CANON FARRAR'S "LIFE OP ST. PAUL."
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPEOTATOEn
SIE,—In your somewhat one-sided and. inappreciative review of Canon Farrar's "Life of St. Paul," you ask, "What is the objective value of the vision of Paul P"
The word " objective " is one that I seldom use myself, be- cause I am not quite sure what it means ; but I am always glad when my friends use it, because it enables me to ask them whether they know what it means,—and their answers, though not often quite logical or consistent, are always instructive. In the present instance, I have asked several people what is the meaning of the "objective value" of a vision, but I can obtain no satisfactory answer. Would you, therefore, be kind enough to let us know what you mean by the "objective value" of St. Paul's vision of Christ P Perhaps "objective value" is to be attached to none but those visions which were seen, or could. have been seen, by all persons on the same spot at the same moment. In that case, it must be at once admitted that St. Paul's vision has no " objective value ;" for be had with him companions, on the same spot and at the very time when he saw the vision, and how- ever the accounts may differ in describing the companions as more or less sympathetically affected by St. Paul's conduct, all accounts concur in admitting that the vision of Christ seen by
St. Paul was not seen by any of those who were on the same spot at the same moment. And does it not also hold true of all the appearances of Christ to his disciples that, in this sense of the word. "objective," they have no objective value P That they were seen by more than one disciple is. no doubt, true ; and this is a signal testimony to the unique power of the per- sonality of Christ giving this unique character to the manifesto,- tionp. of him after death. But they were not seen by unbelievera or enemies. And who will be so bold as to maintain that they could have been ? If jesting Pilate and high-priest Caiaphas had been supping together on that Sunday night with the two disciples in the little room at Eminaus, does any human being suppose that they would have seen the vision of Christ which (with the one explicable exception of St. Paul) was manifested those who had. mourned and wept for him P But, perhaps, your reviewer would restrict "objective value". to such visions as exhibit objects that can be touched. by the beholder? Even in that case, that man would. be bold who- should assert that the " spiritual body" of Christ revealed in the vision of St. Paul was tangible ; and it would be strange indeed that much of the " value " (objective or subjective, I leave an open question) of the vision which converted the Roman Empire to Christ should be made to rest upon its only to tangibility.
The time ought surely to have arrived when readers of the- Spectator may fairly expect to see in its pages a frank recog- nition that the visions both of the Old and of the New Testament have none the less, but rather the more,. "value," because they were sent to their several seers by the Supreme in strict accordance with his physiological laws. What if we are driven to apply to , some of them, or- to all of them, that terrible epithet " subjective!" Are they necessarily on that account less Heaven-sent, less real ? Surely the Spectator, at all events, is not to be numbered among those- critics who would despise Isaiah's vision of the Lord of Hosts "high and lifted up," as being unreal and valueless ! But whether it have any "objective value," I leave to be determined by those who understand what the word " objective " means.—
[We certainly do not suppose that all subjective visions are as such, necessarily "unreal and valueless." But their value- must depend entirely,—like that of otber inspired teaching,—on the degree in which they impress morally or spiritually the minds to which they are communicated. They are not at all more valuable because they are " visions," than they would have been if the Same lessons could have been. communicated by the divine teacher in other forms. The- measure of their value, in short, is the kind and degree of their inspiration. Isaiah's vision is not more valuable,. merely because it was a vision, than those of Isaiah's prophe- cies which are not presented in the visionary form. But when we speak of the objective value of St. Paul's vision- of Christ,. we mean something very different,—its value as testi/money that Christ himself was risen from the dead. And obviously that depends upon the confidence we feel that St. Paul was one- competent to judge whether he really saw and. heard Josue Christ,. and not rather some imago in a dream, resulting from the ardour of hie own anxious musings. Assuredly, we hold. that had. Caiaphas or Pilate been present with the Apostles on the Sun- day night on which they saw and conversed with our Lord, they would have seen and heard what the Apostles saw and heard ;
and to say that Christ could have been seen only" by those who had mourned and wept for him," seems to us not very far removed from saying that he was not really seen by them at all- Though Dr. Abbott does not take that next step, most men would take it. Dr. Abbott's calm assumption that all the world be Heves, with him, this vision to have been rendered possible only by the exalted state of the Apostles', and afterwards of St. Paul's, own emotions, seems to us one of the most arbitrary forms of a purely subjective illusion.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
