against” “the theory of slavery.”  All, then, that these ecclesiastical apologists for slavery can make of the Savior’s alledged silence is, that he did not, in his personal instructions, “apply his own principles to this particular form of wickedness.”  For wicked that must be, which the maxims of the Savior decide against, and which our Princeton professor assures us the principles of the gospel, duly acted on, would speedily extinguish[C].  How remarkable it is, that a teacher should “hardly allude to a subject in any of his personal instructions,” and yet inculcate principles which have a direct and vital bearing upon it!—­should so conduct, as to justify the inference, that “slaveholding is not a crime[D],” and at the same time lend his authority for its “speedy extinction!”

[Footnote A:  Pittsburgh pamphlet, (already alluded to,)p.9.]

[Footnote B:  Pittsburgh pamphlet, p.9.]

[Footnote C:  The same, p.34.]

[Footnote D:  The same, p.13.]

Higher authority than sustains self-evident truths there can not be.  As forms of reason, they are rays from the face of Jehovah.  Not only are their presence and power self-manifested, but they also shed a strong and clear light around them.  In this light, other truths are visible.  Luminaries themselves, it is their office to enlighten.  To their authority, in every department of thought, the sane mind bows promptly, gratefully, fully.  And by their authority, he explains, proves, and disposes of whatever engages his attention and engrosses his powers as a reasonable and reasoning creature.  For what, when thus employed and when most successful, is the utmost he can accomplish?  Why, to make the conclusions which he would establish and commend, clear in the light of reason;—­in other words, to evince that they are reasonable.  He expects, that those with whom he has to do, will acknowledge the authority of principle—­will see whatever is exhibited in the light of reason.  If they require him to go further, and, in order to convince them, to do something more that show that the doctrines he maintains, and the methods he proposes, are accordant with reason—­are illustrated and supported by “self-evident truths”—­they are plainly “beside themselves.”  They have lost the use of reason.  They are not to be argued with.  They belong to the mad-house.

“COME NOW, LET US REASON TOGETHER, SAITH THE LORD.”

Are we to honor the Bible, which Prof.  Stuart quaintly calls “the good old book,” by turning away from “self-evident truths” to receive its instructions?  Can these truths be contradicted or denied there?  Do we search for something there to obscure their clearness, or break their force, or reduce their authority?  Do we long to find something there, in the form of premises or conclusions, of arguing or of inference, in broad statements or blind hints, creed-wise or fact-wise, which may set us free from the light and