around him, his eye fixes on the FIRST BORN of many brethren. While he adores him as the head of the innumerable host of ransomed immortals, his memory musters up the recollections of Gethsemane, Pilate and his judgment seat, Mount Calvary and the sepulchre in the garden. To the assembly of the saints with eagerness he hastens, anxious to share in the praises of his glorious king, to join in the recollection of his humiliation, and to participate in the triumph of his resurrection.

Christians what a difference between the Jewish sabbath and this day of triumph!

They have mnch to learn of the glory of christianity who think that going to a synagogue, and hearing an harangue, and returning to their firesides, is suitable to the design or expressive of the import of this joyful day.

On this day Messiah entered Jerusalem as son of David, as King of Judah. On this day he rose from the dead. On this day, after his resurrection, he generally met with his disciples in their assemblies. On this day, he sent the Holy Spirit down from heaven and erected the first christian church. "On this day the disciples came together to break bread." On this day the christians joined in the fellowship of the saints, or in making contributions for the saints. And, on this day, the Spirit finished its work of revelation on the Isle of Patmos, in giving to John the beloved the last secrets of the divine plan ever to be uttered in human language while time endures. If no authoritative precedent enforced the assembly of saints on this day, and the observance of the order of the Lord's house, the very circumstance of such a coincidence of glorious wonders would point it out as the Lord's day; and love to him, the most powerful principle that ever impelled to action, would constrain all saints not to forsake the assembling of themselves on this day; but to meet, to animate and to be animated; to remember, to admire, to adore, to hymn in songs divine, their glorious and mighty king. Christians, could you say, no? A. C.

Actions speak more forcibly than words, they are the test of character. Like fruit upon the tree, they show the nature of the man; while motives, like the sap, are hidden from our view.

REBUKING.

To the Editor of the Bible Advocate.

Dear Brother,

In the article headed "Erring Brother." in the October number of the Bible Advocate, it is written, "Why heap words of reproach upon him who has erred? why denounce him and spurn him from your presence?"

Pray am I to understand that you are only objecting to some injudicious manner of reproving an erring brother, or am I to understand that you would expel from Original or Bible Christianity t the wholesome ordinance of Rebuke altogether, though given by a proper person and in a proper manner.

I perceive Paul says to Titus," Exhort and rebuke with all authority." Titus ii. 15. And similar instructions are given to Timothy. 2 Tim. iv. 2. And that this was to be done publicly before the church I apprehend is clear from 1 Tim. v. 2, for the salutary purpose therein specified.

I am tempted to ask this question because there is in existence a spirit that would let a brother perish rather than rebuke him; but, blessed be God, there is another spirit that would rebuke a brother, and that sharply too, in order that he perish not.

Yours affectionately,

A FRIEND.

We know not any thing in the few lines referred to which could lead "A Friend" to suppose that we would dispense with a proper loving rebuke. To reprove, rebuke, and exhort, are works fully and efficiently to be attended to by every church. But how prone are men to rebuke sharply instead of lovingly, to rebuke when the offending one is present, and when he is distant to exclaim against him. How unbecoming in us, so frail, so often erring! how requisite for us to take heed, lest when we think we stand, we fall!

The utmost faithfulness is demanded of us: we must not see or suffer sin to remain upon our brother; but how few are prepared with due and proper meekness, with deep humility, so to rebuke, that while they exhibit their abhorrence of the sin, their love, beaming upon, subdues the heart of the erring one.-ED.

PEACE.

PEACE was the song the angels sang
When Jesus songht this vale of tears;
And sweet the heavenly prelude rang.

To calm the watchful shepherds' fears,

WAR is the word that man hath spoke-
Convulsed by passions dark and dread;
And Pride enforced a lawless yoke,

E'en where the gospel's banner spread.

PEACE was the prayer the Savior breath'd,
When from our world his steps withdrew ;

The gift he to his friends bequeath'd

With Calvary and the cross in view.

REDEEMER, with adoring love,

Our spirits take thy rich bequest, The watchword of the host above,

The passport to their realms of rest.

Mrs. Sigour

THE REFORMER.

THE true Reformer, like the pioneer,

Who hews the western forest, must throw by
All thought of ease or resting till he die:
Nor in his noble breast admit a fear

Of ill although, through life, he may not hear
The voice of friend, nor see one loving eye
To cheer him on his way of duty high,

And warn him when his foes are lurking near!
Yet fields of beauty, by his dauntless hand,
Shall rise in loveliness, where now the gloom
Of error doth the light of Truth withstand;
The lonely wilderness he fells, shall bloom
Throughout all aftertime; and those who now
Scowl with mad hate, before his tomb shall bow.
R. H. Bacon,

TEST OF PIETY.

What sacrifice would it be to a man who has £500 a year to devote annually £100 to the purposes of religion; to another who has £1000 a year, to devote £300; and another who has £10,000, to allow £4000 for the same object? It would not deprive any one of them of any thing that contributes to comfort, honor, or sensitive enjoyment. It is now high time that the sincerity of a profession of Christianity should be tried by the test of pounds, shillings, and pence. That man who refuses to come forward with his wealth, when it is proved to be requisite for the purposes alluded to, ought not to assume the name of a Christian. He has never felt the influence of that divine maxim of our Saviour's, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." He virtually declares that "laying up treasures on earth," providing fortunes for his family, keeping up a certain rank in society, and living in luxurious abundance, are matters of far greater importance than the approach of the millennium and the regeneration of the world. If a man is in doubt with respect to the existence of religious principles in the soul, I know not a better test than this by which to try the sincerity of his Christian profession. Is he not willing at the call of God to give up a portion of his possessions to his service, and even to forsake all to prove himself a follower of Christ? Dr. Dick.

THREE CHURCHES.

The church is the church of the clergy, the church of the state, or the church of the people.

The church of the clergy is that in which the priests and the ministers are all in all; in which they are nearly sole rulers; and in which the members have no part or almost none in the administration. This state is peculiarly that of the church of Rome; and thence it happens, that in French the word church is often synonymous with clergy. But the domineering spirit of the clergy is a vice of the human heart to be found in Protestantism as well as in Roman Catholicism. If a clergy should claim to recruit itself. instead of receiving its members from the free choice of the people! if it should arrogate the sole government of the church, associating with itself, for form's sake, an insignificant number of laymen; the church in which such a clergy should

B

rule would be a church of the clergy, how Protestant soever it might be in other respects.

Now, according to the principles of the reformation, the church of the clergy is the worst of all the forms that Christian truth can put on.

The church of the state is that which is under the sway of political power. This form, although preferable to the first, has nevertheless, immense inconveniences,

There remains the church of the people. I fear this expression will startle some persons, but without any cause. It is that form of the church in which the members are the essence. Now, it is impossible not to allow, that this is the form dictated by the nature of things and prescribed by the gospel. Is it not said, "All ye are brethren. The body is not one member, but many. Ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.'

The church of the people is the true primitive church of Christianity.

In primitive times the government of the church was democratic. Jesus Christ forbade all distinction of rank among his apostles. In certain circumstances, he also gave the right of determining to the whole assembly of the faithful. All his teaching breathed the deepest respect for the sacred rights of man. When the place of Judas was to be filled up, it was the disciples, assembled to the number of about a hundred and twenty, who chose Barsabas and Matthias. Are deacons to be elected? the multitude of the disciples, and the whole assembly choose seven men for that office. Such was the primitive constitution of the church. Admirable democracy! where there was neither party spirit, nor hatred, nor desire of dominion; where all was love, devotion, and sacrifice to the general good; the only pure democracy, indeed, that ever existed upon the earth!

This state of things was changed. The idea of the Jewish priesthood was foisted into the Christian church. By hnd by, the bishops and pastors governed alone. Aristacracy then succeeded to the democratic power.

Last of all, some centuries after, the bishop of Rome, the capital of the world, claimed the title of universal bishop; and thus Monarchy succeeded to the aristocratic constitution.

Such was the progress, or rather the decline of ChristenM, Merle. D'Aubigne.

dom.