" THE INDIVIDUALITY OF ST. PAUL " (To TSB EDITOR 07
TER " SPECTATOR:1 em,—Your review of. Mr. Straehan's book bearing this title (September 2nd) brought to mind what has seemed to me, and doubtless to others, a difficulty in reading the character of St. Paul—his exaggerated indi- vidualism. Whatever may have been his motive for doing so, it is evident that after his conversion he was at particular pains to dissociate himself from the leaders of the Christian community. He takes special credit to himself, and plumed himself on it as a ground of boasting, that he "conferred not with flesh and blood [human authorities], neither went he up to Jerusalem to those which were apostles before him " (Gal L 16, 17). This aloofness may be traced in the somewhat disparaging tone in which ho refers to the chief of the Apostles as not fulfilling the ideas of wisdom and spirituality which he expected to find in " pillars of the Church." His own explanation of his conduct is that ho wished to accentuate the complete independence of his mission, -which he had by direct personal revelation, as if it were unnecessary, if not derogatory, for him to seek instruction and ordination from any human hands. Here comes in the difficulty. It is difficult to suppose that Ananias did not refer his newly baptized catechumen for instruction to the College of Apostles which the Lord had appointed for that pur- pose ; to be "his witnesses " (Acts L 8). Ignorant as he was, as yet, of the Saviour's actions and doctrines, Paul cannot but have heard that He had in His lifetime chosen twelve good men to be His intimate companions, who should receive His teaching and pass it on to others. How surprised would the Lord have been if He were to hear that one of the first of his new converts would set aside these witnesses and ; depositaries of the faith as of no account, as mere " flesh and blood," i and ignore their testimony. It is not to be supposed that all the con- tents of the Gospels were conveyed to him by a special revelation.—
Previous page
