A STRANGE VIEW OF INSPIRATION by Dudley Marvin Canright

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jun 24, 1889

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 15, No. 24.

A STRANGE VIEW OF INSPIRATION.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

IN a recent book notice, the Christian Union, commenting upon Farrar's "Lives of the Fathers," says:—

"We confess at the outset that we entertain no ecclesiastical reverence for the Fathers of the Christian church. One of the strongest arguments for the divine inspiration of the New Testament is the radical difference in spirit, method, style, thought, life, between the least instructive of the writings of that collection and the most instructive of the writings of their immediate followers. We neither pay to the works of the Fathers the reverence which we gladly accord to the apostolic writings as interpreters of a divine Spirit, nor that lesser regard which we equally gladly accord to writings which we accept as interpreters of the highest human genius. The line which divides genius from inspiration is indefinable. It is impossible, at least for us, to draw sharply the distinction between Plato and Paul, between Shakespeare and Job, between Milton and David. But, for the most part, the writings of the Fathers belong in neither category. The distinction between the human and the divine in literature is in no way more clearly marked than in the epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, say, A. D. 64, and the epistle of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians about forty years later. The one is the writing of a seer, the other the writing of a scribe."

As a mixture of good and bad, truth and error, this surpasses anything which we have seen for a long time. With this estimate of the Fathers, we have no fault to find. Certain it is that the line of demarkation between their productions and the writings of the apostles is exceedingly plain. What we do not understand is the idea that it is impossible to see a clear distinction between Plato and Paul, and Shakespeare and Job. There is absolutely no similarity whatever between the writings of Plato and Paul; and why anyone should associate Shakespeare and Job is more than we can conceive. Are we to understand that the editor of the Christian Union believes that Plato and Paul were equally inspired? or that the writings of Shakespeare are as truly inspired as the book of Job? Did the apostle include the writings of Plato when he said, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God"? It is certainly a misfortune that editors of religious papers will give currency to such ideas. How can anyone who is acquainted with the absurdities of Plato, or with the obscenity of Shakespeare, continue to have any respect for the Scriptures, other than as literary productions, if he believes all those writings to be equally inspired?

C. P. B.