other. In regard to the period of the Kings in Jewish history and of the nation's captivity, we have three independent sources of information in the Bible itself, viz. the books of Kings and of Chronicles, and the prophetic books. And in the New Testament we have the four Gospels, giving independent records of the life of Christ, and the Acts, Epistles, and speeches of Paul in regard to the life of the Apostle to the Gentiles. These have been all thoroughly compared, and minutely scrutinized, to detect possible inconsistencies; but so far with inappreciable results in this direction, but with most gratifying results in the confirmation of even minute accuracy. Of course this concurrence of independent writers is a very strong proof of the truthfulness of the story in which they all agree. And when we consider the difficulties in the way of exact agreement between two persons telling the same story, even if both are eye-witnesses, a difficulty which increases always with the lapse of time, such agreement as we certainly find in the several accounts of the same thing in the Bible, seems at least inexplicable on natural grounds. Indeed, this is only another form of the general argument from the unusual accuracy of the Scriptures. The difficulty of explaining this mutual agreement of the records is really due to the difficulty of obtaining anything more than general accuracy in any history. We do not expect it. Human memory is not sufficiently reliable. In general it can be trusted; but the particulars it does not hold with sufficient exactness. And yet, we find this minute accuracy in all the many historical parts of the Bible, which would be strange in one, and is simply unaccountable in all.

We need to remember again, here, that infallibility is not claimed. It is very probable that this is the snare into which many who deny the inspiration of the historical parts of the Bible have fallen. Having been accustomed to associate inspiration and infallibility as inseparably connected, they are taken unawares as they find one case after another of supposed error, and too hastily give up the whole case. Whereas, it is almost certain that unusual accuracy uniformly characterizing so many books in a single collection, the in

spiration of which in other parts is acknowledged, involves inspiration as its adequate and natural cause, and proves it beyond the power of occasional errors to overthrow. Indeed, it creates the presumption against error, so that it can be admitted only after incontestable proof. This has been seen and used in defending inspiration by those with whom it meant infallibility. But it needs to be combined with this other view of inspiration in order to produce its full effect. For while the presumption is strong, starting from the unus ual accuracy in itself, it is greatly increased, when the latter is seen to involve inspiration.

On the whole then, if this theory that the Scriptures are intended to teach only moral and religious truth, and that inspiration is, therefore, for the same purpose, be taken in its extreme form, so as to exclude all except these elements from the sphere of inspiration, and especially its science and history, we shall have to reject it. Not on deductive grounds, for in itself it is plausible. But on inductive grounds, since it is not borne out by the facts. There may be individual errors in these parts of the Bible, but neither of them as a whole, can be excluded from the range of inspiration. We may take the most unfavorable statement of the case, regarding as errors all unexplained difficulties, and leaving out of view the presumption in favor of explaining many of these in time, and still we have a state of things which will not allow us to deny inspiration of these parts of the Bible. For, if we do, let us remember that we must be prepared to give up for the same reason the inspiration of its moral and religious truths. It seems to me a mistake to suppose that apparent weakness and vulnerability belong entirely to the historical parts of the book. There are dif ficulties just as great, we think, if not so numerous, in the system of truth which it presents - and not in the outskirts of doctrine either, but in its fundamental teachings. The difference has been that the danger of touching this part of the structure has been so fully realized, that these difficulties have been treated cautiously and conservatively; while the inspiration of these other parts which we have been consider

ing, have been felt to be a matter of comparative unimportance, and difficulties no way greater have been given hastily all the weight that could possibly be claimed for them, and have been allowed to invalidate the claims not only of the passages in which they occur, but of the entire class of passages to which these belong. And it is in the spirit with which the former class of difficulties has been treated by the wisest leaders of Christian thought, that the rule should be found for the treatment of the other difficulties under consideration. We all of us recognize the force of the internal argument for the inspiration and authority of the Bible, and its necessity. And in this argument the character of its teachings, their conformity to reason and to the moral sense, is the most important consideration. And yet we all feel that if the system of truth which it presents, fulfils this demand as a whole, this makes so strong a claim on our faith, that we may attribute the difficulties to deficiencies in us rather than in the Bible. Now we claim that if the difficulties in the Scripture history are only equally great, and the only difference is in the comparative importance of the history and the doctrine, the same principle should be observed.

But if, on the other hand, this theory be held not in the extreme form, but simply as a statement of the exclusively or predominantly moral and religious purpose of the Scriptures, and therefore of their inspiration, I should accept it as probably true. But I think that the above discussion has shown how careful we need to be in reasoning from this to the nature and extent of inspiration. It seems to me quite evident that we cannot decide with any certainty, a priori, what means will be necessary to accomplish these purposes. The only thing possible to us is to study the means that have been used, and then adjust these actual methods to the supposed purpose of the book. This question of the relation of the above facts in regard to the extent of inspiration to the assumed scope of inspiration is too large and difficult to be discussed in the limited space left to us. We can only glance at it. We have to do, not with the question what is the object of the history itself, but what is the object of its in

spiration, not in its moral and religious aspects, but in its historical character. In regard to some of these histories the question has already been answered. For we have seen that, when the Scriptures employ history as the vehicle of moral and religious truth, and especially when it is made the basis of doctrine, its substantial truth is necessary to the accomplishment of its object. And in the earlier records of Scripture this substantial truth could have been secured only through inspiration. On the other hand we have also seen that probably only this degree of truth was necessary for the immediate purpose assumed. How, then, are we to account for the greater exactness which certainly characterizes Scripture? Evidently only by admitting some one or more secondary objects subordinate to the main purpose, and con tributing indirectly to its accomplishment. And one such secondary object will be readily suggested to one who has become familiar with the history of the discussion. The evidential value of this extraordinary accuracy of the biblical records is certainly great and indisputable. The moral and religious impression may not be produced, nor directly in creased by this, but indirectly it may and does heighten it. I do not mean to say that this is demanded on first principles by the exigences of the theory; but inasmuch as we find this degree of minute accuracy, here is one great purpose subserved by it. If a witness has in view simply the estab lishment of the truth, the greater and more detailed the consistency of his account with itself and with other accounts, the more surely he accomplishes his object. And if he is trying to make a religious impression or teach a religious truth by means of his story, the same thing will indirectly further his object. And if we wish to convince men that we are speaking divine truth under divine direction, the principle applies with multiplied force. The history of relig ious controversy is almost a demonstration of this fact. We have only to see how largely the question of the evidences has turned on this very thing, to be convinced of its impor tance, human nature being what it is.

ARTICLE VI.

"IS ETERNAL PUNISHMENT ENDLESS?"

BY REV. FRANK H. FOSTER, NORTH READING, MASS.

Two years ago there appeared, anonymously, a little book with the title, Is "Eternal" Punishment Endless? It was noticed variously by different publications, and then apparently sunk out of sight. Recent events have shown, however, that it had a wider influence than was supposed. One respectable edition of the book has been exhausted, and a second is now put forth. The new edition has a new preface, at the close of which the author signs his name, and an appendix containing some critical remarks, and some congratulatory extracts from private letters to the author; but the text stands unaltered. It is unfortunate that some alterations could not have been made, for the book would do more credit to its author were it cleared of certain unnecessary convolutions in the argument. The argument is defective in method. It proceeds in a series of whirls, rather than in the straight line of a logical discussion. Such phrases as, " Of this more at another stage of our inquiry";2 and, "We shall presently make a strong objection to the traditional preference," etc., are of too frequent occurrence. Such anticipation of the argument has an appearance which a candid writer should be

1 Is "Eternal" Punishment Endless? Answered by a Re-statement of the Original Scriptural Doctrine, by an Orthodox Minister of the Gospel. Second edition. Boston: Lockwood, Brooks, and Co. 1878. The Preface is signed, James Morris Whiton, Williston Seminary, Easthampton.-A recent English work is noticed in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review: Future Punishment; Some current Theories concerning it Stated and Estimated; to which is added a View that is something more than a Theory. By Clement Clemance, B.A., Camberwell. London: John Swan and Co. 1877. The position of this book seems to be substantially that of Mr. Whiton. The present Article is devoted to a review of Mr. Whiton's book.

2 p. 2.

VOL. XXXV. No. 138.

45

8 p. 17.