HARBINGER ፡፡ one the minds of the British people are still | Webster defines a materialist as governed too much by sects, creeds, and who denies the existence of spiritual priests, under whose influence they have substance, and maintains that the soul been developed. Moses and the Pro- of man is the result of a particular orgaphets, and the Saviour and his Apostles, nization of matter in the body." Now are not, at present, regarded as the only we have often, when in London, spent religious teachers of the people. How an hour or two occasionally, during the to read the Bible with interest, delight, last sixteen or eighteen years, with and profit, is ́only understood by the Brother Black. He is truly an amiable few, for the multitude have remained brother. The definition of Webster is in darkness, in this respect, until now. not strictly applicable to him, because It is the design of the Harbinger, as far Brother B. would readily acknowledge as possible, to dispel the ignorance that God is spirit, and rejoice in the which prevails on these important to- thought that Jehovah is omniscient and pics. Its success, hitherto, has been omnipresent, sustaining and governing restricted to hundreds-why should it all things by his spiritual presence and not be extended to thousands? We almighty power, and over-ruling even participate in the fear expressed by the evil purposes of man to his own Brother Davison, that the indifference glory. But Brother Black does not beand apathy of the brethren account lieve in the existence of devils or departly for this result. Reforming, then, mons, except as those terms are appliand not complaining, is the remedy. cable in some cases to man; nor does We assure Brother Davison he believe in the conscious existence of who, until the present communication, was either saint or sinner, in any intermeunknown to us that in applying the diate state between death and the reterm materialism to the articles referred surrection; nor that there is in man to, we thereby intend no hostile feeling any spirit distinct from that which is against the writer, or any one who co- material, or of corporeal substance. incides in his views. Nor do we think Hence he says, in the last article we Brother Black is, or ought to be, offend- inserted, (page 284) "With me breath ed at such an appellation, which does and spirit are synonymous, and it will not, other things being equal, un-Chris- be manifest it is the spirit of life Paul tianize any individual in the sight of committed to the safe-keeping of God God. All are personally accountable until the great day." Now what ideas to God for their religious belief, as well can man form of unconscious spiritual as for their opinions. The Author of life? We hold, then, that the promulthe Bible has granted alike to all the gation of these opinions, in whatever privilege of examining its contents, and manner their demonstration may be we should be sorry to place the slightest attempted, can yield no possible good obstacle in the path of any one who is to saint or sinner, and therefore we dedesirous of pursuing this inquiry. Our cline placing them before our readers. language has invariably been, in read- If the theory be correct, then it is obing the Bible, learn to distinguish the vious that in any new translation of the principles which obtained under each Scriptures, we ought to read the pasdispensation that has its historical re- sages thus-" The breath is willing, but cord in that book. the flesh is weak" ceive It may be of importance to some of our young readers to explain what is intended by the term materialism, on which even the popular lexicographer, Walker, will yield a gleam of light. "Lord Jesus, remy breath" "Into thy hands I commit my breath". -"I pray God, that your whole body, blood, and breath, be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," &c. We cannot do better than quote here some strictures from the pen of Brother Campbell, which are applicable to many of the articles we have received on this theory. DEAD SOULS. Few if any of our readers can conceive how we are assailed by the men of one idea. Of all men in this world, they are the most unreasonable and dogmatical. They have suffered their minds to become absorbed in one subject, or in some one view of it, until they can neither think nor speak of anything else. They see neither evidence, nor season, nor importance, nor beauty, in anything but that one idea or subject which has captivated their whole soul. And worse still, every thing proves that they are right. As with a magic wand, they make all nature stand in waiting in attestation of their theory. Proofs that they are right spring up like the grass; but, unlike the grass, these proofs seem never to wither nor decay. There was full as much reason as fancy displayed in denominating this class "Modomaniacs;" provided only, we rightly interpret this term. This class are certainly crazed on one subject, and perhaps ought to be dealt with as persons really, if not physically, distempered. victions, the less sense and reason in support of them. Without further ceremony, I will give a specimen-a mere extract from the immense pages of this elaborate letter: "I object to any criticism upon 'Hades,' as that is not the original word. Sheol is the word used by the Spirit, and that is more ancient and not so blended with mythological tradition as Hades. But the best rule of interpretation is by syntax and fact. But to the article. Your grand syllogism seems to be this: A true believer shall never die.'-Jesus. "But all true believers do die, as all other animals. Therefore, men have immortal spirits, which live in a separate state of existence between death and the resurrection. This appears to be fairly stated; if it be not, the misstatement is unintentional. Now I sincerely declare to you, that I cannot see your conclusion in the premises. You seem to me to have erred in this matter by preferring "logic" to grammar, which has led you to confound the future with the present tense; hence your syllogism is sophistical. Allow me to substitute what I conceive to be the true argument: The true believer, or the son of God, shall never die. "But true believers do die, in common with all animals. Therefore, they shall be raised at the last day, and thenceforth they shall die no more. grammatical, and therefore sophistical reasoning. Pardon my plainness of speech, for it is truth, and not over-punctiliousness of phraseology, that I am at present aiming at. 66 Again you err in imputing to us a denial of our Saviour's words in denying your syllogistic conclusion. We believe he spoke the Here lies before me a sheet some two truth, but we deny that your syllogism exfeet long and two feet broad, written presses the truth he uttered. Let the reader within and without in a neat, compact, that it inculcates the conclusion of any gramperuse the whole of John vi. and he will find brevier hand, and signed "A Son ofmatical construction; and not of your unAbraham, but neither a Sadducee nor Pharisee," and post-marked "Paris, Kentucky." If this be the proper nativity of the production, the writer must be an emigrant, an exotic of some Well, we are agreed that Jesus taught that other nation and climate. Such men the true believer should never die; but the seem not congenial with the soil or question is, At what point of time did the fuclimate of Bourbon. The real author, ture shall never die' commence? He shall ashamed of his name, or fearful of a never die subsequently to some given time. disclosure, having assumed the mask, What was that given time? Let us hear him: "This is the Father's will, * releases me from any obligation to notice him at all. I do it, then, gratui- one that believeth on the Son may have evertously, and more for the sake of de- lasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day.' 'As the living Father hath sent me, veloping the melancholy fact, that while the assurance and confidence of such and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me shall live by me.' He that eateth this bread dogmatists is always in the superlative shall live for ever-when I will raise him up degree, their evidence and proof seem at the last day.' 'The dead shall hear the as uniformly to be in the inverse ratio voice of the Son of God, and they that hear of that assurance; or to speak to anoSHALL live. All that are in their graves, ther class than mathematicians, the * * that have done good, shall come forth more confidence in asserting their con- (out of their graves) unto the resurrection of * that every life.' There is no room for dispute here. 'They shall never die' obviously dates from the resurrection to life. "But the converse of your syllogism proves too much for your theory. If the proposition, because a true believer shall never die because he has an immortal soul, be admitted, it follows that a false believer will never die, and therefore has an immortal soul, and con you sequently no separate existence in Hades. This would plunge us over head and ears into 'Destructionism,' which I presume is a catastrophe to which you, at least, would have especial objection. But I do not see how can avoid this dilemma; for of every proposition there are two sides, the affirmative and the negative; hence, if for argument's sake I grant you the affirmative, I see no possible chance for you to escape the converse. If we learn what truth is, the contrary is what the truth is not; this is obvious to the most unlearned." It will be perceived from the above extract to what class of the men of one idea this "Son of Abraham" belongs. His genus is that of "the dead soul," while his species is that of "the air soul." As for his opinions of himself and other being so much employed in " tax and fact," he has only had time to conclude that he is most profoundly grammatical and logical, while myself and others grievously err not knowing the power of grammar and logic. If it be not presumptuous on our part to differ from one so well versed in syntax and fact," in " grammar and logic," we would essay to examine his two syllogisms-the one he has had the kindness to frame for me, and the one he has so vauntingly framed for him self. We feel disposed to risk all the consequences, and shall first examine that which he has framed for me. Here it is "A true believer shall never die. But all true believers do die, as all other animals; therefore men have immortal spirits, which live in a separate state," &c. The Abrahamic Son says that the conclusion is not in the premises. Very true. And why did he put it there? I never did. It is all an innocent trick of a well meaning man! Or, shall we say, that all at once he becomes superlatively obtuse. He sees not the sense of the words, nor the drift of my argument. My argument is, that as believers cannot die according to Jesus Christ, and as they do die according to nature, there must of necessity be a spiritual as T well as an animal death, or there is a conflict between JESUS CHRIST and NATURE-between his word and matter of fact. This is my argument. And how does he escape from it? By assuming, as the sequel will show, that the Messiah meant to say that believers will live after the resurrection—that is, that they will die in time, but not in eternity! But the true issue is this: - Death, with those who assail us, always means what we usually call animal death; while, with us, it frequently denotes in sacred style spiritual death, or a death in trespasses and sins. We have in the Scriptures animal and spiritual life and death. But these men of one idea have no conception of death beyond what is merely animal. To prove that our Saviour used the word die in this sense, we cited a passage from John, viz. "He that liveth and believeth on me shall never die." From this passage we argue, that since all believers do die naturally, he could not possibly allude to animal death. There is, then, a sense in which believers die, and a sense in which they do not die. And so Paul teaches; for, says he, "the body indeed is dead because of sin, but the spirit lives because of righteousness." Our argument, then, is unanswered and unanswerable, viz. That which believes in Jesus shall never die. But it is the spirit of man that believes in Jesus; therefore, the spirit of man shall never die. shall From this, indeed, it is clearly inferential, that the souls of the saints shall never lose their consciousness never die. Hence they are not only immortal after death and the resurrection, but they are immortal before death. "He that liveth and believeth on me, shall never die." But we must pause in admiration of the second syllogism. And it is here our friend's syntax and logic are most signally displayed. He asks," At what point of time did the future shall never die' commence from?? Very good grammar, truly! It is not the Paulopost future, but a future tense that commences its construction in eternity. He makes the Messiah say, "He that believeth on me shall never die after the resurrection!" Hence the righteous die till the resurrection, and the wicked live to the resurrection and die afterwards. Such is the power of logic with the aid of the new syntax and facts. But the piety of this modern Son of Abraham is as much at fault as his grammar and logic. He makes the Saviour say, "He that eateth this bread shall live for ever, when I will raise him up at the last day." Any man that presumes to put a new word in the mouth of the Saviour, may have license to pervert my sayings with impunity. The gentleman speaks of the converse of my proposition, without knowing the technical meaning of the word converse. A proposition concerning the righteous, can have no converse in any proposition concerning the wicked. A little more logic, and even a little more grammar, would be no detriment to most of the disciples of the one idea system. Certainly every educated reader of the preceding extracts will concur with me, that the writer is as defective in grammar and logic as in theology and biblical criticism. But he says, " Of every proposition there are two sides-the affirmative and the negative." Now as every logical proposition is either affirmative or negative, had the writer said, that, 'to every proposition in debate there may be two sides--one to affirm, and one to deny" we might have been compelled to take the negative side in every case in which he would solicit our acquiescence on the ground of his knowledge of syntax and fact, or of grammar and logic. But as our "no Pharisee and no Sadducee" anonymous correspondent has sought relief by delivering himself fully of his one idea and as we, no doubt, have gratified him in giving to our readers the marrow and fatness of his theorywe judge it both unnecessary and uncalled for, to offer any other refutation than that contained in the document itself, when the attention of the reader has been merely directed to the examination of the grounds on which he founds his dead soul theory, which, in one sentence amounts to this-that the words life and death in Scripture have but one meaning. A. C. CORRESPONDENCE. LETTER FROM AUSTRALIA. MELBOURNE, February 20, 1854. Dearly-beloved Brother Wallis, May the God of peace and love sustain, bless, comfort, and finally receive you. I can assure you it affords me great pleasure to communicate with you, knowing how great an interest you take in us who are here, and also the degree of pleasure with which letters from this far distant land are received by all my dear brethren and sisters; and I thank our Heavenly Father for the love, the joy, and fellowship of feeling which the principles of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ breathe into our souls. Oh, what a glorious and precious thing is Christianity! How well and wisely adapted to cheer and animate the hearts of men, and to cherish and strengthen feelings of affection, though far, far away from each other, and to turn aside the thorns of trouble and trials with which we come in contact, while travelling through this vale of tears; and also, how well adapted to make man enjoy true and sweet communion with his fellow man, and acquaint us with the true relationship in which we stand to each other. God grant that these heavenly blessings may be more universally received, appreciated, and enjoyed; that peace indeed may reign on earth, and good will amongst men. I am happy to inform you, that our Brother and Sister Letts, as also Mr. and Mrs. Godkin, arrived here in safety, having had a pretty favorable voyage. Their arrival was a cause of fresh joy to me, both on their account and mine; on their account, because they had left ill-remunerated labor, and had come to a country where they would be well-remunerated for industry; and on mine, because I anticipated spending many happy, edifying, and refreshing hours with them, and also that a church would be formed. I am now glad to say, my hopes are being realized. I know that you will be delighted to hear we have commenced meeting together for the purpose of remembering our dear Lord, and showing forth his death, at the tent of Brother Ingram, at Prahran, near my own place of abode. We generally number 9, sometimes more, at our meetings, namely— Brother and Sister Lyle, Brother and Sister Ingram, Brother and Sister Letts, Brother Service from Glasgow, a baptized disciple that meets with us, and myself, and sometimes Sister Boyd from Bethnal Green. Oh, who can tell the thrill of joy we felt, the refreshment of spirit we experienced, at our first meeting. Our minds were naturally carried back to the time when we were in our native land, sitting with our dear brethren around the table there. God grant that this may be the first dawn of a great and flourishing church of our great Lord and Master, shining as a light in this ra pidly rising colony. The Wesleyans have lately built a splendid chapel at Prahran, and a short time before them the Baptists built one, so that we have now in this village, which is more worthy of the name of town, one Independent chapel, one Baptist chapel, one Wesleyan chapel, one Church of England meetingplace, and our own. There is also a Presbyterian meeting-house commenced. Brothers Boyd, Letts, Ingram, Service, and self, all live in Prahran, and Brother Lyle at St. Kilda, about a mile and a half from us, which is on the side of the bay. Brother Rossell has gone to the diggings; Brother Ingram is at work brick-making; Brother Boyd has been sawing, but at present has not been doing anything; Brother Lyle is at his trade of carpenter; and as to self, I am still occupied as a scribe at the office of a Mr. Murphy, solicitor, Swanston-street. I am living in a tent on a piece of ground I purchased in February last, when I left Mr. A'Beckett's. Business is pretty brisk; the Geelong and Melbourne Railway is commenced, and I see from the Government Gazette, that the Melbourne, Prahran, St. Kilda, and Brighton Railway Company have given notice of motion to the Council for their bill. Whatever the natives will think of railways, I cannot imagine. Occasionally we see a few of them, but not very often. I walked to town with two of them last Summer, a man and his lubra (wife.) They can speak a good deal of English; they asked me for some white money, and I gave them a fourpenny piece, with which they were very much pleased. I am glad to inform you, that I have just had the pleasure of welcoming another sister from England, per the California, (Sister Dickens.) I have not yet seen Brother Dickens, for he had not come ashore when Sister Dickens called upon me. They are from Bethnal Green. I am very much obliged to you for the parcel per Brother Letts; I will send the money with some that Brother Letts has to send to Brother Magarey for you. should very much like to have some more pamphlets, or works of a similar kind; but I believe the church intends communicating with you. A close correspondence also, I hope, will commence between our Adelaide brethren and us; and I trust also with our English brethren, for news from home greatly rejoiceth our hearts. I have been anxiously expecting to hear from some of the London brethren, but I have only received one letter, viz. from Brother and Sister Smith. I am in hopes, from the tenor of that letter, that they intend coming out; I should be truly delighted to sec them, for they are very exemplary characters, and I should be truly happy again to meet with them. I was cxceedingly sorry to hear, per Sister Dickens, of the extreme poverty and distress of one of the London brethren, with whom I used to meet, named Walton, who is mentioned in my letter to Brother Smith. I wish he was out here; I will endeavour to remit him a few pounds. Our Brother and Sister Warren and family have arrived, our brother in a very weak and debilitated state; but we did not allow him to remain on board long, for Brethren Dickens, Lyle, Rossell, Letts, and self, along with Mr. Godkin, hired a boat, and fetched him and his family ashore. They are occupying a house near Brother Dickens, situate on Emerald-hill, near the bay, where we are determined he shall not want for anything. We now generally number 13 and 14 at our meetings, and we have every prospect of success. We all spent a very happy Christmas day with Brother Ingram, frequently thinking of home; and on the Monday we dined and took tea at Brother Letts', in a long canvas shed, which was decorated for the occasion with green boughs, where we really enjoyed ourselves, as a happy community. I conclude by wishing you and all the Israel of God, the enjoyment of every blessing, and praying that we may all stand before the great white throne, united as a happy and loving community. Brother Warren has quite recovered, and is looking out for employment; he is now living at Prahran, as well as Brother and Sister Dickens. We hope to do some good in this parish. I was too late to post this letter with that of Brother Letts. I commenced writing it in November, and finished it by degrees as you will see on the 20th of February. Your's in the good hope, H. G. PICTON. ANOTHER LETTER FROM AUSTRALIA. (TO A BROTHER IN DUNDEE.) MELBOURNE, February 21, 1854. Dear Brother,I have long delayed in writing to you; the reason is that I could not fall in with any of the brethren, until I saw in a Harbinger the address of Brother Luishman, or at least the statement that he stopped at Pentridge, four miles from Melbourne. I went there in search of him, and was informed that he had left for Geelong, twelve months previously, though I have since found out that he is still living there, but have not seen him. I received another Harbinger from Mrs. Watt, containing Brother Picton's address at Prahran, three or four miles from Melbourne. I went out there, and found a meeting of about twelve brethren and sisters, with whom I have met four or five first days, and we have now increased to twenty. There is not a meeting in Melbourne at present, but we intend We had a very plea to commence one soon. sant passage of 105 days, but there was a good deal of sickness on board, mostly amongst the |