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 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_.