The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-11-28
the children of the Puritans desire to do I

the children of the Puritans desire t., do
SO. They wish to think truly as well as
to do righteously.
ologT, as Copernicus was the founder of
astronomy, Bacon the father of the in
ductive system, and Plato the originator or
the philosophy of thought. Paul was the
first man to attempt to translate the He
brew vision of life into the Greek form or
thought: the Oriental perception OF life into
the Occidental conception of life.
'sThis gives us our point of view. He is
the intellectual interpreter both OF the Old
Testament and of the new both OF Moses
all, to realize this thought. Paul is a
prophet, seer. Hebrew of the Hebrews ne
calls himself. This does not mean, as some
prosaic commentators have explained 1t TO
mean that his father was one Hebrew ana
his mother another Hebrew. 1t means-as
we say American of Americans, puritan or
every drop of blood in his body every nerve
tingled to the note of Hebraism. He was
seer Some men grope their way TO truth;
some men rise like birds, and, looking down
upon the prospect, see as with lash the
truth. Such a man was Plato; such man
was Emerson; such a man was carlyle;
such a man was Browning; such man was
Paul.
NOT A PHILOSOPHER.
s'He has been discussed and interpreted as
though he were a philosopher, as though ne
were the creator of a system of philosophy
He has been compared with and treated as
though he were kind of antique John Cal
vim. This is the first point where l differ
radically from many interpreters of Paul,
and wish to put that difference as clearly
as I can Paul was not philosopher. That
is to say, he did not have the Greek deVel-
opment which loves truth for it's own sake
and wants to make study of 1t. He was
a Hebraist who saw the truth ana then
used it. He never studied life; he never
studied philosophy. There is nothing in bis
writings to indicate that he ever so much as
heard of either Plato or Socrates. He must
have heard of them, of course but he never
refers to Them There is almost no indica-
ton of his ever having read anything OF
Greek philosophy of any kind. his llfe was
not that of a Philosopher. 1t was not
spent in books. He was an evangelist. he
travelled from city to city and from shore
to shore preaching sermons, and IN the IN
term he wrote letters.
s'Philosophers have taken these letters,
surrounded themselves with dry and dusty
foios, looked at them in the light OF medic
val problems and modern problems, con-
Verted Paul into theologlan IKE then-
selves and interpreted him accordingly. In
doing this they have been often puzzled,
they have often been perplexeo 70 see tne
logical connection between the sentence and
another sentence. The fact is that, in
great many cases, there is no logical con-
nection. Paul is not ,logician; he IS often
uniogical; he is often illogical. He uses ar
guments not because they are scientihc,
but because they will accomplish his imme-
date purpose.
a dialectic age. 1t is true that he was edu-
Gated in q dialectic school. He was brought
up as a Pharisee and as PhariSee he was
trained in minute dialectics, in hair-split-
ting theologies. For the spirit OF prophecy
had died out of Hebraism in Pauls time,
and Socrates had taken the place of the old
inspired prophets He was brought up.
also. in a Greek city, and in the atmosphere
of the Greek city he also learned dialectics.
He could not have lived otherwise and been
an epen-minded man, and, living in a dia-
Iectic age and educated in a dialectc
school he used the dialectic method in or
der to make clear his meaning. But he does
not arrive at truth by logical processes; he
sees them instantly upon the mere presen-
tation of them. He is a seer and prophet
overlaid by rabinnical educa ton and by
Greek education, and using the Greek and
rabinnical education to commend the spir-
itual truth he sees in dialectic, rabinnical,
such a man as this puts language to a
severe test and it breaks down under the
test A man who is a pioneer in truth never
can use words in their old meaning. The
missionaries in China to-day are divided
into two parties on the question which Chi
nese word they shall use in order to teach
the simple proposition that God is love, be-
cause the Chinese have no word THAI means
God because they have not any idea that
means God. A personal father who loves
his children has not got into their con-
seriousness, anG, therefore, Ii has not got
into their language. Paul had ideas that
ran beyOnd tie consciousness or his age, and
ran, I sometimes think. beyond the con-
sciousness of our age. and ne mad TO take
those ideas into that language. TIE Lam
guage, as a gentleman was saying to me
only last week. the language cracked under
Paurs use Of IT, He wishes to tell men who
God Is, but he has no word which can ex-