pernaum is to be judged, &c. if Hyram will examine the original, he will perceive that it should read “a day of judgement," not "the day," &c. (See Imp. Ver. and Wakefield) and there is not the least intimation that this day of judgement should be in another world. It only implies that the case of Capernaum should be worse than that of Sodom, Compare Matt. x. 15, with xi. 23. The judgement alluded to was when Capernaum, which had been exalted unto heaven, was brought down to hades, or hell; where hades is put, by way of antithesis, in opposition to that heaven to which Capernaum had been exalted.

The difficulty in reconciling these things seems to consist more in not being sufficiently acquainted with the language of scripture, which often speaks of things past as yet present or future, and things future as present or already past, and even "things that are not as tho they were," (Rom. iv. 17,) than in any real difficulty which exists in the things themselves. Peter also (Pet. ii. 9.) only speaks of a day (not the day) of judgment; that is, uny day when the wicked may be punished for their sins. That God reserved the old world, Sodom, Capernaum, Jerusalem, as well as nany other cities to a day of judgment we have no doubt; and all these cities have been set forth as examples to those who should afterwards live ungodly.

Hyram states some things which we do not pretend to understand. He says, "If your material system be false, (as we think has been proved)t future punishment follows as a natural consequence from your exposition of Ezekiel." This is something we do not understand. "And if your views be correct, relative to an intermediate state, future punishment is equally certain, being predicated on the testimony of Christ and his apostles." Now, if bald assertions were good

We ask by whom, and where ?-Certainly we have not seen any argument against it, neither do we see how materiality or immateriality has any thing to do with the question before us.

4 The Editor's Lectures are referred to by Hyram, page 83.

arguments, this would do very well; but we have been searching for this evidence, and have not been able to find it.

But Hyram triumphantly asks, "Is not this evidence sufficient to prove future punishment, especially when you consider that you have not a text to support your scheme? We admit that there is no text which says that there is no future punishment. It was not necessary to deny the fact until some one should contend for it, which, as we conceive, none had thought of doing during the long period in which the scriptures were written. Nevertheless, we have more than one text to support our scheme; for our scheme is simply this. "The wages of sin is death"-"he that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption" -the dead know nothing"-"the dead cannot praise God, neither they that go down to the pit"-"there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust" "those who shall be found worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection of the dead cannot die any more, for they are children of God, being children of the resurrection." This is, in short, the whole of our scheme, and we leave it for Hyram and the public to judge whether it is predicated on the scriptures or not.

Another writer, "Philo," was mentioned with "Hyram ;" and as he has appeared again in the "Repository," he may expect to be noticed. We can only say of him, that he begins and ends with wonder! without bringing forward a single argument in support of his own views, or to disprove the views of those whom he opposes. It is right, therefore, that he should be left to his own reflections until he can think of something more definite to predicate and argument upon.-He say, "When this scheme (the scheme he opposes) is carried to its full extent, we shall then have Deism and Christianity in perfect coincidence, and all the doctrines of the Bible will be found to have a relation only to this state of existence !"

It is an easy matter to sound the tocsin of alarm

to cry out, religion is in danger! and to endeavor to put down what we would wish to oppose by heaping upon it opprobrious epithets! But this has been so long the watch word of the abettors of endless misery, we are sorry to see it adopted by any one who pro. fesses to believe in the doctrine of Universal grace. But what is there, after all, in rational Deism that will not perfectly coincide with rational Christianity? The Deist believes in one living and true God; does the rational Christian believe in more than one, or does he deny the existence of that one? certainly not. The Deist believes in a general and universal Providence ; does the Christian deny this? certainly not. Thus far then, we have, even now, "Deism and Christianity in perfect coincidence." But as for Christianity's ever denying the doctrine of the resurrection and a future state, it is utterly impossible, for the moment it does this, it will cease to be Christianity.

From the Philadelphia Universalist Magazine.

CHRISTIAN REPOSITORY.

It will be recollected that in our fourth number, page 75, we replied to two letters addressed to the Editor of this Magazine, signed "Hyram," and published in the Christian Repository, No. 2, Sept. 1821. In December, No.3, of the Repository, the editor stated that the replies "to Hyram's two letters" had not been received, (November 23d) nor any number of "later date than Sept." On which notice we sent a duplicate of our numbers for October and November, which we noticed in our number for January, page 191. But we are informed that it was received too late for the insertion of the replies in the fourth number of the Repository; viz. for March, 1822, which contains a reply to the same. We regret this circumstance, as the publication of our replies, in that work, would have prevented the necessity of but very little, if any thing further by way of reply: and presuming that the editor will do us the justice to insert our former reply, with this, in his next number, we shall make but very

few remarks on what Hyram has seen fit to say in reply to what he is pleased to call a "Review" of his letters. When any writer who is unknown, addresses an individual who is known, either by way of an attack, or reply, he ought to be willing to consider all that his opponent says, and be careful to understand what is written, so as not to misrepresent his meaning. This good and wholesome rule, we conceive, Hyram has not been careful to observe; and altho, he may sensibly feel the force of these remarks, he is-safe behind the scene, as the public cannot know to whom they apply.

Hyram seems to be not aware that the burden of proof lays on his part. It is contrary to all rule or practice in polemic writing, to call upon any one to prove a negative. He has set up the doctrine of future punishment; it belongs to him, therefore, to prove it true, and not to his opponent to prove it false. But if any thing like proof is to be demanded from us, what does he expect but the silence of the law of God on the subject? This he calls "bold assertion ;" or else, "humbly begging the question in dispute." If the assertion be bold, why did he not show something from the law of God which proves it false? We repeat that the assertion is no more bold than true. The law of God, as given to Adam, and explained by himself in the trial and condemnation, not only of Adam, but also of Cain, is totally silent in regard to future punishment. The law of God as explained in the destruction of the antediluvians, also in the destruction of the Sodomites, is totally silent in regard to future punishment. The law of God, as given and explained by Moses, in all the denunciations pronounced upon the Jews, is totally silent in regard to future punishment. To assert these things therefore, is by no means begging the question in dispute; and we call on Hyram to point his finger to the clause in the law which states to the contrary. A criminal is ar raigned at the bar of justice, his accusers contend that he ought to be put to death; the criminal, althe he

pleads guilty of the crime, contends that the law does not demand his life for such an offence: Now unless his accusers could show to the contrary, would not this be sufficient ? would the court allow his accusers to say that this was humbly begging the question, and that the criminal must prove that he ought not to die? No, this could not be allowed. However guilty the criminal might be, the court would acquit him from such punishment, unless his accusers could find a law demanding the death of the criminal. Until such a law, therefore, can be found, it is sufficient for us to deny the existence of a law which requires punishment in a future world for crimes committed in this. For this is the subject in debate, and this only.

Because we said, "The moment it is out of the power of man to commit crimes, that moment punishment is no longer useful to him, and of course no longer just," Hyram replies. "Here again our reviewer assumes the point at issue, which is not considered manly reasoning. His declaration is founded upon the supposition that the only design or utility of punishment is to prevent the commission of crimes. But this is by no means granted, and it ought not to be assumed by our opponent without proof. We believe that punishment is a means in the divine hand for preparing the mind for the enjoyment of happiness, as well as for the prevention of crime. A man confined in prison may have no power to commit sin, but still his disposition may be corrupt, and punishment may be necessary to qualify his mind for the enjoyment of happiness." Now what has Hyram brought to oppose what he suggests, has been so unmanly assumed? Why, "We believe, &c." as stated above. If the punishment for which Hyram contends is only a supposed suffering, which "may be necessary to qualify the mind for the enjoyment of happiness," we feel no disposition to oppose the idea of such suffering, tho we see no evidence in its favor: such suffering may be "necessary" for aught we know to the contrary; but admitting that it should be, we should by no means