IV. Does it render the word infallible?
I. Does it extend over the whole book?
Our first inquiry, then, must relate to the area covered by it; or, in other words, to the question, Is the whole inspired? Were all the writers of Scripture thus moved by the Holy Ghost? or merely some of them, and those in certain books only?
Now, taking the language of St. Paul in 2 Tim. iii. 16, as our guide, we have a clear and decisive answer; for it is here written, ‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.’ It is stated by Dr. Lee [8] that the word ‘Scripture’ occurs either in the singular or plural no less than fifty times, and in every single instance it is employed solely with reference to that collection of writings which were regarded as the oracles of God. Everything therefore included in that collection is here declared to be θεοπνευστος, or given by inspiration.
The only possible question therefore is, How much was included?
Now, whatever men may think of the doctrine of inspiration, all must admit as an historical fact, that when St. Paul wrote these words, the whole of the Old Testament was included in the Jewish canon. The Jews, notwithstanding all their faults, were admirable guardians of Scripture, and there was no doubt in the mind of any pious Jew as to what books together formed his Bible. He was much clearer on that subject than many of our modern writers. When therefore St. Paul spoke of ‘All Scripture,’ there is no doubt in the world that he included in his statement every line and letter of the Old Testament, and he taught us in those words that the whole, from first to last, from the first of Genesis to the last of Malachi was given by inspiration of God.
In saying this, I make no exception whatever with reference to the historical books. I think it has been clearly shown that those historical writings which are not in the Pentateuch are included in that part of Scripture called the Prophets. In which case the language of St. Peter, already quoted, refers to history as well as prediction. Nay, more! I do not hesitate to say, that if I were called upon to prove inspiration, there is no portion of the whole volume on which I should be better pleased to meet an opponent than the historical portions of the Old Testament. So strong is the argument in their favour, that although by so saying I may startle some, I am prepared, after the most careful deliberation, to affirm that I cannot separate them from the word of God without at the same time abandoning the whole of my Christianity. My reason for this statement is, that our Lord Himself in His own teaching has most distinctly sanctioned them. Men cavil at the strange miracles recorded in them, but, while men cavil, He refers to no less than nine of these miracles as facts. The flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the death of Lot’s wife, the burning bush, the manna, the brazen serpent, the cure of Naaman, the preservation of the widow of Sarepta, and the rescue of Jonah, are all endorsed by His divine authority. To the books of Moses, which are chiefly historical, He perpetually refers as to the word of God, describing their testimony as more worthy of credit than that of men risen from the dead. And as for the much-despised first chapter of the book of Genesis, the speculation, as we are now taught, of some ancient Hebrew Descartes, He actually quotes the 27th verse as descriptive of the fact of creation. I am brought therefore to the conclusion that if there is any portion of the whole volume which may pre-eminently be said to have the broad seal and stamp of our Lord’s authority placed upon it with His own hand, that portion is the Pentateuch. All, therefore, I am thoroughly persuaded, must rise and fall together. If we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, we must receive the books of Moses as inspired Scripture; and never can we abandon them till we are prepared to admit that in His own sacred teaching the Lord Himself has misled His people, or, in other and plainer words, till we cease to be believers in Jesus.
But are we to limit this language of St. Paul to the Old Testament? I think it has been clearly shown that we are not. For although the canon of the New Testament was not complete when St. Paul wrote these words, we must remember that the second Epistle to Timothy was one of the latest epistles, and that, according to Horne’s list, the whole of the New Testament, or very nearly the whole, except the writings of St. John, were written at or about the time of its publication. The only question is, whether these writings were then regarded as Scripture: for, if they were, they were clearly included in the declaration that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Now, one thing is perfectly clear, namely, that St. Paul claimed the authority of Scripture for his own epistles: for after having carefully drawn the distinction between his private opinions and inspired decisions, he distinctly says, ‘Yet not I, but the Lord’ (1 Cor. vii. 10). It is equally clear that St. Peter classed the apostles with the prophets, 2 Pet. iii. 2. It is equally clear again, that the Gospel of St. Luke was already admitted as Scripture, for in 1 Tim. v. 18, St. Paul quotes two passages, one from Deuteronomy and one from St. Luke, declaring of both equally that they were taken from Scripture. ‘For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.’ (Deut. xxv. 4; Luke, x. 7.) It is equally clear again, that St. Paul’s Epistles were included by St. Peter in the canon; for he clearly regarded them as Scripture when he wrote his second epistle. He saw some difficulties in them, but that did not affect his opinion of their admitted inspiration, when he said (2 Pet. iii. 15, 16), ‘Even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.’
New Testament therefore, as well as Old, was included in the declaration, ‘All scripture is given by inspiration of God;’ and the conclusion to which I am irresistibly brought is, that we have no right to pick and choose amongst the various portions of the word of God. I believe the whole to be arranged as a whole for the accomplishment of God’s great purpose, that the whole is included in ‘the Scriptures,’ and that the parts are so interwoven one with another, and so beautifully fitted into each other by God’s divine hand, that there will be found ultimately to be no intermediate path between receiving the whole as the word of God, or sweeping away the whole, and launching forth on a sea of scepticism, without a Bible, without a Saviour, and, as the last step, without a God.
II. Is it equal?