the Equinox a difference existed as to the precise day of its occurrence. Throughout the Western Church generally the Equinox was supposed to occur on the 18th of March; but by the Alexandrians it was correctly placed some days later. When, therefore, the fourteenth day of a lunar month fell on the 19th of March, this was considered by the Westerns as the Paschal month, since its fourteenth day occurred after the Equinox, as computed by them, whilst the Alexandrians, inasmuch as the fourteenth day of this moon occurred before the date which they assigned for the Equinox, did not regard it as the Paschal moon, and consequently waited for another lunation, thus celebrating their Easter a month later than the Latins.

I would, however, observe that this point of difference is not to be regarded as adding another to the various days on which Easter might be celebrated, as represented in the foregoing table. For in such a case the Easter festival, as determined by the earlier of the two dates assigned to the Equinox, would coincide with the date as determined by the Jewish calendar, in accordance with which, as we have seen, the feast was celebrated by many Christians.

Thus, then, we have before us the various modes of determining Easter which were in use in the Church down to the assembling of the First General Council of Nice.

In the next number of the RECORD we shall see what steps were taken by the Council, and with what success, to introduce a uniform discipline in this respect throughout the Church.

W. J. W.

SOME REMARKS ON

CARDINAL WISEMAN'S "LECTURES ON THE BLESSED EUCHARIST."

THE "Lectures on the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, proved from Scripture, by his Eminence Cardinal Wiseman," continue to hold the place which they assumed immediately after their publication. That place is very high amongst the most valuable contributions of modern times to theological literature. And well they have deserved it. In profound and varied learning, in solid reasoning, in clearness of arrangement, in fulness of illustration and in argumentative skill,

they constitute a masterpiece of theological controversy. They seem, indeed, to have exhausted their subject, and to have placed beyond dispute the doctrine of which they treat. The theologians, who have written since their publication, refer to them on their subject matter, as they do on other subjects to Suarez or St. Thomas. Perrone quotes them with marked approval; Franzelin reproduces them by whole pages. They are in the hands of every theological student in these countries whilst he is reading his treatise De Sacramento Eucharistiae. Through Mr. Duffy's editions they have found their way into every Catholic library in Ireland; and we may presume that their circulation amongst Englishspeaking Catholics is not much less extensive in other parts of the world.

But there are errors in the Summa of St. Thomas; and,, notwithstanding the excellence, the popularity, and the authority of these Lectures, we need not be surprised if they contain incorrect statements on some important points. At all events, there are, in the lectures devoted to the proof from the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel, important statements to which exception can be fairly taken.

Upon the "division of the chapter," as it is called, or rather of the latter part of it, which commences at v. 26, it must be admitted, I think, that the lectures are unsatisfactory. Cardinal Wiseman did himself, his genius, his erudition and his subject an injustice, when he wrote in the first lecture: "The point at issue, therefore, between us and our adversaries, is twofold. First, is there a change of subject at the forty-eighth verse? Secondly, is the transition to the real eating of the body of Christ ?"1 No doubt, after the assertion "on the signification of this discourse as far as the fortyeighth or fifty-first verse, Catholics and Protestants are equally agreed it refers entirely to believing in him," it was necessary to raise and determine these two questions. They were difficulties which should be removed. But he has given them an importance which they do not deserve. He has thereby narrowed the controversy to a false, if not a perilous, issue. The point at issue between us and our adversaries is not the question of a change of subject, or any transition theory. Upon these questions Catholics have differed, and do differ. They differed upon them before Cardinal Wiseman's time. It was not correct to say that Catholics are agreed that our Lord, as far as the forty-eighth or fifty-first verse, refers entirely to believing in Him. It would be still more incorrect to say so at the present time.

! p. 50, Duffy's ed., 1866.

A. Lapiae, whom Cardinal Wiseman overlooks, holds a different opinion. He holds that our Lord refers to the Eucharist from the commencement; and for this opinion he quotes St. Cyrill Alex, Theophylactus, and from the moderns Rupert, Foletus, F. Lucas, and others. But it is strange how specious theories oftentimes impose upon the greatest minds. Were it not for the theory of the poetical parallelism of a certain section of our Lord's discourse, Cardinal Wiseman would probably have never wasted so much erudition in trying to establish the transition from faith to a real eating of the body of Christ. He says, "The motive which principally induces me to see a clear separation between vv. 47 and 48, and which forbids me to allow any other transition or break in the discourse till its complete interruption at v. 53, is the connection of the entire passage in what is known by the name of the poetical parallelism." Well, if this motive forbade him to allow any other transition till v. 53, it has failed to induce theologians, like Perrone, to see any transition what

ever.

Be this as it may, the point at issue between us and our adversaries is, whether the words, " And the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world," &c., from v. 52 to v. 60, should be understood in the literal sense. Here the varied and profound erudition of Cardinal Wiseman has done invaluable service to the Catholic argument. For he has proved, beyond doubt, that these words must be understood literally, inasmuch as, amongst other reasons, the only metaphorical sense they could bear is obviously inadmissible.

Indeed, the admission of a change of subject and of a transition from believing in Christ to a real eating of His body, is most damaging to the Catholic argument, and groundless as well. For it is pretty plain that the bread spoken of in the first part of the discourse, and the bread spoken of in the second, are one and the same. They are called by the same name; they are promised by the Son of Man; they have the same origin and the same effect; they are compared in the same way with the manna; they are in each part Christ himself. These points of resemblance sufficiently establish their identity. If, therefore, the bread in the first part of the discourse means, according to the admission, faith, it might fairly be argued that the bread in the second part means the same thing. But if, as Cardinal Wiseman proves, the bread in the second part means the real flesh of the Son of Man, it follows the bread has the same meaning in the first part also.

1 p. 52.

See Perrone de Eucharistia, note p. 145, 4 vol. Paris, 1869.

Moreover, our Lord speaks of faith through the entire discourse; but He nowhere identifies it with the bread. On the contrary He clearly distinguishes between them. He commences the discourse by asking the multitude to believe in Him as a means and the condition necessary for receiving from Him the life-giving bread. "Labour," that is, work, "for the meat, which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of Man will give you."-v. 27. What shall we do that we may work the works of God?" "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He hath sent." The work, therefore, of faith in Christ was to be done before receiving from Him the promised bread. He ends by saying that the many who murmured were scandalized at the bread which He promised, because they had not faith. "Doth this scandalize you? But there are some of you that do

not believe."-vv. 61-7.

The multitude make the same distinction. When our Lord asks them to believe in Him they do not say, "This is a hard saying; who can bear it?" But reasonably enough in itself, though unreasonably for them, they ask Him for a sign -a motive of credibility. They go further-they intimate that the multiplication of the loaves and fishes was not a sufficient sign. Moses did a greater wonder; and the Messiah should, according to the tradition, rival the miracle of Moses.1 Thus they challenge our Lord to prove His mission by giving them the bread typified by the manna. And when Christ says, "The bread that I will give is my flesh," they say "impossible!" And when He repeats this truth in still stronger terms, they can bear to listen to Him no longer, many of them go away and walk no more with Him.

The distinction, therefore, between faith and the bread is clearly marked through the whole discourse, both by our Lord and by the multitude. There is this difference, however, that, whereas our Lord demands faith as a condition for receiving the bread, and holds out the prospect of obtaining the bread as an inducement to believe, the multitude require the bread as a motive of faith, and when they come to know what sort it will be, many of them, being carnal, go away in disgust.

The passage which has led Cardinal Wiseman and most commentators to identify the bread in the first part of the discourse with faith is v. 35: "I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall not hunger; and he that believeth in me shall never thirst." Upon this verse Cardinal Wiseman says: "Our Saviour, the word and wisdom of the Father, 1 Lecture 1, p. 48.

identifying himself with his doctrines, calls himself the bread of life;" and further on he adds that our Lord "breaks through the proprieties of figurative language, and mingles literal with metaphorical expressions," in order to keep "within the bounds of the usual metaphor, illustrated (in the lecture) from the Old Testament, and other sources." Really this is too ingenious. If the admission of a metaphor in the bread in v. 35 necessitates reasoning of this kind, it is time to give it up. But there is no necessity for the admission. On the contrary, the metaphor is excluded by the context. The word "bread," or its equivalent, "food," is used seven times by Christ and the multitude immediately before v. 35, and always in its literal sense. The expression "bread of life" is afterwards always used in its literal sense, as Cardinal Wiseman proves. Why then admit the figurative sense in this one solitary instance? Besides, the Greek ỏ apras determines the bread in v. 35 to be the same as that previously mentioned; and the bread previously mentioned is literal bread. For the multitude referred to literal bread when they said: “Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written; He gave them bread from heaven to eat." They believed it was Moses who gave it; and they had, if anything, exaggerated ideas about Moses. Now the 77th Psalm, which they quote, attributes the manna, not to Moses, but to God. Moreover, the manna was not really from heaven, though it was a type of the bread principally intended in the psalm. Accordingly, "Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen, I say to you; not Moses has given you the bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven and giveth life to the world." And the sense is: "The bread of the psalm is the bread of God, and the true bread of God really cometh down from heaven and is given by the Father in me and through me." There is no change to figurative bread. Our Lord merely corrects their interpretation of the psalm, and takes the opportunity to point out the antitype of the manna. The multitude understand Christ to speak of real bread, and to signify that, although it is the gift of the Father, inasmuch as it comes down from heaven and possesses the life-giving properties, it is through Himself they should obtain it. Therefore they say, "Lord, always give this bread." Then Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life." That is, "I am myself that bread typified by the manna, signified in the psalm, the bread of God really come down from heaven, and, therefore, the bread of life." The following 1 Lecture 2, p. 66.

VOL. XII.

18