OCR Text |
Show PRIVATE ILLUMINATION AND SPIRIT OF TRUTH Wherein These Conditions of Mind Differ One is a Guess, the Other Leads to an Act of faith. (Written fur Th3 fntermountain Catholic.) Tracing the history of man back to it-; origin, it will be found that a belief in revelation or intercommunion inter-communion of some kind between (led and man coeval and co-exten-ive with the history of th human hu-man race. Those who separated from the synagogue preserved pre-served trace of the original tradition of the revelation reve-lation made in Paradise. The light of faith may have been obscured, but it was never entirely lo-tt even among the most savage tribes and nation. The sincerity and devotion of their religion-; life might be measured by the intensity of their faith. All systems had their foundation in the belief that (iod had revealed himself to mar.. Apart from this traditional belief in revelation there is no instance of any form of worship founded on a purely intellectual intel-lectual contemplation of nature and !od. Assuming that God revealed himself to Adam. J ,1... :.. i 11 - 1 muu iuai in me lapse or rune .uosos. inspire!, committed com-mitted to writing the original revelation which wa.- followed by the inspired writings of the prophets, the question that natually suggests itself is: Who is the witness and interpreter of God's word? 1. Reason, as shown, is incompetent to pa4 judgment, because supernatural truths which belong be-long to the domain of faith are outside iis jurisdiction. juris-diction. Reason can judge the motives of credibility credi-bility when the evidence in favor of the truths revealed re-vealed is presented, and as this evidence is sufficient and has been so in the past to convince some of the most profound philosophers men of science and intellectual giants in every sense it would follow fol-low that those, who have carefully considered and weighed that evidence, yet refuse to accept it. sin both against the revealed and natural law. But this en passant. 2. The Bible cannot be a witness and interpreter of the supernatural truths which it contains. This has been clearly demonstrated. If reason- and the Bible combined are insufficient to lead to certainty, without which it is impossible to elicit an act of faith, what are the other means suggested? Those who are known as the Evangelicals say that Private Illumination serves as an infallible means to get from the written word that, faith without with-out which '"it is impossible to please (iod." This ', "private illumination." whether viewed in the light, of what is termed "Christian experience," or "wrestling "wrest-ling with the spirit in prayer,'' would prove what has been already mantained. viz.: that the scriji-t scriji-t tires alone are insufficient therefore defective, because, be-cause, unless they are supplemented with the "pri- ; vate illumination." one is and must, be in doubt regarding re-garding the supernatural truths contained in thr- ie.is. We follow up this "interior light." which is the line of demarcation between evangelical and non-evangelicals, non-evangelicals, and see where it leads in its logical consequences. This is best illustrated by a concrete example. We take again the words of Christ regarding re-garding the bread of life: 'Amen. amen. 1 say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of "Man. and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you"; and ask those who claim to be certain of "interior illumination" the meaning and significance of this text. Do they agree? Substantially, or very nearly, near-ly, say the evangelicals. Xot enough, says infiuel? and rationalists: for if, as you claim, the Spirit of Truth has illuminated and manifested the real meaning of these words to the members of the various va-rious organizations who are enrolled in the evangelical evan-gelical churches, it must be the same. Very near, or substantially the same, is not compatible with the Spirit of Truth illuminating two, twenty, a hundred hun-dred or more different minds. A mind illuminated by the Spirit of Truth does not guess at the truth. Two minds so illuminated do not agree substantially, substan-tially, but must agree exactly. If twenty mathematicians, mathe-maticians, in working a long and difficult problem, differed in their answer only in the minutest fraction, frac-tion, and no two agreeing, the verdict would bo: "Nineteen of you are surely wrong, and perhaps twenty.'' To award the prize of merit, an expert accountant would be selected to work the problem, and if his answer agreed with any of the twenty, that answer would be adonted. All the oihpr. though very near, or substantially the same (their difference from the correct answer being infinitesimal), infinitesi-mal), are rejected. Why? Because they did not reach the truth. God is truth, and from him nothing but truth could emanate. When his spirit illuminates the mind the result' cannot be ''very near or substan-tially substan-tially the same" answer from the minds illuminated, but it must be exactly the same, for truth is one. whether viewed in the exact sciences, or the supernatural su-pernatural truths which are contained in the inspired in-spired word. To think, or form an opinion of what. Christ really meant when he uttered those memorable memor-able words is not an act of faith. The "Credo" of the man of faith is something higher, nobler, mom profonnd and substantial than mere opinion. To utter it from the depths of the soul requires grace, which the Father of all cheerfully grants to those j who humbly ask for it. Tt may be asked: To what does "interior illumi- j nation." or "Christian experience." testify ? One .' reads a passage of scripture. Ts the mind so illuminated illu-minated that it can intuitively perceive the truth, i. e., without any deduction or reasoning '; Tf so. 1 then that truth becomes a matter of knowledge and J not faith. Instead of eliciting an act of faith and j saying, "I believe," the mind, under the guidance of the "interior light," would say, "I know," which ; is no act of faith. Again, this intuitive knowledge 1 obtained through ''inward illumination" would mean that the person so illumined stands higher than St. Paul, who was translated to the third heaven heav-en because he enjoys the beatific vision. Then it cannot signify intuiti knowledge of the truths revealed. What then? Will it be said that the "inward light bears testimony to the fart of revelation? But this answer suggests another query, namely: To what revelation? Anticipating Iq.'M Mji. . (Continueekoa-JJage A.) -, ,,.,ll0,tH. ) PRIVATE ILLUMINATION AND SPIRIT OF TRUTH Continued from Page 1.) the answer, that it bears witness to the revelations of the Father made through his only begotten Son, Jesus, we still press the objection and ask: Does this mean that the "interior light" impresses on the intellect an inward perception of its truth. If so, it is no longer an object of faith. The revealed truth becomes a matter of science. But it may bo said that the "inner light" simply witnesses the fact that the Bible contains God's revealed re-vealed word. How prove that fact? To point the finger at the heart and say, "I know it, because the spirit has so testified," is no proof for an infidel or rationalist. There is no motive of credibility, even for the person so believing; therefore, no reason for any assurance or certainty that the spirit so testifying testi-fying is the spirit of God. Will it be alleged that the same spirit will testify exactly the same to all well disposed persons regarding this same truth, namely, the fact of inspiration? But the number of persons who deny this is so overwhelmingly in the majority that it more than offsets all such j claims. Will their denial be taken into considera-' considera-' tion? Xo, say the advocates of "inward light"; that denial is false, because it does not square with our "Christian experience," which is the yard measure meas-ure for faith. If the testimony of the overwhelming overwhelm-ing majority of the human race deny that the spirit testifies to them to the fact in question, then the advocates of "inner light" must abandon what they maintain ami contend for, namely, that each person per-son has within him an infallible monitor who testifies testi-fies to this truth. Apart from this little inconvenience it may bo asked: How is one to know that he has this infallible infal-lible teacher within him? Do the scriptures so testify? tes-tify? This would lead to another inconvenience, namely, what logicians term reasoning in a vicious circle, i. e., proving the inspiration by the "inner light," and the "innerlight" by the inspired word. Will it be claimed by the advocates of this doctrine that they have immediate and direct revelations as to the question at issue? Tho only adequate proof for this is to confirm the claim by working a miracle. mir-acle. Such wore the proofs given by Christ when he became "the way, the truth and the life" of the world. Xo other proof will satisfy the demands of reason, or convince the world of any claims that may be set forth. F. D. |