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.
* * * * *