If We Could Read But A Dozen Authors - Glenn Conjurske
If We Could Read But A Dozen Authors
Introduction: The Question of Selection
I have often contemplated the question, If the present age could read but one author, which one would I recommend? Which author, in other words, do I regard as the most valuable? The question is not an easy one. We must consider not only the weight and worth of the author, but also the needs of the age. If I were compelled to choose but one, I suppose I would be obliged to settle upon John Wesley, but the choice would be a hard one. I have therefore turned my thoughts to an easier question, namely, If the present age could read but ten authors, which ones would I recommend? The question, I know, is an artificial one, but not without value on that account. It is certainly worth the while to consider which authors are most valuable in themselves, and which are most likely to speak effectually to the needs of the church in the present day.
Compiling the List: Criteria and Challenges
I sat down this morning, therefore, to compile such a list. I found that the first few names were easy, requiring little or no deliberation. The next few were much harder, and the difficulty increased as I neared the end of the list. To add the last name was the most difficult of all, as in choosing that one I would of course exclude all others. The difficulty here proved so great that I determined to extend the list to a dozen, and it is quite possible that if I were to compile the list again after further reading or reflection, it would differ somewhat from this one.
My criteria have been few enough. First and foremost, the weight and worth of the author himself. Next, how well he speaks to the state of the church today. Next, the variety of themes which he treats, and finally, the volume which he wrote. Variety and volume would determine nothing in themselves. I need hardly say that I would recommend no man merely because he wrote much, while some of those who have written the most would have contributed a greater boon to the church if they had written nothing at all. But if we were limited to a few authors, we should want those who wrote much as well as well, or we should have but little to read. Variety would be of great importance also. Some who have written well on one theme must be passed by if we could read but few authors.
It will be proper to add that sectarian considerations have had no place whatever in compiling this list. If some men were to compile such a list as this, it would read Darby, Kelly, Bellett, Wigram, Grant, Baines, Mackintosh, Stoney, Dennett, and Coates—while they vigorously disclaimed all sectarianism. Another man’s list would read John Calvin, John Owen, Thomas Manton, Augustus Toplady, Jonathan Edwards, &c. This is judging by one issue, judging the man by a Shibboleth, instead of by his overall moral and spiritual worth, and the tendency of such judgement is always to associate together the weighty and the empty. Such lists would have some value, but they would stand precisely in the way of their real purpose.
The List of Authors
But my readers are getting impatient to see my list. I therefore hold them in suspense no longer.
- John Wesley, 1703-1791, father of Methodism.
- J. C. Ryle, 1816-1900, evangelical bishop in the Church of England.
- J. W. Burgon, 1813-1888, high-church dean, Church of England.
- Samuel H. Hadley, 1842-1906, Methodist, rescue mission worker.
- Joseph Hall, 1574-1656, bishop in the Church of England.
- C. H. Spurgeon, 1834-1891, Baptist pastor.
- Charles Wesley, 1708-1788, brother of John & poet of Methodism.
- Richard Baxter, 1615-1691, ejected non-conformist Episcopalian.
- Menno Simons, father of the Mennonites.
- James B. Finley, 1781-1856, American Methodist preacher.
- Martin Luther, 1483-1546, first and foremost of the Reformers.
- John Nelson Darby, 1800-1882, founder of the Plymouth Brethren.
Reasoning Behind the Selection
I next proceed to comment upon some of the reasons for my choices, in order that I may make this list as profitable as I can.
John Wesley needs no introduction, nor any defense. He was one of the greatest men of all time, an apostle of earnest Christianity and a pre-eminent example of apostolic zeal. He had his weaknesses, such as his adherence to the Church of England and his doctrine of perfection, but all things considered he stands head and shoulders above most men. And his style is terse and forceful, a delight to read.
J. C. Ryle has neither the fervor of Wesley nor the fire of Burgon, but he is always weighty, always practical and spiritual, and, like Wesley and Baxter, stands as a bulwark against antinomianism. Such a bulwark is one of the great needs of the church today.
John W. Burgon is generally known today only as the champion of the Traditional Text and the Authorized Version. That he was, but above that, and before it, he was the champion of conservatism, and the inveterate opponent of liberalism, rationalism, ritualism, intellectualism, and pedantry. Though he is usually known primarily as a textual critic, in fact, he was much more than that. He wrote biographies, a commentary on the Gospels, and published some excellent sermons on the Inspiration and Interpretation of the Bible. He sometimes treats his opponents with contempt, a fault not uncommon to great and wise men who must deal with self-confident ignorance and presumption. But in spite of faults, he is pre-eminently wise, always earnest, often fiery—”intemperate,” it is usually called—and a pleasure to read, at least to solid conservatives. Liberals, moderates, and intellectuals will likely have another opinion.
Sam Hadley was a “matchless man of God,” the apostle and embodiment of the love of Christ for the lost and degraded. He wrote but one book, so that I cannot include him for volume or variety, but that one book is as matchless as its author. Methinks the man who can read this book without wetting a few handkerchiefs with tears must have no soul—or, to speak the literal truth, only a soul which is dwarfed and dried and withered. This book may serve to water such souls. It has what the modern church needs, and I include it here as some wise farmers include a few Jerseys in their herd of Holsteins—not for volume, but for cream.
Joseph Hall—a bishop who knew what the inside of a prison cell looked like—was a master of meditation and contemplation, and his thoughts are deep and spiritual, as well as pre-eminently practical.
C. H. Spurgeon was a great man in all that is purely natural—not a deep thinker, nor a careful theologian, but wise, devoted, fervent, zealous, spiritual, spirited, conservative, large-hearted, and large-minded—and if he does not give us gold, he at any rate gives us silver. And he wrote or spoke a great volume, on a great variety of subjects.
Charles Wesley was a man of such childlike simplicity and exuberance of faith—coupled with such zeal and fervency—that I recommend him for his spirit alone. His journal and letters are stirring and exhilarating. He wrote mostly poetry, and too much of it, so that much of it is inferior, but the best of it is most excellent, and full of the same exuberance of spirit which pervades his journal and letters.
Richard Baxter wrote too much, and too much of that is technical and abstruse. He is always in earnest, however, and usually has something of value to say. His practical writings are often as eloquent as they are earnest, and always a bulwark against antinomianism. He wrote on almost everything, and usually with wisdom.
Menno Simons was a suffering saint, whose life has been called a “living martyrdom.” His principles are generally sound. He understands the truth of the gospel, and the true nature of the church, and of the world. He is wise, fatherly, and withal a very forceful writer. His style sometimes borders on the bombastic, but this is not affected, but the natural flow of real fervency.
J. B. Finley I include because his writings enshrine and preserve the spirit of early American Methodism. He was not the man that Peter Cartwright was, and Cartwright’s autobiography is certainly superior to Finley’s, but Finley wrote more, and on a greater variety of themes.
Martin Luther was a great man naturally, as Spurgeon was. He was also a man of great faith and power, and great wisdom also, though he still wore some Babylonish garments, and vigorously defended them too. But he wrote well and wisely of many things. He is always forceful, never dull.
John Nelson Darby is the exponent of simple Scriptural truth—though he is sometimes astray from it, and from its spirit also, as in his adherence to infant baptism, and his repudiation of Scriptural authority in the church. We must take forth the precious from the vile in reading Darby, as in reading Wesley or Baxter or Burgon. His great weakness lay in the self-sufficiency which supposed that all was out of course till he came to mend it. Old paths and ancient landmarks scarcely exist in his mind, and he rarely mentions his predecessors except to depreciate them. But his repudiation of creeds and systems enabled him actually to take the Bible alone for his guide in principle, however he may have failed in the practice of it, and the result was at any rate a sound understanding in general. Other weaknesses are the hyperspirituality which rejects the gifts of God, and thinks to replace them with God himself, after the manner of the Quakers, and a one-sided emphasis on grace, which slights human obligation. I am thus careful to point out the weaknesses of Darby because he is regarded by some as practically infallible, and this leads others to despise him. It is certain, however, that Fundamentalism today stands in need of the truth which Darby taught, and so, by the way, does Brethrenism. He wrote on almost everything which could be of any concern to the church of God.
Conclusion: Balancing Heart and Mind
Let the reader understand, I have paid due regard to both the emotions and the intellect in compiling this list. I have not sacrificed the heart for the sake of the mind, nor the mind for the sake of the heart. I have not sacrificed zeal and fire for the sake of principle, nor principle for the sake of zeal and fire. But understand also, the list must be taken as a whole. If I could recommend but one, it would certainly be neither Luther nor Darby, neither Charles Wesley nor Menno Simons, yet in a list of a dozen they naturally take their place.
Finally, since none of us are obliged to read only a dozen authors, I will mention a few more names which have come to mind for consideration in compiling this list, for these are of profit also. Abel Stevens and Luke Tyerman, historians of Methodism—Merle D’Aubigne, warm-hearted historian of the Reformation—Gipsy Smith, a simple and childlike man, who makes the heart burn—William Tyndale, foremost of the English Reformers, who would certainly be on the list if his doctrine was equal to his spirit—R. A. Torrey, the greatest of the Fundamentalists, but one who never recovered from the baneful effects of his education, and is therefore too intellectual, and too mechanical in his dealing with truth—and finally, C. H. Mackintosh, a warm and earnest expounder of simple, practical truth, who deals well with heart, mind, and conscience.