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 than show that the doctrines he maintains, and the methods he proposes, are accordant with reason—­are illustrated and supported with “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 Professor 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 statement or blind hints, creed-wise or fact-wise, which may set us free from the light and power of first principles?  And what if we were to discover what we were thus in search of?—­something directly or indirectly, expressly or impliedly prejudicial to the principles, which reason, placing us under the authority of, makes self-evident?  In what estimation, in that case, should we be constrained to hold the Bible?  Could we longer honor it as the book of God? The book of God opposed to the authority of REASON!  Why, before what tribunal do we dispose of the claims of the sacred volume to divine authority?  The tribunal of reason. This every one acknowledges the moment he begins to reason on the subject.  And what must reason do with a book, which reduces the authority of its own principles—­breaks the force of self-evident truths?  Is he not, by way of eminence, the apostle of infidelity, who, as a minister of the gospel or a professor of sacred literature, exerts himself, with whatever arts of ingenuity or show of piety, to exalt the Bible at the expense of reason?  Let such arts succeed and such piety prevail, and Jesus Christ is “crucified afresh and put to an open shame.”

What saith the Princeton professor?  Why, in spite of “general principles,” and “clear as we may think the arguments against DESPOTISM, there have been thousands of ENLIGHTENED and good men, who honestly believe it to be of all forms of government the best and most acceptable to God."[13] Now these “good men” must have been thus warmly in favor of despotism, in consequence of, or in opposition to, their being “enlightened.”  In other words, the light, which in such abundance they enjoyed, conducted them to the position in favor