authority, by the one visible head whom He had Himself chosen, and by the one body of Apostles whom He had appointed to govern in union with that one head. And this governing body ruled over the whole Church in all places. Look through the Acts and Epistles, and you will see "St. Peter and the Apostles" making laws for the government of the Church; examining into and punishing transgressions; excommunicating, that is, expelling from the kingdom of the Church, and re-admitting on repentance; in short, exercising all the acts of government, and that in the name, and with the authority, of Christ, and the sanction of the Holy Ghost. For instance, when a question arises how far the law of Moses is binding on the Gentiles, the Apostles settle it, and announce their decision in these authoritative terms: "It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us." And we are told that Paul and Timothy, as they passed through the cities, delivered unto them the decrees for to keep that were decreed by the Apostles and ancients (Prot. vers. elders) that were at Jerusalem. The Apostles had, further, a power of ordaining others to rule under them, to whom they, therefore, committed a portion of the authority which Christ had committed to them; and this they did in every church which they established. We read in Scripture of bishops, and priests, (or presbyters, ancients, or elders,) and deacons, and that the power given them was from the Holy Ghost. "Take heed unto yourselves," said St. Paul to the " ancients" of the Church of Ephesus, "and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops." (The word in the Prot. version is overseers, which has precisely the same meaning.) Thus we see each church had its own pastors, and these of different degrees of authority, and all these again bound in obedience to the governing body by whom they were appointed, and that governing body, again, gathered, as it were, round one head. Surely nothing can more perfectly represent the idea of a kingdom than this; it was a kingdom in as true a sense as the realm of England may be called a kingdom, only that it was a niversal kingdom, or rapidly tending to become such, and kingdom set up for a spiritual end, and enriched with

spiritual treasures. What became of it afterwards? At the death of the Apostles, did it fall to pieces? Was there no provision made for its continuance? Was the Rock on which it was built to be broken in pieces when he to whom Christ gave that name died for his Master's cause? Had St. Peter no successors to whom the Lord's commission extended? Surely the account given us in Holy Scripture of the founding of the Church would lead us to expect that it was to be a permanent institution, a living, growing kingdom, universal and yet one, and to endure to the end of the world; indeed, it was part of the prophecy of Daniel that this kingdom "should never be destroyed, but should stand for ever." If, then, it still endures, where shall we find it? what is it?

Is it the Church of England? That is so far from being an universal kingdom that it is only part of a kingdom; it is a mere institution of the kingdom of England, like the army, or the navy, or the courts of law; its head is no successor of St. Peter, but the sovereign of the realm; its territory is not the whole world, but England, or where English people are congregated; its teaching, so far from being one, is made up of contradictions which no skill can reconcile; it traces back its beginning, not to the Apostles, but to the Reformers in the sixteenth century. Is this the kingdom of Christ?

Is it the sect which bears the name of an earthly founder, and which celebrated a short time back the hundredth year of its existence? The kingdom of Christ is more than a hundred years old. Is it any of the sects which swarm around us, springing up daily, dividing, subdividing, disputing, changing their laws and their doctrines, dying away, and then reappearing in new forms? There is not one of these (except, perhaps, some of the more fanatical, who profess to have received a new revelation,) which would not shrink from putting forward a claim to be itself the kingdom of Christ; and with reason, for the kingdom of Christ is universal, they of this island only; that was established by Christ and His Apostles, these are of yesterday and of man's setting up.

And if no one of them is itself the kingdom, can they all put together claim to be so? A kingdom divided against

itself must fall; Christ's kingdom is to stand for ever, therefore it must be one. All these sects hold different doctrines and follow different teachers; can they, then, be the children of the kingdom who "hold fast the faith once delivered to the saints;" who have "one faith," as well as one Lord and one Baptism? Truly "they are more like a mob than a kingdom;" they are more like the confused multitude at the foot of Babel, when the curse of dispersion had just been spoken upon them and they ceased to understand each other's language, than like a kingdom "all one, even as the Father and the Son are one."

One word more, and I have done; if these things be so, in what sense can Protestants be said to receive Christ as their King? They may acknowledge Him as their Priest, to make atonement for them, though even that atonement many among them deny. They may acknowledge Him as their Prophet, to teach them doctrine, though what that doctrine is they are altogether at variance. But in what sense can He be called their King? A king is one who rules over a kingdom, administering its laws, either in person or by ministers whom he has appointed. Now Christ, as we all know, is not now visibly upon earth, so as to rule in person; who, then, among Protestants rule in His stead, bearing His commission? The rulers of the Establishment, her Bishops and clergy, professedly receive their commission, not from Christ, but from the Crown, the acknowledged source of their jurisdiction. And the rulers of the other sects, be they synods, central conferences, or whatever else they may be called, do they even pretend to trace back their commission to our Lord, and so to be governing in His stead and by His authority? We know that none of them do.

What shall we say then? Has the kingdom heralded by the Prophets and founded by the Apostles fallen utterly to pieces, though prophecy proclaimed that it should never fail, and our Lord Himself declared that the gates of hell should not prevail against it? Or is there still such a kingdom, though Protestant England is of it no longer? and if so, where is it?

Holy Week.

I. PALM SUNDAY, OR THE PROCESSION.

THIS last week of Lent is called Holy Week, because of the holy events which it commemorates, and the holy dispositions with which we ought to celebrate it. It is also called the Great Week, "not," says St. Chrysostom, " because the number of its days and hours is greater than those of any other week, but because of the great and unspeakable things that were done in it; for in this week the tyranny of the devil was destroyed, death was overcome, the curse was taken away, God was reconciled to man, and heaven was opened to all believers. This week is called the Great Week, therefore, because of the great gifts which God bestowed in it."

There have been two great weeks since the world began; the week of creation, in which "the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them," and the week of redemption; and this last week is incomparably greater and more wonderful than the former. Of the former there is no special commemoration made by the Christian Church; but the latter is every where kept in the most solemn manner throughout the whole Catholic world. Indeed, it is not too much to say that all the other weeks in the year are but so many shadows, as it were, of this great week, depending upon it and receiving their character from it. You know, for instance, that Sunday is but a weekly repetition, throughout the year, of Easter-Day. I mean, that it was in order to commemorate the resurrection of Christ that the Apostles changed the day of rest from the seventh day, the Jewish Sabbath or Saturday, to the first day of the week, the Christian Sunday; so that every Sunday may now be looked upon as a faint shadow, as it were, of Easter-Day. So, in like manner, it is in order to commemorate the crucifixion of Christ that the Church orders the sixth day of every week