enchanters, against whom the works of mere men cannot prevail. What does all this amount to in brief but this-that we cannot rely on our Native Army? Whether it be fear of the enemy, or disaffection towards us, they fail us in the hour of need. What are we to think of this, and what are our prospects under such circumstances? It is an awful thing to have to mow down our own troops with our own artillery, especially those troops on whose fidelity the existence of our empire depends. I will hope the best. We may get over this calamity. It may pass as the act of the individual mutineers. The rest of the army may not take up their cause. A feeling may be roused to redeem the character thus lost. But we shall be lucky if all this turn out exactly so; for there is no doubt that the feelings which led to the mutiny were general. Open mutiny, indeed, was not confined to the 47th: 200 of the 62d seized the colours of their corps and joined; 20 men of the 26th seized one colour of their corps and joined the mutiny. What were the rest of the regiment about, if 20 men could commit this audacious outrage? The whole business is very bad; and we shall be very fortunate if it lead to nothing more. But we are often fortunate; and the mind of man is an inexplicable mystery.

"Sometimes these violent ebullitions of bad feeling are succeeded by good conduct; let us hope that it may be so in this instance; and let us take warning not to rely so entirely on one particular class of troops. More officers, more European regiments, and a greater variety in the composition of our force, seem to be the only remedies in our power to counteract the possible disaffection of our Native Infantry; and whether our resources will enable us to carry these remedies to a sufficient extent is doubtful. Enough of this for the present. It is the most serious subject that could have roused the anxiety of those