of such religious intuitions of pure feeling that will convince* a person who is not prepared to take the religious consciousness itself for granted. Here general argument, even moral demonstrations, are in this case useless, are indeed for obvious reasons impossible from the outset. On the other hand the criticisms and confutations attempted by such a person are unsound from the start. His weapons are far too short to touch his adversary, for the assailant is always standing right outside the arena! But if these intuitions, these separate responses to the impress upon the spirit of the Gospel story and the central Person of it—if these intuitions are immune from rational criticism, they are equally unaffected by the fluctuating results of biblical exegesis and the laboured justifications of historical apologetics. For they are possible without these, springing, as they do, from first-hand personal divination.1
1 Compare with this chapter my recently published book Reirh Gotles und ilenschensohn.
HISTORY AND THE A ITJOIII IN RELIGION: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Ws have considered ' the holy' on the one hand as an a priori category of inind, and on the other as manifesting itself in outward appearance. The contrast here intended is exactly the same as the common contrast of inner and outer, general and special revelation. And if we take ' reason1 (ratio) as an inclusive term for all cognition which arises in the mind from principles native to it, in contrast to those based upon facts of history, then we may say that the distinction between holiness as an a priori category and holiness as revealed in outward appearance is much the same as that between ! reason' (in this wide sense) and history.
Every religion which, so far from being a mere faith in traditional authority, springs from personal assurance and inward convincement (i. e. from an inward iirst-hand cognition of its truth)—as Christianity does in a unique degree—must presuppose principles in the mind enabling it to be independently recognized as true.1 Rut these principles must be a priori ones, not to be derived from ' experience ' or' history It has little meaning, however edifying it may sound, to say that they are inscribed upon the heart by the pencil of the Holy Spirit 'in history'. For whence comes the assurance that it was the pencil of the ' Holy Spirit' that w rote, and not that, of a deceiving spirit of imposture, or of the ' tribal fantasy' of anthropology ? Such on assertion is itself a
1 The attestation of such principles is the ' testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum' of which we have already si oken. And this must clearly he lts' lf immediate and self-warranted, else there would he need of another ' witness of the Holy Spirit' to attest the truth of tho Grot, ami so on a-i infinitum.
Was this article helpful?