Observer, May 1, 71. the good news was for them; but the family meetings of those who were the brethren had no need to be public. As in Jerusalem so doubtless in Ephesus, Corinth and Rome, the doors were often shut for fear of interruption. And further to avoid notice the meetings were held after dark. This we know was so at Jerusalem, at Troas and at Corinth, and we believe we have given the true reason for it. The Jews had for generations been allowed their own worship in pagan cities. The Christian Jews, while the temple was still standing, attended their Sabbath services in the synagogues, and kept holy the Sabbath day. What more natural than that after sundown they should gather quietly and celebrate the death of their risen Lord. Saturday night, not Sunday night, was their time of eating the Lord's Supper, and at Troas Paul discoursed till midnight, and when daylight came-still on the first day of the week, he went forward on his journey. Any other interpretation would make Paul travel on the Sabbath day, which we may be sure he never did. The Christians had not then dared to consecrate a whole day to Christ, but they took their hours of sleep for the duty-that blessed privilege they might not neglect. But later, the Jewish temple was destroyed, and it was manifest to the Christians that the Jewish economy was at an end, and they increased in numbers so that timidity wore away and with their Christian character and service they dared to front the Sun. In Bythinia and elsewhere they passed by the Pagan priests and bought their beef of those whose cattle had not been slaughtered on Jupiter's altar. Their solemn services became known, and the poor and the rich, for curiosity or from better motives, came to witness their order. (James ii. 2) Wise governors and lax emperors connived at their worship. The times were less troublous. There was no longer reason why the night watches should be taken from sleep and given to worship, so they met in the day of the first day of the week, and consecrated it to the service of the Master. They called it the LORD'S DAY. (Rev i. 10 The one purpose remained the same. The central point of worship was the Lord's Supper, which, as it was no common meal, might be called supper as appropriately as any other name. Around the table they grouped by apostolic injunction the contribution for all purposes of love and necessity and all teaching, praise and prayer. They did all for the Lord. If we sat round the Lord's table on Sunday night we should not do it on the first of the week, but on the second. If we do it on Saturday night it would now be an unnecessarily close imitation of the Church at Corinth, as their taking the loaf after their own supper was an unnecessary imitation of Christ. R. H. Intelligence of Churches, &q. SPITTAL. Since the brief notice of last | month, a church, of some forty members has been formed. The preaching hall is crowded. Ed. Evans has returned to labour there for a time. LEEDS.-Please make known that a small church has been formed in Leeds. Our meeting-room is in Burley street, Park Lane. We shall be glad for any brethren, who come that way, to meet with us. J. B. B. ADELAIDE, AUSTRALIA, Jan. 30.-To the Editor of the E. O.-So we have received the last number of the last volume of the Harbinger. Though convinced that the change you propose is not without good reason and with the very best intentions, and having the heartiest good wishes for Observer, May 1, '71. its success, yet I must confess to a feeling of regret akin to what one feels at taking a last farewell of an old familiar and valued that every disciple has a right to proclaim Obituary. On the 14th March, at Liverpool, ELIZABETH, the wife of Bro. GODSON, in her 76th year. She was truly a mother in Israel! Richly adorned with the purest of all ornaments, that of a meek and quiet spirit, she has gone in and out among the brethren as a pattern of holiness and unassuming Christian worth. Her connection with the churches has been of long standing-nearly thirty years. Her aged and bereaved partner seems, in the sudden infirmities that have come upon him, to await the summons to rejoin her in the better land. His life has been one of great usefulness in the Church since his removal to Liverpool from Hull, about thirteen years ago. friend. My acquaintance with the Har- ners. The series of articles in the Har- BALLARAT.-The cause here is advancing. T. On the 9th of March, at Devonshire Place, Everton, Liverpool, SUSANNAH TICKLE, the beloved sister of G. Y. Tickle, in her forty-sixth year. Patience under suffering, cheerful resignation and oftrepeated expressions of gratitude to God for alleviation in the hours of extreme exhaustion and sickness marked the dear one's departure. Now we feel a joy, in the midst of our heavy sorrow, that she is resting peacefully in the bosom of the Saviour she loved and trusted with her soul's salvation. Thanks be to God for his unspeakable T. Fell asleep in Jesus, on Friday March 17th, sister ANN HOSE, eighty-three years of age, of the Church in Leicester. Before coming to Leicester, sometime before the beginning of the cause in this place, she was in fellowship with the brethren in Nottingham, having been formerly a Baptist. The brethren here will long remember her for the earnest desire she ever manifested to attend the means of grace even under much bodily weakness, and also for her conscientiousness in giving her "widow's mite ”often about a sixth of her small income-to the contribution for the Lord's cause. several years back her strength had been gradually failing, until, after a long illness, she has fallen asleep after giving sure tokens of a bright hope of immortality. J. A. For SARAH NUTTALL (mother of the wife of Bro. Matthew Green, Evangelist, Australia) fell asleep in Jesus, on the morning of Lord's Day, April 2nd. Early in life she decided for the Lord and was immersed. Her Christian course has been that of the just, which shineth more and more, unto the perfect day. VIEW.P. Observer, May 1, '71 EDITORIAL. DR. JOHN THOMAS.-The few persons in this country and in America now known as Christadelphians, and formerly by another fanciful designation, also devised for them by Dr. Thomas, are now subject to deep grief owing to his departure from among the living. He had gone to the United States to arrange his affairs and to return for the purpose of spending his remaining years in England. But he died on Sunday, March 5th, aged 67 years, less one month. He seems to have suffered intensely from physical causes for some short time previous to his departure. As to the number of his followers, we cannot say precisely, not so long ago they were estimated, as a whole, in America and Europe, at about 1,000. Their monthly magazine appears with heavy black border, the editor does the best he can to cover the departed with glory, but even he is compelled to allude to traits which add no lustre to the memory. Still, he hesitates not to recur" to the parallel between Paul and Dr. Thomas." Now we are not at all inclined to grieve his sorrowing followers by submitting a catalogue of his manifest sins and failings, nor would we have written one word at this time, in that direction, but for this libel upon the great Apostle. We know what Paul was, and what he did; but we know Dr. Thomas only as a man who would be second nowhere, and who would make a sect and then discard it to make another infinitesimally small, that he might thus head a party, without a rival and without an equal; pouring upon all who could not follow him the most hard-mouthed abuse. This is so much the case, that on the same page the editor feels compelled to write-" He required to be a rough-spoken, unsentimental man. Apparent harshness was a qualification for the work." We are also told that "he was fatherly, kind, truly humble," &c., and the editor adds-"How came it, then, that he should sometimes appear so opposite? His mind acted in so high a sphere that he could not stoop in fellowship with vulgarity or ignorance." Other admissions are made, but we wish to cite no more than enough to fustify our protest against the absurd association of Paul and Dr. Thomas. HYMN. Bright was the earth's primeval morn, But brighter glowed the sacred dawn When He-life's full-orbed sun Above death's dark horizon shone, And bright shall be those glad first days For dark and drear all things appear And lifts our hearts above. G. Y. T. I MADE HASTE. 66 A PERSON was lately complaining in my presence, says Mr. Jay, "Oh, sir, I do not like this railroad pace to heaven." Why, sir," said I, "it is the Scriptural pace. It is good to be always zealously affected in a good thing; and you can never go to heaven in a hearse. Oh, says David, Then will I'-crawl along? No. 'Then will I'-walk along. No. But, Then will I run in the way of Thy commandments when Thou shalt enlarge my heart.'" Observer, June 1, '71. THE DISESTABLISHMENT OF THE BRITISH STATE THE last month has proved remarkably rich in Anti-State-Church activity. The Ninth Triennial Conference of the Liberation Society was held in the large hall of the Cannon Street Hotel, London. The assem bly was the most powerful of the series. Some six hundred delegates were present, among whom, with several others from Birmingham, we had a place. The Church in Charles Henry Street was represented by D. King, and that of Summer Lane by S. Jenkins. The Conference was most hearty and unanimous throughout. R. W. Dale, of Birmingham, moved the first resolution and carried the assembly with him most heartily when he concluded by saying "I can never speak of the past history of the Liberal party without rejoicing that the members of the Free Churches of England have borne a great and noble part in winning its illustrious triumphs, and I trust it may be possible for us to remain in alliance with the Liberal party for very many years to come-(Hear, hear)—but we must have a clear understanding as to the principles on which that alliance rests. I have the greatest possible admiration for the genius and the courage and the conscientiousness of the present leader of the Liberal party (Hear, hear)—but there are some things dearer to us than the traditions of the party, and there are some things dearer to us than its present chief, and I trust that Nonconformists-the adherents of this Society in all parts of the country-will make it clearly understood that since the Liberal party appears to have come very near the end of its programme, that party must accept more or less distinctly the principle for which we contend, if it is to rely upon our future support.-(Very great applause.)" The speakers included Mr. E. Miall, Mr. R. Richards, and other Members of Parliament, and the élite of the Nonconformist ministers of London and the Provinces. Strong faith in the realization of disestablishment was expressed on every hand. A public meeting was also held in Mr. Spurgeon's Tabernacle, the vast assembly being, seemingly, moved by one heart and one mind. On the 9th of May the first battle in the House of Commons of that series of conflicts which is destined ere long to terminate in the disestablishment and disendowment of the State Church was fought. Mr. Miall, in a masterly speech, praised by all parties in the House; moved his reso lution in favour of disestablishment at the earliest possible period. After a dignified discussion ninety-one Members voted in its favour, being somewhat over the support anticipated. Speaking of the whole debate, "It was evident that the principle of Establishments—as a principlewas in effect given up. There was not even the shadow of an attempt to claim for the State the right to fix the creed and form of worship of any individual citizen. Sir Roundell Palmer virtually conceded the whole principle when he said, 'I quite agree that no State authority should interfere with any man's religious belief, and if in past times such an opinion was entertained, we happily live in times when such interference has long since passed away.' It was avowed, as it has been in previous discussions on Church Questions, that the creation of a Church Establishment would be impossible if it were now to be broached anew. Nearly the. whole answer attempted by the opponents of the motion amounted to this: Here is the Church of England; it has been here a long while; it is doing a good deal of work; it has a good deal of money; and though you Dissenters don't like it, the people of England don't want it disestablished just yet: therefore we oppose the motion.' Observer, June 1, 71 There seemed to be an underlying conviction in the minds of all the speakers, and also in the minds of their supporters, that this was about all that could be said for the Church, and that if the nation should come to wish for disestablishment, the Church would have to go, and that it was more than probable that the majority of the people of England would sooner or later make that demand. There was no real attempt to grapple with the main grounds upon which the motion was based. Sir. R. Palmer did indeed make a show of grappling with the first charge, that the Church of England had failed to secure that universality and unity at which all Acts of Uniformity have aimed, and for which alone they have been passed. Under cover of smooth and almost honeyed words he granted that this aiming at universality was a piece of tyranny; 'founded upon false and impossible principles, arising from ideas entertained in past times when liberty was not known.' The Home Secretary made what may be regarded as an official speech, in which, judging by its tone and hesitating arguments, there was very little earnestness of conviction. Its chief point was a defence of the Government for not taking up the question, on the ground that the state of public opinion did not warrant their doing so: implying, of course, the conclusion that when the state of public feeling is so-and-so, it will be the duty of Government to take it up. The speeches of Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone were equally remarkable for the entire absence of any serious attempt to defend the principle of Establishments, or to refute the main positions of the mover of the resolution. The utmost that the former gentleman could find to say on this point was to express his belief that the great majority of the House, and the great majority of the country, are of opinion that the State should recognise some religious expression by the people'-a conveniently vague phrase, which means-I have not a word to say for the principle of a State-Church. The Premier confined himself almost to a beautiful eulogy upon the Church as it is, and an estimate of the magnitude of the work of disestablishment." A leading article in the Nonconformist, from which the foregoing remarks are in part adopted, thus sums up-" We have been answered, indeed, but it cannot be said the case has been met. The nature of the answer indicates that our case is not likely to be met. Our opponents will not join issue on our own ground, but will insist on tempting us to a field where they have pleasanter if not surer footing. They have retreated from the citadel of Establishment, which they used to defend so vigorously and even imperiously, and have left it in our hands, and invite us to see what beautiful pastures have been laid out by the dwellers in the citadel, and appeal to us not to disturb them. Who does not see that such substitutes for argument as these cannot wear long? If we persist in our demands for justice and equality, basing them on no other grounds than these, such flimsy pretexts for refusal must soon be torn to shreds or worn into holes." FROM MR. MIALL'S SPEECH ON DISESTABLISHMENT. "THERE is a time for all things,' I shall be told—and the proper time for mooting this question in Parliament is not come. It is much too far in advance of public opinion to allow of its being treated with a view to immediate legislative settlement, and on this ground 1 may be charged with being premature. Well, Sir, I scarcely need remind the House that that objection has been hurled, I may even say at random, at every change |