remain upon the cross on the Sabbath.1 But this was just one more illustration of their singular perversity of character: they strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel. We are not trying to show that they acted, in this matter, consistently or reasonably; but that, according to our view about the day of Crucifixion, they did not act against the letter of the law. We have established, from the words of Moses himself, that the law of rest was more strict on the Sabbath day than on the festival day: and there is nothing to prevent us from supposing, that the Jews may have thought it lawful to attend an execution on the Paschal feast, but not lawful to leave the bodies on the cross for the Sabbath.

A curious illustration of the distinction they made, in respect to the law of rest, between the festival day and the Sabbath, is found in the Talmud, and helps to throw some light on the question before us. It was prescribed to kill the Paschal lamb towards evening, between three and five O'Clock, on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan. But when the fourteenth of Nisan fell on the Sabbath, then it was ordered not to kill the lamb till after sunset. Thus it appears that such an act was considered inconsistent with the observance of the Sabbath, but not inconsistent with the observance of a festival: and this notwithstanding the express instructions of Moses as to the time when the lamb was to be slain. 2

Two objections yet remain of trifling importance. First, the words of the chief priests and elders are sometimes quoted: "Not on the festival day, lest perhaps there should be a tumult among the people." The enemies of our Lord had, therefore, made up their minds beforehand not to arrest Jesus Christ on the festival day: whereas, according to our view, they actually did arrest Him, and even had Him tried, condemned, and executed, on the festival day.

This objection, if it had any force, would tell equally against all opinions. The day of the Crucifixion was, certainly, either the festival day, or the day before the festival. But the danger of a tumult would have been just the same in either case. For the danger arose from the great crowd of strangers which the festival brought together into the city: and these strangers would have already arrived in Jerusalem the day before the festival. Nay, in the supposition against which we are contending, they would most probably have been thronging the public way, and making their preparations for

1 See John, xix. 31. 2 Langen, Die Letzten Lebenstage Jesu, p. 136. Matt. xxvi. 5; Mark, xiv. 2.

the Paschal solemnity, at the very time when Jesus was led forth as a malefactor, from the court of Pilate, and conducted, in solemn procession, to Mount Calvary. From this consideration it appears, that the motive which influenced the Jewish leaders, would have prevented the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus Christ, on the day before the festival, just as much as on the festival day itself. Consequently, their first intention must have been, to postpone these proceedings until after the festival. But they were probably induced to change their plans, partly because, through the treachery of Judas, they were enabled to arrest our Lord secretly in the Garden, and partly, because they succeeded beyond their hopes in exciting the passions of the populace against Him.

The other difficulty is founded on the text of Exodus: "Let none of you go out at the door of his house until the morning." According to the Mosaic law, no one might leave the house where he had eaten the Paschal meal, until morning had come. But our Lord and his Apostles went out, during the night, to the Garden of Olives. Therefore this was not the night of the Paschal solemnity. This argument, it is plain, would lead to the conclusion, that our Lord did not keep the Pasch at all, on the occasion of his Last Supper. Such a conclusion, however, as we have already shown, would be opposed to the express testimony of the first three Gospels. The argument, therefore, cannot be valid. And it only devolves on us to inquire, how the fact is to be explained, that our Lord went out, when supper was over, although Moses commanded that none should go out until morning.

Nor have we far to seek. On referring to the passage in Exodus, we find that Moses is not laying down the law for the future observance of the Paschal rite, but is giving instructions to be followed on the occasion when the Hebrew people ate the Paschal meal in Egypt. It is well known that some of the observances of that night were peculiar to itself, and formed no part of the permanent Paschal ceremony.2 Thus, for example, the Pasch, in Egypt, was eaten standing; subsequently it was eaten sitting or reclining. The chief differences between the permanent rite and the Pasch observed in Egypt, are carefully set forth in the Talmud: and, amongst them, we find it recorded that whereas, in Egypt, every one should pass the night where he kept the Pasch, no such obligation existed in subsequent times.*

1 Exod. xii. 22.

3 Id. ib. p. 716, 717.

Smith. Dict. of the Bible, passover II. p. 713.

Langen, Die Letzten Lebenstage Jesu, pp. 129, 130.

This difference might be fairly inferred even from the words of Moses himself. After the injunction in Exodus, that none should go out of his house until morning, he immediately adds the reason of it :-" For the Lord will pass through, smiting the Egyptians: and when He shall see the blood on the lintel, and on the two side posts, He will pass over the door of the house, and will not suffer the destroyer to come into your houses to smite you." The Hebrews, in Egypt, were instructed to remain within doors after the Paschal meal, that they might escape the hand of the destroying Angel. This reason, it is evident, was peculiar to that occasion: and, therefore, we might fairly suppose, even in the absence of authority, that the injunction founded upon it was not intended for subsequent times.

The views we have endeavoured to establish and to defend in this long and, we fear, wearisome paper, are briefly these: First, that our Lord kept the Pasch on the day prescribed by the Mosaic law; and Secondly, that the Jews did so too. It follows, that the Crucifixion took place on the great festival day of the Jewish Passover; and that the evening chosen by our Lord for the institution of the sublime mystery of the Eucharist, was the same which was set apart, in the Old Law, for the celebration of the Paschal rite, the figure and the shadow of that mystery:

"In hac mensa novi Regis,
"Novum Pascha novæ legis,
"Phase vetus terminat.

"Vetustatem novitas,

"Umbram fugat veritas,

"Noctem lux eliminat."

1 Exod. xii. 23.

455

THE PREROGATIVES OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF. From the Pastoral Letter of His Eminence Cardinal Cullen.

EACH succeeding year at this period, the virtues, the labours,

and the sufferings of those heralds of the gospel who laid down their lives and shed their blood for Christ naturally recur to our minds; but we should make it a special duty to meditate on the dignity, the powers, and the privileges conferred by the Redecmer on St. Peter.

To this great Prince of the Apostles all Catholics, by the sweetest ties of gratitude, owe the profoundest respect and veneration. To his guidance and protection we have been committed in the all-important matter of our eternal salvation; on him Christ built His Church as on a solid foundation, against which the gates of hell shall never prevail; to him he gave the divine commission to feed his lambs and sheep, and the important charge to watch over, to correct, and to bring back his brethren should they wander away from the paths of truth.

St. Peter still discharges these duties, acting and living in the persons of his venerable successors, the inheritors of his dignity and authority; through them he still continues to confirm or correct the brethren; and he is still at the helm of the mystical boat of the Church, steering it safely through every storm.

When, carried away by the pride of his heart, Nestorius, patriarch of the imperial city of Constantinople, assailed the dignity of the Mother of God, pretending that there were two persons, a divine and a human one, in our Lord—thus showing, as St. John says, by "dissolving Jesus that he was not of God" St. Celestine raised his voice against such fatal errors, and condemned them; and his censures and anathemas were received by the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus with as much respect as if they had been uttered by the Prince of the Apostles himself in person.

The condemnation of Eutyches was received with similar feelings by the great Synod of Chalcedon; and when the letter of the then reigning Pontiff, passing sentence on that obstinate heretic, had been read, all the Fathers cried out that Peter had spoken through St. Leo-Petrus per Leonem locutus estthus giving us a convincing proof of the universal belief of the primacy of St. Peter in those remote ages of the Church.

1 1 Ep. St. John.

In more recent times the Council of Florence defined that the Roman Pontiff is "the true Vicar of Christ and the Head of the whole Church, and the Father and Teacher of all Christians; that to him, in Blessed Peter, was given, by Jesus Christ our Lord, full power to feed, rule, and govern the Universal Church."

Finally, not three years ago, nearly all the bishops of the Church, assembled around the Pontifical throne in the Vatican Basilica, near the tombs of the Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, published the following solemn decision:-"Further, we teach and declare that, by the appointment of our Lord, the Roman Church possesses the supreme authority of ordinary jurisdiction over all other churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, both pastors and faithful of whatsoever rite and dignity, both individually and collectively, are bound to submit, by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters belonging to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that by the preservation of unity both of communion and of the profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff, the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church, from which no one can deviate without detriment to faith and salvation."

The same Fathers also published the following decree regarding the Pope's Infallibility:

"Faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian people, with the approbation of the sacred Council, we teach and define it to be a dogma divinely revealed That when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines that a doctrine regarding faith or morals is to be held by the universal Church, he enjoys by the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if any one, which may God avert, presume to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema."

Thus the primacy of the Pope, and his infallibility in