Observer, Dec. 1, '75. One word of caution in conclusion. There is a danger of attaching too much importance to having our schools well organized and well managed, and overlooking the truth that is to the individual Teachers. we must look for its success. It is quite possible to have a school well attended and well conducted where everything is done orderly and regularly and yet very little good done. It all depends on whether Teachers discharge their duties to the several classes earnestly, prayerfully, and conscientiously. Let those of us who have undertaken this task seek to be more alive to individual responsibility, keep before us the great object of our work, and bring all our energies to bear upon attaining that object. Let us not be discouraged if seemingly we make little or no progress, but work on in the faith of those who cast their bread on the waters, in the hope that though now lost to sight, it may be found after many days. WORDS SPOKEN AT THE FUNERAL OF SARAH NORRIS.* But I HAVE not read to you, friends, the words of the Patriarch Job. "Man that is born of a woman is of few days and full of trouble. He cometh forth like a flower and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow and continueth not." I have not read them, because I do not believe that they express the Christian view of life and of death. We don't when we look through the New Testament find that aspect presented to us. It is true the Apostle James says, What is your life? It is even a vapour that appeareth for a little while and then vanisheth away. he does not say it is full of trouble. He simply states that which is evident to every one, the transitory character of this temporal life. It is quite true when we think of the life of our Lord that His was the life of a man of sorrows, and that He said to His Disciples "In the world ye shall have tribulation." But we cannot for a moment conceive of Him saying like the Patriarch Jacob. "Few and evil have the days of the years of life been." Few were his days it is true, and many were the sorrows that he bore; but there was in his heart a fountain of joy that the sorrow did not touch, clear, and unbroken, and peaceful; and that very same joy it is ours as believers in Him to partake of. Some of you may think it odd that I should come to a funeral in my ordinary clothing. I have come to believe and what is more to act upon the belief that in this matter the practice of the Society of Friends is right. The reason of it is not in any way that I am wanting in When I see her respect, or reverence, or love, for our sleeping sister.† my again as I hope to do, and when I talk with her as I hope to do, Sarah Norris will find no fault with me at all for that. She perfectly understands. When we see her and talk with her again, if she has any fault to find with us it will be more likely for reasons like these. She would be very likely to find fault and sharply too if the little class she used to teach in the Sunday school were neglected while she was away, if her * See Obituary on a subsequent page. + If we do not make haste the world will shame the Church in the matter of funereal pomp. All around reform is advocated. Surely the Church of Christ should be in the foreground. Ed. Observer, Dec. 1, '75. girls that she loved were not cared for and loved, and taught to be true disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. She might find fault with us and sharply too if the joyful message of salvation in Jesus Christ were not faithfully proclaimed to perishing sinners. You know how careful she was to maintain Christian fellowship and friendly interest in every member of the church, striving according to her measure to realize the New Testament ideal, God's family upon earth: brothers and sisters with one Father in heaven, with one common object upon earth, with one blessed hope to look forward to. And one meaning among others that our Father may have in taking her away from us is, that others who have not as yet seen their way clear to it may learn the same bright cheery helpfulness, the same earnestness in every good word and work, the same kindly tolerance for all the weaknesses and waywardness of men. I can imagine her with that laughing smile she used to have asking, "Why we had put on black?" She did in some measure know here, and she has learned to understand it better now, that there is but one great horror of blackness in this universe of God, this world of men and of angels. She knows very well that the separation of spirit and body is not in any sense the greatest evil we can be called to mourn. I think it is in one of Mr. Ruskin's books I remember reading the statement that one difference between a good and a bad painting consists in this, that in a good painting all the shadows are as lights contrasted with deeper shadows, not perhaps expressed in the painting, but only conceived in the mind. Well, the one great horror of blackness, by the side of which all paler shadows become luminous, is not separation of soul and body, physical death, but the separation by sin of a soul from God. It is literally true that in the moment that Adam sinned against God in that very moment did death lay his cold hand upon his shoulder and say "Now, by virtue of your sin, you are mine." The unity of his being was broken, the fine tuned harmony was turned into discord, the will of man and the will of God instead of being unanimous had crossed one another, and it was out of the kindness and the love of God that He made death to be the result. I could very well understand any one putting on black as a sign of mourning for brothers, or sisters, or relations, dead in trespasses and in sin, with a heart dead and cold to all the love that God has manifested to us, though I do not think that that would be the best way of helping into life. Let us then be glad in this blessed truth, that in whatever circumstances we may be placed in this life, if God be with us, that it is our privilege ever to rejoice in Him. No matter whether they be circumstances of sickness, or pain, or death, poverty, desertion of friends, failure in being understood of others, perplexities in business, or church troubles, of whatever kind the sorrow may be, if God be with us in it we may, yes we must rejoice in Him. God has many lessons for all of us to learn, and some of us have got, but such a very little way in our education for the eternal glory and kingdom into which He is calling us in Christ Jesus. I know but few things more sad than this, for a man to tread the path of sorrow and suffering and when the Lord has brought him through it, for him to find that after all he had failed to learn the lesson God wanted to teach him in it. But, thank God, we have a Father who is not only kind, but as faithful as He is kind, and when we fail to learn He will Observer, Dec. 1, '75. gently take us back again to the beginning of our lesson. As an orphan, who very early lost both mother and father, our sister felt more of the need and yielded herself the more readily to the care and control of the Father in heaven. The life that she lived was no mere product of poor human nature, but was the outcome of fellowship with the Father, and with the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit. S. THE ISLE OF MAN.-THE STATE CHURCH AND BAPTISM. (Continued from p. 387.) THE correspondence in the "Manx Times" enlarges. In one instance "Manx Churchman" has two long letters to our one, and two or three other persons have intruded long epistles. Under these circumstances we cannot reproduce them; and, therefore, give the last that has appeared up to the time of writing this, and which in its present form should close the controversy. If "Manx Churchman" has not had enough, he should arrange for a more orderly and useful debate. ED. LETTER V. SIR, -So "Manx Churchman" denies that the Churches of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Manx were at one time parts of the Church of Rome. He really does presume too much upon our ignorance. He may just as well tell us that his own feet and hands are not parts of the body that his own head surmounts and controls as to say that those churches were not once parts of the organization of which the Pope is the head. "Manx Churchman" knows that in denying this former relation to Rome he is merely endeavouring to throw dust into the eyes of his readers. He says, "Reformation is not dissent. Well, suppose a certain Good Templar lodge to object, in part, to the faith and discipline of the Order, and to the headship and control of the " Right Worthy Grand Lodge,” and to plead for reformation, and to succeed in reforming the Order. In that case, of course, reformation is not dissent" in the sense "Manx Churchman uses the phrase. But if the Order cannot be reformed, and the protesting lodge removes itself from the jurisdiction of the Right Worthy Grand Lodge, create for itself another organization and another head, then the reformation culminates in dissent, and it becomes a dissenting sect; and such is the relation of the churches named to the Church of Rome. Our friend still insists that all professing Christians in the island who do not belong to his church are dissenters from it. It is not so in the proper use of the term, but his church is a dissenting church from the older one, which is still represented on the island by its priests and ordinances. In the only sense in which it is correct he is a dissenter from thechurch with which I am connected in Douglas, and in that sense I say that "Marx Churchman," and all professing Christians in the island who are not members of it, are dissenters from it. They dissent from us as much as we dissent from them. I am prepared to prove that this so-called Manx Church stands in relation, both to the Church of Rome and to the Church of Christ, of a dissenting church-that it is neither like the one nor the other. "Manx Churchman" does not seem quite to like the term State Church. I am not surprised at it, because he knows well enough that the church sells itself to the State for State secured emolument, and is thus entitled to rank with harlot churches. Then he assures us that "no man in England, nor in the Isle of Man, is made to pay for another man's church." But immediately he has to call back his words, in part, and to admit that State Church priests are paid by the State as army and as gaol chaplains. But this he palliates by the fact that the pay is given, in some cases, to persons he calls dissenters. "Two blacks do not make a white." To pay a Romish priest to teach what the State Church holds to be damnable doctrine, for the purpose of maintaining the practice of paying State Churchmen who are dissenters from the Church of the Pope, for army and prison ministration, is but to make the matter Observer, Dec. 1, '75. worse. But, apart from this, it is not true that the State Church does not derive funds by compulsion from people who do not belong to it. It does not get so much as formerly in certain particulars; but no thanks to the Church, which ever holds all that it can. Twice have I myself had the brokers in my house to distrain for church rates, for repairs of a church I never entered, and in which I could not conscientiously worship. It is quite true that certain State Church parsons may receive their pay not directly from the hands of Government officials, but in how many instances is that pay derived from property formerly created or augmented by State grants? "Manx Churchman" is aware of this, or else he is grossly ignorant of the affairs of his own church. Why, then, does he seek to blind the uninformed by perverting the facts? Again, this man flings at us the term "Campbellite," which he admits he does not know to be properly applied. I have shown him that it is not; that we do not accept it; that we have derived nothing from Mr. Campbell; and that people who know anything of Christian courtesy and gentlemanly conduct do not thus speak of us after being informed of the facts. Yet he flings it about, seemingly, with a sort of savage delight. Well, "every creature after his kind." By so doing he reveals what he is, and must take the consequence. "Manx Churchman" passes over the first four paragraphs of my last. Yet he complains that I did not answer all his former points; and, though I told him (the length of my letter proves it) that I was sorry that your space would not allow me to enter fully into them, yet, in effect, he implies that this is false, by suggesting that my sorrow is from inconvenience to answer what, after all, is too weak to merit attention. Now, I very much regret that I am dealing with one who has no idea of the requirements of Christian charity, but who, groundlessly, imputes base motives, Surely there is reason to fear that he measures my corn by his own bushel. But that it may clearly appear how far I am unwilling to grapple with the points in handwhich cannot be done in the absence of arrangements to that end-I propose to occupy equal time in a platform discussion, or equal space in a series of letters, to be published and circulated in the Isle of Man, the questions to be discussed being1st. Is the pouring of water upon an infant Christian baptism? 2nd. Is the State Church the Church of Christ? I propose that each argument shall be disposed of before another is introduced, so that there shall be little or no opportunity to evade any important point. I make this offer with one proviso-that "Manx Churchman" shall, when he reveals himself, prove to be a person whom Manx Churchmen would consider an able and respectable defender of their Church. "Manx Churchman "thinks it a pity Mr. King was not present "to enlighten Peter, and tell him that he was quite mistaken, and that the falling of the Holy Ghost upon them was not the baptism that the Lord spoke of." But Peter never said that it was, nor did the Lord, nor did any one else. Let us see what this argument amounts to. It was foretold that certain, persons should be baptized in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was "poured out" on them; therefore baptism can be administered by pouring. But it would be capricious to stay just there. The Holy Spirit "fell on them," therefore falling on is baptism. Then the Holy Spirit, as a cloven tongue, “like as of fire," "sat" upon each of them; therefore, baptism can be administered by sitting on. An argument which, when fairly applied, leads to such absurdity, may go for what it is worth. Let the Vicar of St. Barnabas (who is a "Manx Churchman") apply this sitting argument next time a babe is presented for baptism, and he will no doubt convince himself and its parents that there is some mistake in the matter. But I am gravely asked what the baptism of the Holy Spirit was, if not the pouring out of the Spirit. Well, when the priest of the State Church does what the law requires in baptizing a healthy babe, he immerses it in the water already poured into the font. Literally there was neither pouring nor immersing. The everywhere present Spirit of God cannot be literally poured, and creatures who live and move and have their being in God cannot be immersed into Him. But a special demonstration of the Spirit's presence and power is vouchsafed under the designation of an outpouring, and the Apostles are therein so immersed into the things of the Spirit of God, so come to know the mind of the Spirit, that they are fitted to make known that mind for all generations. Jesus had ascended to heaven, and He was the bestower of the Spirit. As denoting its source, the Spirit is said to be poured out. On Pentecost no man knew the things of God which belong Observer, Dec. 1, '75. to our redemption; but the minds of the Apostles were to be enlightened by the Spirit of God, and so ample was the bestowment that they were said to be immersed in the Spirit. I demand that the promise of the Saviour be put into Englishevery word translated. It then reads-" He shall immerse you in the Holy Spirit." But according to "Manx Churchman," the Apostles were not the subjects of the baptism of the Spirit. He intimates that the Spirit was poured, and that the pouring was the baptism. If this be so, then the Spirit was baptized and not the men. On the baptism in fire, Dean Alford is no authority to me. His equals testify as I put it, and the opinion of the dean may go for what it is worth, remembering that it is merely an opinion. On the other hand, in both instances in the Gospels where the baptism in fire is announced it is immediately defined as a burning up of the chaff with unquenchable fire. How impotent is "Manx Churchman's " return to Mark vii. and Luke xi. He says the beds were not immersed. Dean Alford says that the reference is probably to couches; and Lederer, and other Jews, who know all about it, say the couches were immersed, and describe them as such as could easily be immersed. Then, he says that it is absurd to suppose that it could be a matter of surprise to the Pharisees that our Lord did not bathe his person before sitting down! But the text, put into English, tells us that their custom, under certain circumstances, was to require immersion, and I have given testimony that it was thus required after contact with the common people. Our Lord went frequently among the common people; and, therefore, would need, according to the holding of the Pharisees, that very immersion which he says they would not be surprised at His abstaining from. In my last, I wrote "John iii. 5 does not imply that babes can be born again. "Manx Churchman" replies that it does, for it is absolutely universal in its application, and that the 'tis,' rendered man, includes babes." To this "Manx Churchman replies, "Mr. King puts words in my mouth which I never used." He says 'yes, I say that John iii. 5 does not imply that babes can be born again.' Manx Church man replies that it does. I never replied anything of the sort." Well, then, I must cite his exact words from his former letter. Here they are :-Mr. King says "that what is affirmed in John iii. 5 does not apply to babes. I say it does, for it is absolutely universal in its application, and that the tis,' rendered man, includes babes." Now here is word for word what I said "Manx Churchman" said, and which he boldly declares he never said. How is this? Why, I exposed his ignorance of the usage of 'tis' by citing instances in which it could not include a babe; and rather than say, Thank you, Mr. King, for the correction, he denies ever having written his words, hoping, it may be presumed, that Manx people do not keep their newspapers. But he does not see what good purpose would be answered by revealing his name; and, therefore, will continue signing "Manx Churchman." One good purpose giving his name would answer is, that people would then know who it is that indulges in so much uncharity, flinging an odious name at persons, admitting that he does not know that it is rightly applied, and who, when he cannot defend his own words, declares he never used them.-Yours, &c., DAVID KING. CHRISTADELPHIAN PERPLEXITY. DEAR SIR,-Before I state the reason why I write this letter to you, I must let you know who addresses you. If you look back to the time when you lectured against Christadelphianism, in Grosvenor Street Chapel, Manchester, you will remember me as the one who was mainly the cause of that lecture; you will also recollect that I had a brief interview with you at Mr. Prior's, and afterwards a correspondence by post which you closed abruptly for reasons that were, no doubt, satisfactory to yourself. In the course of the years which have intervened from then till now my views of Bible teaching have somewhat changed, I trust they are broader than those which I then so eagerly defended. I have often thought of your last words to me which were, in substance, "My views of the kingdom are so harmonious, so clear to my mind, that I have no doubt at all about their truth." Many times since then I have wished I could truthfully use those words as my own. I have tried hard to see the kingdom just as Dr. Thomas taught it, but could not, there were difficulties |