be proper, perhaps, at this day, to come more directly to the defence of Universalism. Still, I do not think it necessary, in any case, to forget or overlook the most palpable inconsistencies of the doctrines we have discarded. However, not to dwell on these matters, let me ask you what method you intend to pursue, in attempting to become acquainted with the distinguishing principles of the "restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began?"

Inq. Why, Sir, I had not thought of any method in particular; but was intending to propose such questions and objections as might occur to me, from time to time, and hear your answers. Is not that a proper course?

Uni. I should say it was not; or, in other words, such a course of conversation would not be likely to result in the attainment of much correct information. You must be aware, Sir, that a series of questions, promiscuously thrown out, one on this subject, and onother on that, without order, connexion, or method, would, if answered accordingly, be a waste of time, and leave you quite as much in the dark, as you now are, in regard to my doctrine. If Universalism is a system, and you wish to understand it, you must approach it systematically; begin at the beginning, and proceed on in an orderly way. This is the course that every intelligent mind would pursue, in seeking correct information concerning every other theory, though of less importance. Every science and system is composed of certain fundamental principles, which are regarded as essential. These principles must be stud

ied and learned in the order in which they stand, in each system, or no very definite knowledge of it will be obtained. This is true of the doctrine of universal grace and happiness. Hence, one main reason why people know so little of the doctrine, is, that they generally inquire only to oppose and ridicule it, and advance questions in such a confused manner, that no convincing and truly instructive answers can be given.

Inq. Your remarks are certainly reasonable and just; and show at once the propriety of adopting a different course, in this conversation, from what I had contemplated. Will you name the course we shall pursue to warrant a beneficial-result?

Uni. I will, with great pleasure. The proper starting point, is, our mutual assent to the divine authority of the Scriptures, in all matters of religious faith and practice, and the indispensable necessity of employing reason, the noblest faculty with which man is endowed, in ascertaining what the Scriptures teach, and how they should be applied to morally accountable beings, for their instruction and benefit. I hope you will not misunderstand me, Sir. When I speak of reason, I do not mean to exalt it above revelation; but simply, that, without the use of reason, no revelation could be of any use to us. There is a happy coincidence between reason and revelation.

Inq. I fully agree with you in what you have said, excepting in your putting human reason on a level with divine revelation. To this idea I cannot assent. Indeed, it seems to me to be impracticable. Either one or the other must

have the pre-eminence, so that when they clash or disagree, we may be able to come to a safe conclusion. I should say, therefore, that although reason is useful in religious matters, yet, at all events, it must how to scripture declarations, and we must believe accordingly.

Uni. Ah, truly, my friend; if reason should be found opposing a positive declaration of the Bible, in regard to an essential point of doctrine, we might decide in favor of revelation. But, is it reasonable to take it for granted that reason would oppose the truth? Or can the human mind be said truly to believe a declaration, which it regards as unreasonable? The supposition is a solecism. The mind must be convinced of the truth or reasonableness of a proposition, before it can assent to it. The Scriptures nowhere condemn, but uniformly encourage the exercise of man's reasoning powers. Even God himself is represented as saying to a sinful and rebellious people, "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." (Isai. i. 18.) This supposes that a fair investigation of the works of God, including his moral government, would have a favorable influence, and tend to rectify the errors of the head, and regulate the passions of the heart. Jesus, our Lord, reasoned with the scribes and Pharisees, notwithstanding all their blindness and obstinate prejudices and had they reasoned in the same candid manner, they would have come to the same rational and safe conclusions. But they were so unreasonably bigoted, as to resort to

sheer sophistry to evade the force of his reasoning

St. Paul, as his manner or custom was, went into the synagogues of the Jews, and three sabbath-days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures; opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead," &c. (Acts xvii. 1, 2, 3; xviii. 4; xxiv. 25.) Nothing can be plainer, therefore, than reason is essential to a due understanding of the Scriptures. A man might as well shut his eyes in order to read the Bible, as to lay aside his reason to understand and believe it.

Indeed, it was by reasoning you came to the conclusion, that we must abandon reason when it opposed something else. Certainly, reason is of no more use, when it is not used, than our eyes would be, if covered with a thick napkin.

Inq. I get your meaning, Sir; and will not deny, that as God has given us a revelation of his will and of our duty, it follows of course, that we are to use that noble faculty which exalts man above the brute creation, in considering the several parts of the great whole, which revelation makes known. Proceed, then, if you please, in the statement of the doctrine of Universalism; and if I have occasion to advert to this point again, I will do it, as propriety may dictate. I hope you will be as brief and explicit as possible, and yet give me a fair view of your general sys

tem.

Uni. Very cheerfully shall I conform to your wishes, friend Inquirer, and present the outlines of the system, under a few heads or principles, and hope you will hear me through with candor

and patience. If you wish for more light on any particular, as I proceed, make free to interrupt me at your pleasure; but reserve your main objections to the general system, till after it has been distinctly declared, and in some respects illustrated.

The PROFESSION OF BELIEF,* adopted by the first duly organized Convention of Universalists, in this country, though not at its first session, and which continues unaltered, as the best and most unexceptionable summary of their common faith which has ever been published, is given in the following words and propositions, viz.

"1. We believe that the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments contain a revelation of the character of God, and of the duty, interest, and final destination of mankind.

"2. We believe there is One God, whose nature is Love; revealed in One Lord Jesus Christ, by One Holy Spirit of Grace, who will finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness and happiness.

"3. We believe that holiness and true happiness are inseparably connected; and that believers ought to maintain order, and practise good works, for these things are good and profitable unto men."

This concise and luminous Profession of Faith, was adopted by the GENERAL CONVENTION of Universalists of the New England States, at Winchester, N. H., in 1803; and it comprehends the outlines of the whole theory of Universalism, properly so called, in words fitly chosen, like apples of gold in pictures of silver. It is not

*This profession was presented by a Committee appointed by the Convention holden at Strafford, Vt. the preceding year, consisting of Zebulon Streeter, George Richards, Hosea Ballou, Walter Ferriss, and Zephaniah Lathe; and is said to have been penned by the venerable Ferriss.