Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1871-07-13
TIE YRBE BASIS OF BELIEF.

s3 Onc' she iaost important questions ly-
ing at the threshold OF religion. is that
which relates to the basis of faith. Just
here. intellectual men are esten BETRAYED
: INTO affirming. beforehand. false conditions
! for the exercise Of faith /; and become
eoabtefs because they never see those
conditions fuliiled. a.sa ~
To say that the sources of our knowl-
edge, ,-snsi therefore. Of our belief.---sre
1sense. testimony, and rca soninz. ia but
"a isarerfect way Of stating the case. and
docs nos embrace the whele subject. nor
scr sSssrsk Ne cs~aifiaus clcaElS.-. s.,
Z The class Of facts aud truths which are
objcctire, or external TO ourselves, are
testified TO hy sense. ii they ARE actually
present; or by the agency of witnesses, if
the facts and truths are not present 10 us.
In the first case ~ rcly upon our senses.
and in the second case VIC res. in the cred
ibilitv ofth5 witnesses. " ..
( Besides this class of facts aud truths,
there is another class subjective and in
terne!; these are witnessed 10 bv Goa
seriousness and reason
The plain earnest man was right when
he replied to the question demanding n
proof Of Christ's divinity Why. siT. lie
has sars' my soul ;" Here reason ami
consciousness Afforded him firm bass for
his belief These powers of the soul tes-
titled to what was an inward fact to him,
and with whicl the scrses ani any out
ward testimony, lad nothing ;o.do. f
But, before this inward basis can BE
reached, there mast be different sort Of
foundation for belief afforded tic CORES
pond tn the outward truths ard facts of
Christianity It's of grea, importance
for man to settle in his mind what thai
basis must be-
Some begin al experience aud reason.
They avow. a, the outset, that tkcy car
not ana will not believe ANYTHING which
'contrnvenes thcirsreaSon and experience
They hold that alleged doctrines aud truths
must not appear irrational, or they can
not believe
An alleged fact, or truth, or dOc;r:ue,
is asserted and set forth it seems Ia con-
travene experience, and contradict reason,
and therefore il is rejected Is this the
right side upon which to approach 4 svS-
tenn cf facts and DOCTRINES. And ar, ex-
periercc ana reason the right sort Of touch
stones 70 which to apply the doctrines
pleading for belief?
Let us apply this demanded basis for
faith. to the wcli-known instance oi' the
Oriental prince who, with a believing
mind, listened TO all that the English Am
bassador narrated, until nc a-clarcd that.
at a certain season O: the year, III his country
the lakes, ponds and rivers became SO hard
that men could walk upon the surface of
the water The Indian prince then de-
clared that now he knew the Englishman
was telling a falschood. and he would not
only not believe his story about the va
ter. but he must disbciievc all the resi- he
rad nrrra'ed TO asser, that water be
came solid. contradic:eu both his reason
and a1 perience.
Had the prince been capable Of coniuc-
ting the OK xacrimrn;s. he mi rht have learu-
cd that all Substances expand. with heat
and cou,rae; with cold: that water was no
exception tn tho rule. and therefore. yea-
son would tell Inn IL WAS impossible ihai
v ttT-t, t'fl~luNsit- w NNut tSt. UNI Elph
hard. and Vet remain on the surface.
But he Enrlishman might have replied.
that had his experiments been conducted
little further. he would have learned fha:
water, below = ccrisin number oi degrees
of temperature, was IN exception o the
universal law: and SuIide nlv l., gau 10 tx.
raHa until it grew hari and th IA much
lighter than it was in its hquil State
And that, han his expericnc, been oxten-
iri a little farther, he wouii have found
that the asserted fact was according to the
law Of nature. and not against il;
Was the rriuce. therefore. justified IN
dishelieving the EHCiishman. because the
alleged matter of fact c0n,radicted both
his rcason and experience? Most certain
Is not The besj that could be said Of
him is, that lie should have suspended his
decision. aud waited upen iii, own ground
to see whether the alleged fac: could b.
reconciled with his reason and Lis own ex-
pericuce.
But the di.ieplty and wrong were ius,
herc-lhat he sought an improper basis
for his belief Should be no; have sought
basis for his belief in the crciib;G,y Of
the witness, and 10. in his own expert
enee aud reason? Suppos;ug the Eng
lishman had come TO him uith tae best
possible proofs Of his veraci:y supposing,
thai the greatest govergment of the woGit
had given him vouchers which could not
have been questioned iR short. that eve
~ possible proof. which. in reason, could
have been demanded, was presented to
subS;antiate the entire tTuthfulness of the
wituess: then was no. the prince bound
20 credit the assertion. ;housh il not only
found no support whatever IN hs reason
and experience, but was absolutely 20
hiI) contradisscd BY ;hsp?
We ciaim.i therefore, that faets ard
truths Of the objective snrt. should b. ac-
eep;ci upon the ground cf testimony; 4nl
testimony IS the main basis. even n ca
ses where our OWE senses witness some ex-
traordinary occurrence might be quite
sure that saw. a man raised. from tie
dead. but ! might eQneluie ths. had
been deceived-tfat It lad been an Isl'a-
eination Bu; If multitades Of othet cfsd-
ible witnesses testified 70 the same occur
renee, / shoali. even then, rcst my be-
lief largely, Il not mainly, upon fcs'is'c-
sys !.
We may 20 ssal farther. ssdrl that
faith. whsch Is based upca ssrpased
agreement and assent 81 bod, expcrferee
aud reason, ceases so-bc faith slingesAss !;
or. as issss. -ccsses to*te Christian faifh.