stance in this case, which suggests the idea of the past for the future, unless we except some theory of general sentiments that otherwise would be much crouded by it. But I need not confine my remarks to this text; for scriptural testimony on this subject is not yet exhausted. St. Paul, in 1 Cor. xi 7, says, that "man is the image and glory of God." Here we find that man is spoken of in general terms, without any reference to his character, neither is the future nor the past tense used, but the present.

We find, also, that St. Paul quotes from a heathen poet with approbation, that man is the offspring of God. Acts xvii. 28. Shall we understand that the heathen poet called those things which be not as tho they were? If so, he must have believed in future life and immortality; unless we suppose that being the offspring of God means nothing more than the spirit, or breath, that belongs to the beasts.

Let us now attend to Br. Brooks' argument in support of the position, that the past in the aforenamed text is used for the future. The following are his words: "To this I answer, God put all things in subjection under his feet; but now we see not yet all things put under him."-"For as we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." It is evident, sir, that God calleth those things which be not, as tho they were. Therefore, it is both said that man was created in the image of God, and that all things were put under his feet, thousands of years before either in fact took place. In the resurrection we shall bear the image of God, and have dominion over the works of his hand, and not before. Did we bear the image of God when first created? Why then does Paul say we shall bear it ?”

Now let us look at the 8th Psalm, to which the Apostle just quoted has an allusion in Heb. ii. 8. "What

is man that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; the fowls of the air and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas." From this passage, we turn to see man's dominion as stated in Genesis i. 28. "And God blessed them, (the man and woman) and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, aad subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Does Br. Brooks believe the dominion here spoken of in the past tense, is yet future? In the very same verse in which "God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness," he adds, “and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea," &c. According to our opponent, when man is created in the image of God, when he comes forth in the resurrection state, then he will have this dominion, and not before. Then "all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field," will be put under his feet, and not before. What renders all this, if possible, the more inconsistent, is, he does not believe in the resurrection of all sheep and oxen, and the beasts of the field. So when man has this universal dominion, he will have nothing to rule. But it will be asked, what did the Apostle mean, when he said, “But now we see not yet all things put under him ?" We answer, he undoubtedly meant, that altho man's dominion over the living creatures of earth, air, and sea, was universal, there did occur exceptions, in which man could not exercise the authority that was his right. The beasts of the earth sometimes trample upon him, and kill him; the fowls of the air do not always obey

him; neither are the fishes of the sea, without exception, at his command. But the dominion of Christ, the head of every man, is to be without exception, in relation to all that the Father had given him. "But," says the Apostle, "we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man." Heb. ii. 9. My opponent asks, "Did we bear the image of God when first created ?" Answer. We were at first created in the image of God. Then again, "Why does St. Paul say we shall bear it?" We reply, There is a difference between bearing, a thing, and being that very thing itself. The spirit, or soul, which is the image of God, when clothed with an earthly body, bears, not is in itself, the image of the earthy; but in the resurrection bears the image of the heavenly. The Apostle speaks of putting on incorruption and immortality. On what shall they be put? Let our opponent determine. Let him reconcile, if he please, such scriptural expressions with his own views.

As to "Samuel's ghost," Mr. Editor, or Mary Magdalene's "seven unclean spirits," I am not disposed, at this time, to trouble you, or your readers. The former was called up in a time of distress, where the spirit of the Lord had departed from the leader of Israel; the latter were cast out, and of course ought not to trouble

us.

It has before been noted that our opponent with positive knowledge, as he says, has stated that it cannot be proved from scripture, "that man has any spirit but the breath of life, the disposition of mind, or Christ the quickening spirit; neither of which can, in the nature of things, exist as an individual, without a body."

Now there can be gathered from scripture, proof enough to satisfy us that the soul, or spirit, may and

does exist as an individual, after it leaves the earthy body. Whether it has any sort of body or not, we pretend not to decide; nor does a want of this decision effect at all the question concerning future punishment. This subject, as mentioned in 1 Peter iii. 18, 19, 20, in relation to the spirits in prison, can be no other than direct proof to this point, if language may be allowed to speak its own meaning. It is proof of the individual existence of human spirits, and that they may be in a punishable state.

In John iv. 24, it is said, on the authority of our Savior, that "God is a spirit.". According to Br. Brooks' doctrine, and by no means guess-work, he must have a body, something besides spirit, or he cannot exist as an individual.

In relation to the passage, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell," he observes as follows: "What does this prove? It proves that the soul may be destroyed; and therefore, that it is not immortal; just as I have all along contended."-Yes, sir; but who can destroy the soul? None but God. This should not be forgotten. Does Br. Brooks expect to attain to an immortality that is beyond Almighty power to destroy? Let him rouse the powers of his philosophic mind, and determine whether any thing can be made that cannot be destroyed by its own author. Let him, if possible, throw some light upon this subject, that the ignorant may be instructed.

Br. Brooks informs us that he considers my answer to the Question to a Restorationist, "altogether inapplicable to the case." "How can one be punished in another world," says he, "on the same principle as here, without making the murderer there, a fugitive," &c. In answer, we ask, what is the principle of punishment. here? The principle is correction, emendation, or

some relative benefit to community. "Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth;" but is chastisement always administered in exactly the same way? The same principle will require different forms, or manners of punishment, according to the situation of the subject punished. We do not pretend to point out the exact forms of punishment, which are beyond our state and our experience. Suffice it to say, we believe they will be such as infinite wisdom shall direct. For my own part, I cannot but think that the questions my opponent proposes concerning hanging folks in another world, are puerile in the extreme. They are not rational deductions from any thing which Restorationists have written; but are altogether the fruits of his own imagination, and those of his coadjutors. The reader is requested to review his question contained in the first number of this work, and my answer found in the second number, and then judge whether my answer is inapplicable to his question. He has so decided, and of course has taken no further notice of it.

I now leave my Br. Brooks and the public to their own contemplations and decisions on this important subject for the present, hoping that a wise improvement may be made by all who shall feel themselves interested in perusing our writings.

Reading, Dec. 7, 1825.

SAMUEL C. LOVELAND.

For the Repository.

STRICTURES ON FUTURE PROBATION.

MR EDITOR,

I have perused with much pleasure and attention, the many reasons assigned by Br. C. Hudson, for not believing in the doctrine of endless misery, as published in the Repository, and think them in general conclusive. But there are some reasons under the 11th arti