Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Triumphant, Book III: On Churches, Vows, Pilgrimages and Feasts
Chapter 10: Whether Feast Days Are to Be Kept by Christians
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Ecclesia quae Triumphat in Coelis, the fourth general controversy. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
There remains lastly the question of feasts. We will discourse first of feasts in general; second, of the Lord's day; third, of Easter; fourth, of the other feasts of the Lord; fifth, of the feasts of the saints.
As to the first, then, of the celebration of feasts in general, there are three errors. The first is that of the old Ebionites, who thought that Christians ought to keep the feast days of the New and the Old Testament, that is, the sabbath and the Lord's day, as Eusebius reports, book 3 of the History, chapter 27. Some wished to renew the same error in the time of blessed Gregory, as is plain from book [11?], letter 3. The same the Christians keep in this time who live in Ethiopia, who hold in equal honour the sabbath and the Lord's day. Their argument is that in Exodus 31 it is said of the sabbath: “It is an everlasting covenant, and a perpetual sign.”
The other error is that of the Petrobrusians, as is plain from book 3, chapter 5, of the Life of blessed Bernard; and of the Waldenses, as Guido teaches in his Summa; and of the Wycliffites, as Thomas Waldensis reports, volume 3, title [19?], chapter 140; who took away all feasts, as though feast days belonged only to the ceremonies of the Jews.
Their arguments were those places of blessed Paul. The first, Romans 14: “For one judgeth between day and day; and another judgeth every day”; that is, one thinks one day holy and another profane, while another thinks all days equal; and although Paul bore with that error about the distinction of days in the Romans, because they were not yet fully instructed, yet he seems to show clearly that it is an error. The second is Galatians 4: “You observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest perhaps I have laboured in vain among you.” The third place is Colossians 2: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day.” To these they add a reason from the Fathers: that the sabbath, which had been commanded the Jews to be kept carnally, namely that they should abstain from servile works, is commanded us spiritually, namely that we should be free from sins, which are truly servile works; which is the opinion of the holy Fathers, of Ambrose on chapter 13 of Luke, of Jerome on chapter 4 to the Galatians, of Augustine, letter 119, and of Gregory, book 11, letter 3.
The third error is that of the Lutherans and Calvinists, who admit feast days, but admit them as though they did not admit them. The sum of their teaching consists in five heads. The first is that feasts are to be celebrated by divine and natural law. They prove it from the Decalogue, in which there is a precept of the sabbath, which is in some way ceremonial and in some way wholly natural; otherwise it would not have been set in the Decalogue. Besides, because nature itself teaches that we ought sometimes to rest from bodily works, both that we may be free for God and come together in the church to hear the word of God, and that we may grant some rest to our bodies; and in this first point we do not disagree.
Second, they teach that because the divine law has not fixed certain days on which Christians ought to rest, they ought to be fixed by the Church, that is, by the pastors, with the consent of the people; and in this too we do not disagree much; only it displeases us that they think the consent of the people necessary. For Christ did not give the power of governing the Church to the apostles on the condition that the people consent, but simply. But of this matter we have spoken elsewhere.
Third, they teach that the days fixed for resting ought not to be held holier than the others, as though they contained some mystery or meaning, but only held as fixed for the sake of discipline, order and good government; so that with this fixing the equality of days stands together. And in this they accuse us, as though we held a distinction of days in the Jewish manner; and they prove their assertion from the places of Paul cited above. For Paul finds fault with a distinction of days; but surely he does not find fault with the distinction needed for order and government; therefore with a religious and ceremonial distinction, such as was that of the Jews, and such as seems to be (as they say) that of Christians, who for like meanings have and keep mystical days.
Fourth, they teach that the fixing of days does not bind Christians in conscience, except by reason of scandal or contempt; and in this too they accuse the Catholics of binding the faithful with human precepts. And the Centuriators prove their opinion because the observance of feasts in the early Church was held a thing indifferent and middling, as it truly is; therefore it could not afterwards be imposed as necessary. For Paul and the others kept now the sabbath, now the Lord's day, indifferently; for in Acts 13 Paul preaches on the sabbath, while John, Apocalypse 1, mentions the Lord's day.
Besides, because Paul, Galatians 4, resists the false apostles who wished to bring in the obligation of feasts. Then Heshusius proves the same: because, since there are more feasts of the Christians than of the Jews, if their observance binds to sin, the yoke of the Christians will be more unbearable than was that of the Jews; of which yet Peter says, Acts 15: “Which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear.” Calvin adds the testimony of Socrates, book 5, chapter [22?], who would have had feast days free, and finds fault with the necessity laid on them.
Fifth, they teach that it is not lawful to consecrate feast days to the saints or to the Eucharist, and much less to the Conception of blessed Mary; but of this below in its place. That this is the mind of the heretics is plain from the Magdeburgers, Century 1, book 2, chapter 6, column 503; from Tilemann Heshusius, in the book On Six Hundred Errors of the Papists, title 26; from Philip, in the Common Places, in the exposition of the Decalogue; and from Calvin, book 2 of the Institutes, chapter 8, section 28 and following. But the several lies or follies of each are also to be noted.
The Magdeburgers, Century 1, book 2, chapter 6, column 504, say that in the time of Anicetus the mystery of iniquity began to work in the Roman Church, and the seeds of Antichrist to show themselves, because, namely, Anicetus wished Easter not to be celebrated on any other day than the Lord's day. But this very thing the councils of almost all the churches decreed at that time, and afterwards the first of Nicaea; and the Lutherans too keep the same. What then do they chatter against the Roman See?
Tilemann says that among the pontificals the days of the Holy Innocents, St. Gregory, St. Anne and St. Catherine are honoured with equal honour with the most famous feasts of the whole Church. But it is a lie; for these feasts in very many places are not kept of precept. In the same place Heshusius proves that the feast of Corpus Christi is to be rejected because it is written, “Thou shalt not adore strange gods.” Where he openly signifies that Christ is a strange god to him; for the feast of Corpus Christi is dedicated properly to Christ himself, for the benefit of the institution of the most holy sacrament.
Philip says that the chief works of this precept on sanctifying the sabbath are to feed and honour godly teachers; and that the sins against this precept are to despise godly teachers and to refuse to contribute to feeding and defending them. So, surely, the feasts are usefully kept for the ministers.
Calvin says that the cult of the sabbath among Christians consists in this, that we rest from our works and let God work in us; that is, that we understand that we lack free will for good, and that whatever we do is sin. But surely those who keep sabbath so will not enter into the rest of the Lord, but will be thrust down into everlasting fire. Against these errors, then, we will set out some opinions.
The first opinion: It is in no way lawful for Christians to keep the sabbath of the Jews or the other holy days of the Old Testament. This is against the first error, and is proved, first, from the three places of Paul cited above, Romans 14, Galatians 4, and especially Colossians 2. For Paul so openly finds fault with the keepers of the sabbath that the Ebionites for this reason would not receive Paul, but said he was an apostate, on the witness of Epiphanius, heresy 30, and Irenaeus, book 1, chapter [26?]; from which too is refuted the invention of the Magdeburgers, who say that Paul kept the sabbath or the Lord's day indifferently.
Second, it is proved from the Council of Laodicea, chapter 29, where anathema is said to those who keep the sabbath and rest from works on it.
Third, it is proved from Gregory, letter 3, book 11, where he refutes this error of set purpose and says that Antichrist will renew the keeping of the sabbath.
Fourth, by reason: because the sabbath was the chief Jewish ceremony and the chief figure of the Old Testament, as is plain from Colossians 2: “or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.” When then Christ came, the sabbath of necessity came to an end.
And to the argument made from those words of Exodus 31, “It is an everlasting covenant,” Augustine answers, in the Questions on Exodus, questions 40, 124 and 139. And first he says that the sabbath and the priesthood and other rites of the Jews are called everlasting covenants and signs because they signified everlasting things; as when we say, God is eternal, we do not signify that those two syllables, De-us, are eternal, but that what they signify is eternal.
Second he answers that the sabbath and certain other ceremonies are called everlasting because they had not been commanded the Jews up to some fixed time, as when it was said, he who has touched a dead man shall be unclean until the evening; but had been commanded to be kept as long as God willed, and so for ever on the side of those who could not leave them off at their own will. And that the priesthood of Aaron and the other ceremonies were not truly to last for ever, but were to be changed by God, Augustine proves from Psalm 109: “The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.” For when it is said of the priesthood of Christ, “He will not repent,” it is shown that God repented of the priesthood of Aaron, that is, decreed to change it. For there is no repentance in God except metaphorically, because, namely, he changes some things, as those do who repent of those things. We can add,
third, that the Jewish ceremonies are called everlasting not simply, but as long as the state of that commonwealth lasted; which the Lord explains when he adds, “to you in your generations, to the children of Israel”; as in Exodus 12: “You shall keep it a feast to the Lord in your generations with an everlasting observance.” Like things are had of the priesthood, Exodus 28, and of the sabbath, Exodus 31.
The second proposition. The feasts of the Christians are kept not only by reason of order and government, but also by reason of mystery; and feast days are truly holier and more sacred than others, and a certain part of divine worship. This is against the second and third error; for the third almost coincides with the second. It is proved, first, from the Lord's day. For all of us, both we and the heretics, keep the Lord's day; but it is certain that that day is kept in memory of the resurrection of the Lord, as Augustine says, letter 119, and even Calvin admits, book 2, chapter 8, of the Institutes; therefore feasts are kept not only by reason of order but also by reason of a mystical meaning.
Calvin answers this objection, which he says is wont to be made even by his own men, who often mutter that the keeping of the Lord's day belongs to the distinction of days forbidden by the Apostle. And he says two things. First, that the Lord's day is not kept except for the order of the Church; but that this day was chosen because on that day Christ rose. For since by the resurrection of Christ all the Jewish ceremonies were ended, on this day we are warned that we must no longer cling to shadows and figures.
But this answer is worth nothing. For if we keep this day that we may be warned that the Jewish shadows have ended, then we keep it for its meaning. For a day warns in no other way than by signifying and representing. Therefore the meaning, and the distinction of days, has not been taken away but changed. Besides, the Lord's day, as Augustine teaches, book 22 of the City of God, chapter 30, is not only a memorial of the resurrection but also foretells the everlasting life. Therefore he answers, second, that he does not wish the Church to be subject to the servitude of this day; nor would he disapprove if the Church should choose another day for itself. But this answer shows openly that Calvin admits that feasts are kept among his own too for their meaning, and wishes to abrogate the Lord's day, but does not dare, because this religion is too deeply rooted and settled. [The top of page 543 is merged across columns in the scan; this paragraph is rendered from what reads.]
Second, it is proved; because otherwise the solemn days of the Nativity, of the Passion, of Easter, of the Ascension of the Lord and of Pentecost would have to be taken away, which Augustine teaches, letters 118 and 119, have come down from apostolic tradition and are kept in the whole Church, and which even the adversaries keep. For it is certain that these days are not kept by reason of order and government, but by reason of meaning. For in the first place, if they were kept only by reason of order, they would have been set rashly. For what is this order, that between the day of the Passion and of the Resurrection there is only one day between; between the Resurrection and the Ascension forty; between the Ascension and Pentecost ten; between Pentecost and Christmas more than six months? Then, if feasts are kept only by reason of order, why do we follow the moon in finding the movable feasts? Likewise why do they have these names, Easter, Ascension and so on, if they signify nothing sacred? Lastly the Fathers teach expressly that these feasts are kept to signify the mysteries of redemption and to represent them with an outward rite. See Augustine, letter 119, and on Psalm 80, where he disputes at length on the mysteries of Easter and the other feasts.
Third, the same is proved from this, that feast days are called by the Fathers holy, sacred, mystical and to be kept religiously; which are not common with the other days. Ambrose, sermon 62: “The Lord's day is venerable and solemn to us.” Augustine, in the preface on the epistle of John: “Because now the solemnity of the holy days has come between,” and so on. The same, book 22 of the City of God, chapter 30: “The Lord's day has been made sacred by the resurrection of Christ.” Book 20 against Faustus, chapter 21: “The Christian people celebrates together the memorials of the martyrs with religious solemnity.” And sermon 251: “The apostles ordained that the Lord's day be kept with religious solemnity.” And Leo I, sermon 4 on Lent: “About to enter,” he says, “the mystical days,” and so on.
Fourth, if feast days were distinguished from others only by reason of order, all feast days would be equal, and none greater than another; for the reason of the celebration of all would be one. But it is not so. For Ignatius, in the letter to the Magnesians, calls the Lord's day the royal day and the most eminent of all days. Leo, sermon 12 on Lent, calls the day of Easter the greatest feast of all feasts. Nazianzen, oration 2 on Easter, says that Easter is the feast of feasts and the solemnity of solemnities, as much greater than all the others as the sun excels all the stars; and in the oration on the death of his father he says that the day of Easter is the king of days. Chrysostom, in the homily on St. Philogonius, calls the day of Christ's birth the head and mother city of feasts.
Fifth, by a reason taken from Scripture. The observance of feasts, which is commanded in Exodus 20, belongs to the worship of God; for it is a precept of God, and a precept of the first table. But that precept is in some way natural, and belongs to us, as the adversaries grant; therefore we too ought to have some days whose observance belongs to the worship of God. But we have no other feasts than the Lord's days, Easter, Pentecost and the like; therefore their observance is a worship of God, holy and religious. For although the fixing of this or that day was made by men, yet the very substance of the feast was commanded by God in the first table.
Lastly it is proved by this reason. Christ by being born consecrated the place, that is, the manger; by dying he consecrated the cross; by rising he consecrated the tomb from which he came out. Why did he not also consecrate the time, that is, the days on which he was born, or suffered, or was given back to us after conquering death? Why is that place called holy above other places where the Lord rose, and that day will not be holy above other days on which he rose? Besides, if churches and altars are called houses of God and holy places because they are consecrated to God, namely that God may be worshipped in them, why will not the days too be holy and sacred which are consecrated to divine worship? Nor do the arguments to the contrary conclude.
To the first, from Romans 14, “One judgeth between day and day, another judgeth every day,” there are three expositions. The first is of Theodoret and Theophylact, and perhaps also Chrysostom, that the sense is: one judges between day and day, that is, on some day abstains from pork and other foods forbidden in the law, another abstains from them every day, or on no day. But this exposition does not please; for foods unclean according to the law could never be eaten, and so it is not likely that there were any of the Judaizers who now abstained from them and now did not. Yet this exposition does not help the adversaries.
The second exposition is of Origen, Ambrose, Oecumenius, Primasius and Anselm on this place, who would have this the sense: one judges between day and day, another every day; that is, some fast on certain days, as on the second, fourth and sixth days of the week, or on the sabbath; others fast every day; and both do rightly. This is the true and literal one, and favours us most.
The third is of blessed Jerome, book 2 against Jovinian, that Paul speaks of the feasts of the Jews, and the sense is: one distinguishes between a feast day and a profane day according to the law, that is, rests on the sabbath day and on the calends; another holds every day profane as regards the law of the Jews. This opinion does not seem to me literal, both because all the ancients who expound this place of set purpose expounded it of fasting, not of feasts; and also because the Apostle had set up a disputation about foods; and lastly because, after he had said, “another judgeth every day,” he adds, “Let every man abound in his own sense”; which surely he does not seem likely to have said if he were treating of the feasts of the Jews, which it had now begun to be evil to keep. Yet if it is admitted because of blessed Jerome, I say that the Apostle does not speak of the feasts of the Christians, but only of the Jews'. For Paul himself too judged between day and day as regards the Christian feasts, when he kept Pentecost, as is said in Acts 20; and consequently he kept Easter too; for, as Epiphanius draws out, heresy 75, without Easter there is no Pentecost.
But Calvin presses; for Paul seems to condemn the distinction of days in the same way as the distinction of foods; but there is no distinction of foods in the Christian law such as there was among the Jews, that is, for its meaning; therefore neither ought there to be a distinction of days for its meaning. I answer that Paul likewise rejects the distinction of foods and of days brought in from the Jewish law; but that yet in the Church the reason of foods and of feasts is not the same. For the choice of foods was not brought in by the Church for its meaning; but feast days were instituted for their meaning, not indeed such as was that of the Jews, but another and different one.
To the second place, from the epistle to the Galatians, there are two answers. The first is of Ambrose on Galatians 4, and of Augustine, Enchiridion, chapter 79, and letter 119, chapter 7, who say that the Apostle does not speak of the observance of feasts, but of the vain and superstitious observance of the heathens, who said, Tomorrow I will not set out, because such is the position of the stars; this year I will plant a vineyard, because it is a leap year.
The second is of all the Greeks, and of Jerome and Augustine on this place, who say that it treats only of the feasts of the Jews. Which is also the answer to the third place, from the epistle to the Colossians.
But on the contrary: for although the Apostle properly rebukes the Judaizers, yet at the same time he seems to rebuke also those who keep times and days in the same way; and we do the same; for we have not taken away the observance of certain days, but changed it. Besides, Jerome, writing on this place, brings two answers, both of which seem to be against us. First he speaks thus: “Lest the disorderly gathering of the people should lessen faith in Christ, therefore certain days have been set, that we may all come together into one; not that the day on which we come together is more solemn, but that on whatever day we must come together, a greater gladness may arise from seeing one another.” Second he says that for Christians all days are equal, but that because of worldly men it was necessary to set some days on which they should come together to the church.
To the first I answer in two ways. First with Augustine against Adimantus, chapter 16, where he says thus: “They kept them servilely, not understanding to the meanings and foretellings of what things they belonged: this the Apostle blames in them, and in all who serve the creature rather than the Creator. For we too celebrate solemnly both the Lord's day and Easter, and any other feasts of Christian days; but because we understand to what they belong, we do not observe the times, but the things which are signified by those times.” An example is of him who brings a book to a teacher, or a lyre to a master, while he himself can neither read nor play the lyre.
Second I answer that there is a great difference between our feasts and those of the Jews. For in the first place theirs, after Christ, have a false meaning, ours a true one. Then the chief end of theirs was to signify things to come, as is said in Colossians 2; but the chief end of ours is to acknowledge the benefits of God for which each feast was instituted. Lastly, the sum of the precept in theirs was not to work bodily; but in ours the chief part of the precept is to be present at the divine sacrifice, and resting from bodily work is commanded us only lest we be distracted from the praises of God. And so our feasts succeed the Jewish ones, not as a son succeeds his father in the same inheritance, but as light succeeds shadow and day night, and the exemplar the figure; and those could be called fleshly, ours spiritual.
To the first words of Jerome I say that in his first answer he gives two causes of the Christian feasts: one, that we may honour the resurrection of Christ and the other mysteries, and on this side it cannot be denied that the day of Easter is more solemn than other days; the other, that we may have a fixed day by reason of order, and as to this cause one day is not more solemn than another.
To the second words of the same I say that in his second answer, when he says that for Christians all days are equal, he does not understand it simply and as to all things, but only as to the essentials of a feast, and this with the law of the Church set aside. For, as he himself says there, a Christian can have Easter and Pentecost and the Lord's day daily, if, namely, he daily hears Mass, communicates in the body of the Lord, thinks over the divine mysteries, and, leaving servile works, is wholly free for God. Nay, such ought to be the life of clerics and religious, because of whom all days are called feriae. But this the Jews cannot have; for it is not lawful for them to sacrifice the paschal lamb daily, or to set up tabernacles, and the like. Yet with this equality it stands together that among Christians there is an inequality of days, both from the precept of the Church fixing the days and from the meaning and representation of the mysteries; for the Lord's day represents the resurrection, which the other days do not.
To that reason from the Fathers I say that those Fathers treat of the sabbath properly so called, not as sabbath is otherwise taken for every feast day, but as it is properly taken for the seventh day. For the Fathers say that the sabbath itself was commanded the Jews carnally, but us spiritually; but it does not follow that, if we ought not to keep the sabbath to the letter with an outward rite, we ought not to keep the Lord's day and the other Christian feasts either. Nay, St. Augustine, in the same letter 119, where he says that the sabbath is commanded us spiritually, says in the same place that we ought to keep the Lord's day solemn with an outward rite.
The third proposition. The observance of certain feast days is rightly commanded in the Church by a law binding the conscience, even apart from contempt and scandal. This is against the heretics of this time. But before it is proved it is to be noted, first, that by the law of feasts two things are commanded: first, that all be present at the sacrifice of the Mass; second, that they rest from servile work. That both are required for the observance of a feast the adversaries admit. For although they condemn the Mass inasmuch as it is a sacrifice, yet they admit that on a feast day one must come together in the church and be present at the sacred mystery of the Supper; and that this was the custom of old could easily be proved from Justin in the second Apology, from Palladius, chapter [69?] of the Lausiac History, from Jerome in the Life of Paula, and from other ancient authors.
In like manner they admit that feast days require rest from bodily work; and if they denied it, it could be proved from Jerome in the letter to Eustochium on keeping virginity, where he says that the monks of his time were wont to be busied in the works of their hands on all days, except Sundays and like feasts. Augustine too, sermon 251, and Gregory, book 11, letter 3, say that on feast days one must rest from bodily work.
Note, second, that servile work can be taken in three ways. For some works are those by which man serves his desires, namely sins; and these are not properly called servile works, but only metaphorically; for they are not proper to slaves, but common to all, and most of all to the rich and noble, who rule over others; nor are these forbidden by a special precept, but by all the precepts together. Others are works by which man serves God, as the offering of sacrifice, the offering of incense and the like; and these are so servile as to be also royal; for to serve God is to reign; and these are not only not forbidden, but even commanded, most of all on a feast day. Others are those by which man serves man, such as are those which of themselves belong to those whom we properly call slaves, such as are all the mechanical crafts, the labours of farmers and the like; and these are properly called servile, and are understood to be forbidden on feasts.
Third, note that although only these works are of themselves forbidden on feasts, yet for just causes some spiritual and liberal works are also forbidden, and some bodily and servile ones permitted. The liberal works which are forbidden on feasts are four: to hold a market, to plead causes, to give judgement, and to take a solemn oath in court, unless for the sake of peace or some other necessity. For so it is had in the chapter Omnes dies and the chapter Conquestus, on feast days.
The bodily works which are permitted are also four. First, those which are of themselves ordered to works of religion or spiritual works. In this way it is lawful on feasts to ring bells, and it was once lawful to kill sheep and oxen for sacrifices, Matthew 12: “On the sabbath days the priests in the temple break the sabbath, and are without blame.” So too it is lawful to write as ordered to the understanding, as to help a reading or a sermon; yet it is not lawful to copy books without necessity for the sake of gain. Second, those works are permitted which are necessary for one's own or others' health, as is the labour of apothecaries, surgeons, cooks and so on; as it was lawful for the Jews too on the sabbath to draw beasts out of a pit if they had fallen in, and to lead them to water to drink, Matthew 12. Third, works granted by prelates. Fourth, works which have been made lawful by custom. For the Church never commanded rest from work so strictly as the Jewish law. And the reason is that rest among the Jews was a figure of things to come, and figures ought to be exact, otherwise they do not signify well; but our rest, though it too signifies something to come, yet this is not its chief end, but not hindering spiritual works.
The proposition is now proved, first, by all those arguments by which we proved elsewhere that the laws of the Church bind in conscience.
Second, it is commanded by divine law that some feast days be kept, and yet no certain days are fixed by divine law; therefore there ought to be in the Church the power of fixing certain days and binding to their observance; because otherwise the divine law would not be kept. For if the fixing of the Church does not bind, the faithful could fail to keep the Lord's day, and Easter, and the other feasts appointed, and so none. For there are no other feasts which can be kept. For feasts ought to be common to the whole Church; and none can be common except those which are appointed by public authority.
Third, Mardochai and the other Jews with Queen Esther instituted a feast which God had not commanded, and bound them to keep it, Esther 9: “It is lawful for no one to pass these two days without solemnity,” and so on; therefore the same will be lawful to the Church. For the whole cause why the heretics think it is not lawful for the Church to bind the faithful to the observance of these feasts is that God did not command these feasts in particular. But neither did he command that feast of Lots which Mardochai instituted.
Fourth, the ancient Church appointed feasts with authority, nor was there ever anyone except heretics who found fault with such precepts. The Council of Agde, more than a thousand years ago, chapter 47: “We command by special order,” it says, “that laymen hear the whole Mass on the Lord's day, so that the people do not presume to go out before the blessing of the priest. And if they do, let them be publicly shamed by the bishop.” The Council of Laodicea, twelve hundred years ago, chapter 29: “Christians must not Judaize and rest on the sabbath, but work on that day, preferring the Lord's day to that day.” The third Council of Orleans, also more than a thousand years ago, canon 27, commanded that those be punished who work on feast days, and at the same time condemns those who so rest in the Jewish manner that they think it not lawful to prepare on the Lord's day the things necessary for food. Likewise the sixth general council, canon 8, orders Mass to be heard on the Lord's day and no bodily works to be done except those which are necessary for food and other like necessities; nor is this canon among the Trullan canons. That of Auxerre, [nine hundred?] years ago, chapter 16: “It is not lawful,” it says, “on the Lord's day to yoke oxen or do other works.” Like things are had in the second Council of Macon, chapter 1. The Council of Mainz, seven hundred years ago, canons 36 and 37, counts up the chief feasts of the whole year and orders that on those days there be rest from work altogether. See more decrees of councils and pontiffs in the title On Feast Days. Nor do the arguments to the contrary conclude.
For to the first, of the Magdeburgers, I say that the cult of feast days is of itself indifferent, but when the law is laid down it is necessary. To the example of Paul I deny that he ever kept the sabbath day. For he preached on the sabbath day because he then found the Jews gathered, not because he himself kept the sabbath. And in the epistle to the Galatians he does not accuse the false apostles of binding to feasts, but of binding to Jewish feasts.
To that of Heshusius, that if the laws of feasts bind, the yoke of the Christians will be more unbearable than the yoke of the Jews, since we have more feasts than they had: I answer, first, with blessed Augustine, book against Adimantus, chapter 16, that to keep feasts in the Jewish way is a yoke, but not in the Christian way; because they did not understand the end of the rest, we understand it.
Second, I say that the feasts of the Jews were truly heavy, because they were forced on every sabbath not to light a fire, not to cook food, not to make a journey except of a short space. Likewise they had to go three times a year to certain feasts in Jerusalem, even if they were very far away; likewise at the pasch they were forced for seven days to eat unsavoury unleavened bread, which in Deuteronomy 16 is therefore called the bread of affliction, and wild lettuces full of bitterness, and many other things, which made the feasts burdensome. But our feasts have no labour; for what labour is it to hear Mass and to rest from certain works?
Add lastly that when Peter, Acts 15, called the Jewish law an unbearable yoke, he did not say this because of the feasts, but because of the other countless and most minute ceremonies, which it was almost impossible not only to keep but even to hold in memory. To the testimony of Socrates I say that Socrates was a Novatian heretic, and his testimony is of no weight in doctrines.
The fourth proposition. We are not bound on feast days by a special precept to not sinning, or to an act of contrition or of the love of God. This is blessed Thomas's, second part of the second part, question 122, article 4; and against Scotus, distinctions 27 and 37, who says that men are bound on a feast day to an inward act of the love of God; and against Abulensis and Lyra on chapter 20 of Exodus, who say that by this precept servile works, that is, sins, are specially forbidden, and so every sin done on a feast day is double.
It is proved, first: because the divine law commanded only to abstain from servile work. If you say servile work is sin: on the contrary, because precepts ought to be understood properly, not metaphorically, and sins are not servile works except metaphorically. Second, the Church fixed the time and manner of keeping the divine law about the observance of the precepts; but the Church nowhere commands those inward acts. Third, the common sense of the faithful holds this; for there are none who think they have committed a new sin if they have not had contrition on the Lord's day. Fourth, that inward act is the end of this precept; but not the end but the means are properly commanded. Fifth, the inward cult commanded was already in the first commandment; for this is the order of the first table: in the first precept the cult of the heart is commanded, in the second the cult of the mouth, in the third the cult of work. Sixth, the precept of keeping the sabbath is a precept of religion; but contrition is an act of penance, not of religion. Seventh, because otherwise it would be very harmful to multiply so many feasts; for it would be to lay snares for souls.
But they object, first: to commit fornication or kill a man in a sacred place is homicide and sacrilege; therefore likewise to kill or commit fornication on a feast day.
I answer that the circumstance of place and time always makes a sin heavier, but does not always make it so much heavier that it is counted a new sin. For then only is a new sin made when the circumstance of place or time is essential and intrinsic to the sin, that is, when the sacred time or place itself is violated. For example, he who commits fornication or murder in a church commits sacrilege, because by those sins the holiness of the place is taken away; for the church is violated by the voluntary shedding of seed or blood, by church law. But he who in a church lies, even harmfully, or blasphemes, does not properly commit sacrilege, because a lie and blasphemy do not take away the holiness of the church. I say the same of sacred time. For sacred time is not violated by any sins whatever, but only by those which are opposed to the sacred time itself, such as are not hearing Mass and working bodily, which are specially forbidden.
Second, they object the testimonies of Augustine, who says that by the precept of the sabbath servile works, that is, sins, are forbidden. For so Augustine speaks, tractate 3 on John, and on Psalm 32, sermon 1. I answer that he speaks of the precept of the sabbath as it is a general precept, signified spiritually by the sabbath of the Jews.
Third, they object Augustine, who in the book On the Ten Strings, chapter 3, says: “The Jew would do better to do something useful in the field than to be seditious in the theatre; and the women of the Jews would do better to spin wool at home than to dance shamelessly the whole day at their new moons.”
I answer that Augustine does not mean to say that it is absolutely better, or less evil, to do something useful on a feast day, though it is forbidden on such a day, than to commit another sin. For it can happen that it is sometimes better, sometimes worse. For it is less evil to work in the field on the Lord's day than to blaspheme God; but on the contrary it is a greater evil to work in the field on the Lord's day than to tell a lie of convenience. And yet Augustine seems to mean that it is less evil to do on a feast day something useful of its kind than to commit some sin. Augustine means to say, then, that any sins whatever fight more with the end of the sanctifying of the sabbath than works useful of themselves which yet are forbidden on the sabbath. For the end is the rest of the mind in God, to which rest any sin whatever is more opposed than the distraction of bodily work; and so the blindness of the Jews is great, because they misuse the leisure of the sabbath to commit many sins, as Augustine says.
You will object: If sins are more opposed to the end of this law than servile works, then all sins are forbidden by this precept more than servile works; for this precept was set to remove the hindrances of the inward worship of God. I answer that all sins are forbidden, and more than servile works; for sins are permitted in no case, but servile works are often permitted even on a feast. Yet not all sins are forbidden by this special precept on the sabbath, because there was no need; for they had already been forbidden. Servile works are forbidden by this special law because they had not otherwise been forbidden.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CArUT X.
.1/1 sint fosti iUfS (I fllinslitiius ivlclnnicli.
PdsliTinii nvslat (|iiiii)slio dc foslis. Disscrcnuis
nnlcin priini) dc lcslis iii ticncrc. Sccnndo. dc din
ddininica. rcrlid, dt! pasclialc. (>tiinld dc ciiclcris
|\'slis ihiinini. Qiiinld y^^' fcslis saitcliiniiii.
Qn«)(l i^ritur iid primnni iiltiiuU, do cclchrationo
fcslornni in tinivcrsiiiii, lri>s stiiil crnircs. i»riimis
vctoruni Kbidnilariiiii, (pii c.\isliin;iliiiiil tlcl)cr(!
(llirislianos scrvarti dics feslos novi cl volcris Ttv
stiinicnli. idcst, SiiMialliuin cl ddniinicain. ul Ku-
scbiiis rcfcrl lil). .">. Iiist. ciip. 27.1'ainilciii crrdrciu
liMupdro l). (Jrcjjorii (inidain rcnoviiro volncrnnt,
ul patct cx lib. M. cpist. ;^ Idcin iioc tciuporo
scrviuil ('.lirisliiuii. (lui in .\clbi(>pi;i (lcf!;unl. (ini in
fddcin liondro liabtMit sabbiilluim cl dominiciiin.
Ar«:;uincutuin coruni csl, qiiin Kxod. IM. dc snbb;i-
tlio dicilur: Vaclum cst scmpHcmum, siynumqud
■pcrpelHum.
Aller crror osl Pclrobrusiiiuorum. ul palel ex
lib. H. cap. .">. vilac b. IJcriianii: ol Waldonsium.ut
docol (uiido iii stiii Suimn;i: ol Wiclorisliiruin.ul ro-
forl Tboiiias ^Valdoiisis tomo ;^ til. I(). oap. 140.
quiomnia fcslii lollobant.lamquam si fcsti dies ad
ciioromonias .Itidaoornm soltim pcrlinorcnt.
Arj-uunonla otuiun oraiil ilia loca b. Pauli. Pri-
mus Uom. \!t.AUufi judical dicm. inter diem,aHus
judicat omucm (/(o?/)itiost,aluis pntiit iiiuim diom
essc sanclnm, iiliuni profiiiuim: alius vcro omnGs
dios pulal csse aoquales: ol licot Paulns tolcrel in
Rouumis errorem illum dc discreliouodiornm.qnia
noiulum eranl iuslruoli plono*; tamen olarc indioa-
re vidctur esse errorom. Scoundus esl Gal.4.7)/c8
observatis, clmcnsesM annos: timeo vos, nefru-
slra laboravcrim in rot/s.Terlius locuseslColoss.
2. lycmo ros judicct in cibo. aut inpota. autin
parte dici ffstl. Ad haec addunl cx Palribus ralio-
nem: luim s;djb;illu]m, quod mandalum uieral.Tu-
daois carnalilcr obsorv;induni, uimirum. ul absli-
nercnl ab opcribus scrvilibus. nobis mandalum cst
spirilualiler, ul scilicol vacemus a peccatis . quae
sunt opcra vere scrvilia;quae sontonii;i est sanclo-
luui Palrum; Ambrosii in cap. 13. Liicac: IlieTony-
nii in cap. 4. ad Gal. AugMSiini epist. 110. el Gre-
ijorii lib. H. epist. 3.
Terlius error esl Lutbcranorum ol Ciilvinisla-
riiui, qui admillunl dies loslos. sed ila admillunt,
ac si non admilleronl. Summa doctriiiae eorum in
1jIU.VU.MI.\I. VoI II.
liJjtciipiiibiiH roiulmll. PrliiuimiiorOMl, foHlo!» '"^
cclcbr,ir» cssi! jiiro illvino <'l iiuliirali |»ru<;< .
Prob.iiil c\ dc< .doKd;iiaiii lu cl pra^-M-p'
b.iilii) hil iili(|Ui) inodd ciiercuixiii.dc .
iilKpid iiiddo oiiiiiii iiulnr.ili!, ulioipil 111 •! •
pdMlitin iioii fiiihHol. Priiolcn.M. qimi iiiloi.. u-^.i
ddcct, dpi.rtcrc iidH alKpiiiiido fcriiirnib ' ih
n.rpdriililiiis. Idiii iil vuccriiiis l)t'o,«!l coii\
iii Kccloslii 11(1 vcrbiiin iKu iiiKlwnduin; lum cIkiui
lil iiliqiiain rcililssidiKMii c,(»iucil.iiiiiis f ' ' ' ' '•
pcriuis iidslris; c,l iii boc priiiKi iioii •!
ScciiikIo ddcciil: (Jiiia jiis diviiiiiiii noii i.icrint-
mivil corlos dicH.tpiibusClirisliiiiii f(!riari < '
dobcn! cds dclcrmiii;iri ab Kc.cIohiu, idol. . , . ')•
ribus, (•dnsciiiioiitc pd|iiilo: cl iii lioc cliuiii Uiiii
imiltmii dis.scnlinius; soium ciiim displiccl , r|UOil
piiLiiil iioc(!-;^ariiim populi cdnsfiisuiii. (iliristtis c-
miii pdtcsl;ilt!iii -nbcriKiiidiic KccIcsiik! imii Iribuil
uposlolis cuin oa condilione, si popului conscnli-
rot. scd simplicitcr. Vcruin dc liiio rc «iibi d:\i-
miis.
Tcrlio doci^iil, dics dclcrmiualos ad fcrianduni
noii debcrc babcricactcris saiicliorcs cpiasi inysti:-
rii aluiuid. vd jiiiun si;.'nilioalioncm conliiicrciil:
scd sdlum balicri lainqmnu dotorminiitos, discipli-
iiae, otonliuis, ac poiiliac caussa , ilii ul cuin bac
dotcrmiiiatiiine simul coiisislat ac(iualilas dicrum:
ot iii bd' nos ;iootisanl, ([uasi liiibcainus discriincii
dicruiu niore judiiiro:(!l probanlasscrtidncm suam
ex locis Pauli supra citalis. Piiulns cniui nMinli.-n-
dit discrimcn dicrum: at ccric non reprciicndil di-
scriincn ueccssarium ad ordiuomcl polili.iin, ergo
disorimen rclisiosum cl cacrcmonialc. qualc crat
Judacorum. qualc cssc vidclur ( ul ip.si dictiut )
Cluislianorum, qui ob siinilcs siijuillcaliones dics
myslicos babciil cl colunt.
Quarto doceut: Dolcrminalioucm dicrum nou ob-
]i2;:u-3 Cliiislianos iu conscicnlia,nisi iatiune scaii-
didi vcl conlcmptus: ct in boc cliain arguunlca-
tbolicos.quod obligeut fidcles bumauis pracocptis.
Porro seulcnliam suaiu Ccnturialorcs pidbaot.quia
fcslorum observalio iuprimiliva Kcclesiababcbatur
rcs indiffercns, et media, ul revera esl , eti,'o luui
potuil imponi poslca sul) ncccssitale; nam Paultis,
et alii. modo colcbaul sabbalbum , modo domiui-
cain indilVcrcnlor : nam Actor. 13. Paulus in sab-
batho concionalur. Joaunes aulcmApocal. l.men-
tioncm facil dominicac.
Practcrca qnia Paulus, Galat. 4. resislil pscudo-
apostolisvolcnlibus inlroducere obligalioneiu fe-
stoi-um. Doindo Ib-sluisius idem probal: q'jia cum
plura siutfcsla Cbrisliauorum, (luam Judacorum ,
si oorum obscrvalio ad pccoalum obligcl, cnt in-
tolerabilius jugum Cbrislianorum, quam fueril Ju-
daeorum: dc quo l:imcn Pelrusait Acl.l2..1ec nos,
nec Patrcs noslri portare potuimus. Addit Calvi-
nus tcslimonium Sooratis lib. 5. cap. 21. qui dies
feslos liberos cssc voluisset, ac reprehcaait mipo-
silam necossilatem.
Quinto docenl: Non licere dies feslosconsecrare
sanclis vcl euoharisliae, el muUo minus couccptio-
ni b. Mariae: sed dc hoc iuiVa suoloco. Ilanc osse
menlcm baerelicorum.palcl i x Magdeburgensibus
Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. G.col. 503. e.x Tilmanno Ho-
09
Si2
DE CULTU SAl\CTORUM
shusio lib.d« OOO.erroribus ponliliciorum tilul.2G.
ex Philippo iri locis, in expositione decalogi; et ex
Calvino lih. 2. Inslilulionum cap. 8. § 28. et sc-
quenlibus; sed nolanda sunt oliani sinyulorum sin-
gula mcudacia, sive inepliae.
Magdel)urgo,nses Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 6. col.
504. dicunt, lempore Aniceti ooepisse in romana
Ecclesia laborare mysterium iniquilatis, et se prc-
dere semina Antichristi.quia nimirum Anicelus vo-
lebat pascha non celebrari alio die quam domini-
co. Al huc ipsum slalucrunt eo timipore fere o-
mnium ecclesiarum concilia;et poslea nicaenum I.
et idem servant cliam Lulherani. Quid igitur gar-
rinnl conlra romanam sedem?
Tilmannus dicil: Apud pontificios pari honore
cum celeberrimis feslis lotius Ecclesiae coli dies
sanclorum Innocenlium, s. Gregorii, s. Annae et
s. Calharinae. At mendacium esl. Haec enim lesta
in plurimis locis non servanlur ex praeceplo. Ibi-
dem Hesliusius probat,feslum corporis Domini es-
se rcjicicndum, quia scriplum est: I\on adorabis
Deos alienos. Ubi aperle significat , Christum sibi
«^sse Deum alienum; nam festum corporis Domini
proprie ipsi Christo dicatum cst,ob bencficium in-
sliluli sauctissimi sacramenti.
IMiilippus dicil, opera praecipua luijus praecepli
de sanclilicatione sabbalhi. csse alcre , ac honore
afficere pios doclores: et [^eccata iii hoc praece-
plum, esse contemuere pios doclores,et nolle con-
fcrre aii eos alendos et defendendos. Ila nimirum
uliiiier servanlur festa pro minislris.
Calviiius dicit, cullum sabbathi apudChrislianos
in eo consistere , ut otiemur ab opcribus nostris ,
et Deum in nobis opcrari sinamus, idest, intelliga-
mus nos carere libero arbilrio jid bonum, el quid-
quid agimus, esse peccatum. At cerle, qui ila sab-
balhizaut. non intrabunt in requiem Doniini,sed in
jguem dctrudcnlur aeteruum. Igitur adversus hos
errores aliquot sententias proponemus.
Pr'ma sculenlia: Nullo modo Hcet Christianls
sabballium Jadaeorum, aut alias ferias Tesla-
meiiti teteria observare. liaec est conlra primum
errorem: el probalur Primo ex tribus locis Pauli
supra citalis Roman. II. Galat. 4. et praecipueCo-
loss. 2. ;;(leo enim aperle Paulus repiehciulil oh-
servatores sabbathi, ul Ebionilae proplerea Pau-
lum non reriperent, sed aposlatam esse dicerenl,
losle Epiphanio haer. 30. et Ircnaeo lib. 1. c. 20.
ex quo refellilur eliam commenlum 3Iagdeburgen-
sium, qui dicunt, Paulum indiirerenler coluisse
sabbathiim vel dominicam,
Sccundo probalur ex concilio laodiceno cap.29.
ubi analhema dicilur iis, qui sabbathum colunt,
alque in eo vacant ab operibus.
Tcrlio prnhalur ex Gregorio cpist. 3. lib. ll.uhi
cx professo hunc errorem refellit ac dicil, Anti-
chrislum r ;:0vaturum sabballii culturam.
Quarto ralione, quia sabbathum eral praecipua
caeremonia iu(!aica,et praecipua figura Testamenli
vcleris, ul palet Coloss. 2. Aiit Neoyneniae, aut
sabballiorum, quae sunt umbrae futurorum,cor-
pus autem Christi. Igitur ubi Christus venit, sab-
balhum necessario finein habuit.
Ad argumentiim aulem faclum ex illis verbis E-
xol. 31. pactum eslsempilcrnum. respondel Au-
gustinus in quaestionibus in Exodum quaest. 40.
124. et 139. ac Primo dicit: Sabbathum et sacer-
dotium, aliosque ritus Judaeorum dici pacta, etsi-
gna aeterna, quia res aeiernas significabant. Sicut
cum dicimus, Deus est aelernus, non significamus
illas duas syllabas De, us esse aetcrnas, sed id,
quod significant, esse aeternum.
Secundo respondet: Sabbathum, et alias quas-
dam caeremonias dici acternas, quia non fuerant
imperatae Judaeis usque ad aliquod tempus dcfini-
tum; ut cum dicebatur,qui teligerit mortuum, erit
immuiidus usque ad vesperam: sed imperatae fue-
rant servandae quousque Deus vellel, el proinde
in aelernum ex parle ipsorum, qui non polerant
cas omiltere pro arbitrio suo. Quod autem sacerdo-
tium Aaronicum, el caeterae caeremoniae non es-
sent revera duraturae in aelernum, sed essent mu-
tandae a Deo. probat Augustinus ex psalm. 109.
Juravit Dominus, et non jjoenitebit eum, tu es
sacerdos in aetcrnum, secundum ordinem Mcl-
chiscdcch.Cum enim de sacerdotio Chrisli dicilur,
non poenitebit cum, indicalur poeniluisse Dcum
saccrdolii Aaronici, idesl, mulare illud consliluis-
se. Nec euim in Dco est poenilenlia.nisi meiaplio-
rice, quia videlicel mutat res aliquas, ut ii faci-
unl, quos earuin rcrum poenitel. Possuraus ad-
dere.
Terlio caeremonias judaicas dici aelernas. non
sinipliciter, sed donec durarel slatus illius reipu-
blicae. id quod cxplical Dominus, cum addit, vo-
bis aulem in generalionibus vestris, filiis Israel,
ul Exod. 12. Celebrabitis hunc diem, solemnem
in (jeneralLonibus vostris cultu sempiterno. Simi-
lia h;ihenlur de sacerdolio Exod. 28. el de sabba-
tho Exod. 31.
Secunda propositio. Festa Christianorum non
solum ralione ordinis et politiae. sed etiam ra-
tione mysterii celebrantur, sunlque dies feaii ve-
re aliis sanctiores, sacraliores et pars quaedam
divini cullus. Haec est conlra secundum el terli-
um errorem;nam lerlius fere coincidit cum seouri-
do. Probatur Priino ex die dominico; nain dicm
dominicum omiies cclebramus tam nos,quara liae-
rclici: at ccrtum est diem iiiura celebrari in me-
moriam resurrcctionis Domini, ut Augustinus di-
cit epist. 119. el ratelur etiam Calvinus lih. 2.cap.
8. Instit. ergo non solum ratione ordinis fesia ce-
Icbrantur, sed eliam ralione myslicae significa-
tionis.
Respondet Calvinus huic objeclioni, quam dicit
fieri solere a suis etiam. qui crebro mussilanl, do-
minicae dici observalionem ad discrimpn dierum,
ab a[)osloIo prohibitum, pc!'tinere. Dicil auteni
duo; l>riuio diem dominicum non servari nisi pro-
pter ordinem Ecclesiae;eleclum autera fuisse hunc
diem, quia lali die Chrislus resurrexil. Cum enim
Clirisli resurrectione finilae sinl onines judaicae
cacremoniae. hoc die admonemur,non esse ainpli-
us inhaerenduin umbris el figuris,
At haec solulio niliil valel; nam, si hunc diein
colimus, ul admoneamiir linilas esse uinbras jiida-
icas, ergo colimus propler significalionem. Non c-
nim dies aliler monel, qu;im signilicando et re-
«
lllll.ll ll.lUilS
st.i
pniosciiliiliild, •'r^o Moii i"il siihliila, simI imiiIiiIii hi-
giiilliiiliii. 1)1 (lisr.iiUii) ilioriiiit. l*niuU]ri!ii dirs ilo-
Miiiiiciis, iil Aii^'iisiiiiiis (1(11 i'i lili. 21. t|i< (livit. Dui
nip. 'Mi. iitMi .sdliiiii csl iiiciMiiiiii rrsiincclMMiis,
scil cliiiiM viliiiM lMMt;iiM pi ii(^li;;iiriil. I;;iliir .Nitciiii-
<lii ri\><piiiMli<l, M* Moii siiltiiccri) Kcrlcsiiiiii srrvilii-
li liiijiis ilici. iici|ii<-, iiiipriiliiiliiriiiii, si licclomit
iililiiii iliriii silii cli^.iiit. .M liiicc Miliilio iipnlc i|i--
MMMISlnil, CillvillllMI II^IKlSOOrO Cllillll ll|ll|i| SIIOS
COli ICStil Ol) M^lllliciltlOllCIII , Cl CllpCIC ipilillMM
iil)r.i;;ar() ilicni (loiiiiiiiciiiii , s(;il iiom iiii<l(;r() ,
(|uiii iiiinis iillc. niiliciilii rl .slaliililii sil lnioc VO'
nliis.
Sociiiiilo proliiiliir: Ooiii iiliiMpii lollciiili osscrit
SOl(Mlllli'>: ilics Millalis, pllSSioills. ICslll (•clioiiis, a-
scoMsioiiis Doiiiiiii. (il pciiUtcoslcs. (pios dc iiposlo-
lica Iniiliiioiic (lcsccinlcrc. iii lolii Mcclcsin scivnri
(ioCCl AllHUSllllllS CpiSl. I IS. Cl 1 I".). Cl (piOS (MlillM
iulvcrsiirii coliiiil. Niiim ccrliiiii c.st. Iios dics iioii
scrviiri riilioiic ordiiiis cl pnliliiic. s(mI nilioMi! .-.i-
}:;iiilic!ili()iiis: Miuii iii priiiiis si soluiii nilioiic (uili-
nis scrvarciilur. lciiicro coiislitiili fuissciit. (^iuis
cniiM csl islc ordo. ul iiUcr diciii passioiiis cl ro-
surrcclioiiis non sit iiisi niiiis dics iiicdnis; intcr
n^surrcclionis cl asccnsionis siiit (iuadra;^'iiita?iii-
lcr ascensioiiis cl pcnlccoslcs sint dcccni. iiilcr
pciilecoslcin ct iialalc siiit plus (pi;uii sc\ nicnscs?
Dcindc si soluin r;ilionc ordiiiis cclohranlnr lcsla,
cur scquiinnr Innain iii lcslis mobilihus invcnicn-
dis? itcin cur Inihcnl isla noniiiia, p;isclia. asocnsio
clc. si niliil sacrum sij;nilic;iut? Dcniipic INitn^s
disorlc doccnl, lcsla ista cclt'hr;iri ad si;,Miilicaiid;i
mysteria redcmplionis. cl ca cxltM'no rilu rcprac-
scnlanda. Vidc Aiijiuslinmn (>pislo!;i 1 ID.ct in ps;il.
lll). nhi proiixc disitutal dc myslcriis [lasclnic, cl
aliorum fcsloruin.
Tcrlio idcin prohatnr ex co. (luod dics fosli a
Palrihns dicuiitnr s;iiuti. sacri. niyslici cl rcligio-
se colcndi (iu;ic cuin c;iclcris dichus non sunl
comniuui;i. Amhrosius serm. (>2. Do)iiinica nobis
vcncrabilis ct^l, atquc solcmnis. Augnstiinis pr;ic-
liilionc in cpisl. Joannis: Quia nunc inlcrposiui
cst solcmnUas sanctorum dicrum efc. Iciem lil).
22. dc Civil. Dei cap. 'M). Dics dominicus Chrisli
rcsurrcclionc sacratus csl. Lib.20.conln' Faustimi
cap. 21. Populus christianus mcmvrias martii-
rum rcligiosa solcmnilatc concclcbrat. Et serm.
2.>1. Dominicum dicm apostoli rcligiof^a solcm-
nitatc liabcndum san.vcrunt. Kl Lco I. serm. 4.
de (]ua.1ragcsima: Ingressuri, inquit, dies niysti-
cos etc.
Quarlo, si solum ratione ordinis disUngncrcnlnr
dicsfesli ab aliis, omnes dics fes!i essenl aequa-
les, ncc unus alio major: una cnim cssel ralio cc-
lebrilalis omnium. Al non ita csl; nam Ignalius vo-
cai dicm dominicam, diem regalcm et cminenlis-
simum omniuin dierum epislola ad Slagnesianos.
Leo serm. I2.de qnadragcsima vocat diein paschae
fcslum lestorum omnium maximum. iXaziaiizenus
oral. 2. de pascha, dicil pascha esse feslorum, et
celebrilalem cclcbritatum. tnnlo caelcris omnihns
majorem, qnanlo sol syderibus oninibus cxccllil:
eloralionc de obitu pntris sui, dicil. paschac diem
essc regcm dierum. Clirysoslomus homilia dc s.
I'liiliih'uiiiu,ilicm lUitiiliMi) Clirikti (uaIimii tn .viiiiiiin,
i:t rii^lorijtit tiii!lro|Mtlitii vucut.
(.Miiiilo, riiltoMc (liii lii i;i ,Scripliir.i. Oii^tcrv.iiti»
fi*sl()rii(!i,ipi<ic pnicciptiiir Kxod. 20. mJ cultiiin li'!
pcrliMct; ii.iiM c^l pr.ic <'pUiiii l)oi, i;t priicccploiii
priiMiic liihuliMi.Scd illud priifOKptuiii nni iili(|ui)iiio-
do iiiiliir.ilc, i;t iid tios pcrliiicl, iil iidvcrsiirti ron-
('i*iliinl; i'r;;i) (liiiMit iios li.ibcr^* (li^hciinis alupiu.i
dics, ipMMiiiii ohticrviilio iiiJ ('.iilUiin I)i:i pcrltiicut.
iVoll h.ll)CIIIM<. lllllclM illl.l rc-.l.|, ipMltl dlCS (loiltiMI-
co.s: P.i^oltu, pciilccoslcii i!l Miiiilt.i; rr^o lioruiti
ohserviitiu csi oulUis Diri, hiittclits ct tidi((iiiSUH. Li.
cct ciiim dclciuiin.iUu liujns aul tl!iit.-i dici hit fu-
ola idt hoMiitiihiis.liiincii ipsa Siihsl.iiiU.i lcsll iiltpi)-
ralii c^l ;i l)ci) in pi iiiiii t.ihiil.i.
lillimo prohaliir Itac. niUoiK! ; Cltrislii.s iiuscctriH
coiiscc.r.ivil locMiii, idcsl,piiic"i('pc; moiii:iis ooiisi,*-
cr.isil 01 ijt;i'iii;rc.sur^,'cns ooiiscoriivil liiniuluiii. un-
(Jc (>.\ivit, cur iioii eliaiii consecravil teinpus, idcHt,
dics illiis, (piihiis iiiiliis. \cl |i!issus , vcl rcddilus
fuit iiohis (lcvichi moitc? Cur priWi oaetcris locis
sancliis illc vooalnr.uhi Doiniiiiis r(!surrc.vil?(;l jiriic
oaclcris non crilsanola dies illa,iii (|ua rcsurrexil?
Priiclcrca si lcniphi cl all;iria dioiinliir domus J)ci,
cl looa siiiiclii, (piia Dco s.ior;itii .'aiiil , Mimirnm iit
in iis coLilur Dcus. cor noii (;liam sancli d sacri
crunl (iii's, (pii ouliiii diviiio sacndi sunl? .Xcqin;
ar>^'iin)ciit;i ooMoluiliiiil in conlniriiim.
Ad I*iiniuin c.\ IU)in;iii. li. Alius judical dicm
intcr dicm, alius umncm dicm. Trcs suiil c.\[)osi-
lioncs. l*riin;i Thcodorcti cl Tlico|)hyliioti, cl foiU;
cli;im Chrysoslomi, ul scnsns sil: Alius Judicat
dicm intcr dicm; idcsl, aliquo die abslinel ii o;iriic
siiillii. cl aliis oihis in Icgc (irohihilis , alius oinni
dic ;ih illis :ibsliii(;l, vcl iiullo dic iihsiinct.Scd non
placcl hacc c.xposilio; nam cihi secundum lcgem
iminnndi niimquiim cdi |)otcr;inl, cl idco non csl
vcrisimilc aliquos fuissc Jud;iiz;inlium, qui ab illis
niodo abslincrcnl. inodo noii abstincrcnl. .Nec la-
mcn hacc expositio juvat adversarios.
SiMMjnila cxposilio csl Origcnis, Ambrosii,Occu-
mcnii, Primasii cl Ansclmi in hunc locum , qui
huno esse volunl sensum; Alius judicat diem inler
diem.alins omncm dicm. idcst.aliqui jcjunant ccr-
lisdicbus. ut fcria II. IV. ct VI. vcl sabb;itho, alii
jcjnnanl omni die, cl ulrique rccle .igunl.Haec est
vcra etlilcralis, etnobis inaximc favcl.
Tcrlia cst b. Ifieronyini lib. 2. in Jovinianum ,
quod Paulns loqualur dc icsiis Judacorum, et sen-
sus sil; Alius discernit inlcr dicm festum et prof.i-
numseonntlum lcgcm, idest, ferialnr die sabballii,
cl in kalcndis, alius omncin dicm ducil profanum ,
quod altinel ad lcgcm Judacorum. Haec senlenUa
nonvidelnr milii lilcralis,lum quia omnes vcleres,
qui ex professo huno locum cxponunt , dc jcjunio
exposuerunl, non dc fcslis: tum cU;im quia aposlo-
lus de cibis disputalionem inslilueral. lum denique
quia poslquam i\\\er:\[:Aliusjudicat omnem dicm,
subjungit: Unusquisque in suo sensu abundet.
Qu()d certe non videlur fuisse diclurus. si de feslis
Jndaeorum agerct . qune observare jam coepcrat
malum csse. 'Tamcn si propler b.Hicronymnm ad-
mitlalur, dico apostoluin non loqui dc feslis Chn-
slianorum, sed Judaeorum lanlum; nam ipse cliaiu
S44
DE CULTU SA.\CT0r>U3I
Paulus judicabal diein iiilor diem , quod allinetad
1'esla Christiana, cum celebrabal penleooslen , ut
diciliir Aiior. 20. et conseqiienter eliani celebra-
bal pascha; nam ut Epiphanius dediicil haercsi 7o.
sine [laschale nulla cst penlccosle.
Al inslal Calvinus ; nam PauUis videliir eodcm
modo damn;:re discrimen dicruin, qno discrimeii
ciborum:scd discrimcn ciborum in lege chrisliana
nulkun est. quale eral apud Judaeos, idest.propier
signilicationem, igilur nec discriinen dierum essc
dchot propter signincalioncra.Rcspoiideo: A Paulo
similiter reprobari discriracn ciborum et dierum
ex lcge judaica iiuluclum: scd tamcn in Ecclcsia
non esse eandcm ralioneai ciboi ura et fcslorum ;
namciborum dclcclusnon est ab Ecclesia iiiducius
propter significalioncm; dies aulem icsti insliluii
sunt ob significalionem, non quidcni lalcm. qmdis
eral .Tudaeorum, scd aliam el ilivcrsam.
Ad Secunduni locum e\ opistola ad Galat. duac
sunl responsioiies. Prima Ambrosii in C.alal. 4. ct
Augustini Enchirid. cap. 79. cl in epislul. 119.
cap. 7. qui dicunl: Apostolum non loqui de obser-
valione restorum, sed de observalione vana et su-
perslitiosa genlilium, qui dicebanl cras non profi-
ciscar, quia talis cstpositio syderum ; hoc anno
plaiilabovineam. quia bisse.xlus esl.
Secunda est omiiium Graecorum, et llieronymi,
atquc Auguslini in hunc locum, qui dicunl , hiii-
lum agere de feslis Judaeorum.Quod eliani respon-
delur ad terlium locum ex episl. ad Coloss.
Sed contra; Nam licel aposlolus proprie Judai-
zantes argual. lamen simul etiam illos videtur ar-
guere.qui codem modo lempora et dies observant:
alqui nos idcm facimus. Kon Ciiim suslulimus ob-
servalioncm certoruin dierum , scd mulavimus.
Praeterca Hieronymus in hunclocum scribcins, ad-
fert duas soluliones. quae ambae videntur coiilra
nos. Priino sic ail: ISeinordinala concjrcgalio po-
puli fidcm minuerctin Cliristo , propterea dios
aliqni consliluii sunl, ut in unum omnos parilcr
veniremus. Non quo celebrior sit dics illa, qua
convcnimus: scd quo quacumque dic convcnien-
dum sit, cx conspcdu mutuo laeiUia major oria-
tur. Secundo dicil,Christianis omnes diesesse ae-
quales, sed proplcr saeculares oportuissc consli-
tucrc aliquos dies, quibus convenirenl ad Ecclc-
siam.
Ad Primuin respondeo duplicilcr. Primo cum
Augustino contra Adimanluin cap. IG. ubi sic ail:
Illi, inquit, ea servililer ohscrvahanl, noninlcl-
ligenles ad quaruni reruni significationes , et
praenuncialioncs pertinerent: ' hoc in eis culpat
apostolus, et in omniljus qui scrviunt crcaturae
polius quam Creatori. Nani nos quoque et donii-
nicum diem cl pasclia solemniler celchramus, et
quaslibel alias Christiani dicrum festivitates: sed
quin intelligimus quo pertinecmt , non tempora
observamus, sed quae illis significantur tempori-
bus. Exemplum dc eo, qui adierl Iibrum doclori ,
vel cilharam magislro,cum ipse tamen nec legerc,
ncc cilharatn pulsare s<'ial.
Secundo respondeo:}I;jgnufn esldiscrimen inlcr
noslr:i fesla. et Judaeorum: nnm in primis ilhi post
Chrisliim iiahcnt ralp;im sij^nincalioficm:noslra ha-
bent verain. Deinde illorum finis primarius eral si-
gniliciirc futura, ul dicilur Coloss.2.noslroruin au-
lcm linis primarius est agnoscere Dci bcneficia ,
proplerquae fesla singiil;i insliluhi sunl. Dcnique
suinma praecepll in illis erat. non operari corpo-
ridiler: in noslris aulem polissima praecepti pars
est, inlercsse divino sacrificio , vacarc aulem ab
(^pcrfs corporali. nobis praccipilur solum, ne dis-
trahanuir a Dci laudibus. Itaque nostra fesla suc-
ccdunl judaicis, non sicut in eadein haeredilate
lilius palri, sed sicut lux umbrac et dies nocli, et
e.\emplarligurae,et illa dici poteran^ carnalia, no-
slra aulem spirilualia.
Ad Prima verba Hieronymi dico: Eum in prima
solulione sua duas caussas rcddere festorum Chri-
stianorum. Unam. ut honoremus Christi resurre-
clionem et alia mysteria, et ex hac partc non po-
lcst negari quin sit dies celebrior pascbatis, quam
alii dies. Alieram ut habeamus certum diem ratio-
iie ordiriis: et quanlum ad islara caussam non est
un;i dics altera celebrior.
Ad Secunda verba ejusdem dico: Eum in secun-
da solutionc sua, cum riicit. Christianis esse dies
omnes aequales , non inlelligere simpliciler , et
quoad oiimia. sed soluin quo.id essenlialia fesli, et
boc remola Ecclesiae lege; Nam, ut ipse ibi dicil ,
polcst Christianus quotidie habere pascha et pcnle-
coslen et dicm dominicum: si nimirum quotidie
audial sacrum, communicel corpori Dornini, reco-
gitet divina mysteria, et omissis operibus servili-
bus lolus Deo vacet. Immo talis deberel esse vita
clericorum et religiosorum, propter quos omnes
dies dicuntur feriac.IIoc autem Judaei habere non
possunt, non cnim eis licel quolidie iinmolare a-
gnum paschalem, vel erigcre laberuacula, elsimi-
iia.Cum hac lamen aequalitaleconsistit.quod apud
Chrislianos sil inncqualitas dierum,lum ex praece-
plo Ecclcsiae deleiminanlis dics, tum ex stgniti-
calione et repraesenlatione mysleriorum: dies e-
nim Dominicus repraesenlat resurrectionem, quod
non faciuiit alii dies.
Ad rationem illam ex Patribus dico: Palres illos
agerc de ipso sabbalho proprie diclo, non ut sab-
balhum alioquiu accipilur pro omni dic fcsto, scd
ul accipilur proprie pro die LCptimo. Dicuiil eniin
Patrcs. ipsum sabbalhum mandalum Judaeis car-
naliter, nobisaulem spiritualiler: sed non sequi-
tur, si nondebcmus celobrare sabbathum ad lite-
rarn externo ritu, non debcre etiacn nos celebraro
dominicam, et alia fcsta chrisliana. Immo s. Augu-
stinus iii eadem episloia 119. ubi dicit,nobis man-
dalum sabbalhum spiritualiler, ibidem dicit, nos
agcrc debere diem dominicain celebrem externo
rilu.
Tertia proposilio. Observatio certorum dierum
festorum recte praecipilur in Ecclesia tege obli-
ganle conscientiam, eliam citra contcmplum et
sccmda,lum. Haecest contra haereticos hujus lem-
poris. Scd antequam probetur, notaiidum est Pri-
mo. Ipgc fesloruin duo quaedam praecipi; Primo ,
ul ouincs iulersint missac sacrificio ; Sccundo ut
vacent ab opereservili. Horum ulrumque requiri
ad fesli ohservalionem adversarii falenlur, nam li-
cel ipsi damneiil missam. quatenus sacrilicium esl
imiii Tiimrs
sn
l.»iii(M\ r.il.Milur tlio lcslo (iporlcrii fnnv(»nlrfl ii<l Iv--
i l(«siiiin. (;l mlcnissti myslciio Miicrnti (•(umiik". d
(|iiiiii(l(M!liaiu hoc, iict-iirnil . lacilc |.r(»l)iiri jio^Mct
(•\ Jll^lilKi m lllic 2 .i|Hi|(i;,'ij|(i , (<\ |>;i||:i(||ii nip.
<;'.». Iiislttriiic l,,iiisi.init«,,.\ llicioiiyiiio iii vilii l»iiu-
liio, cl cx iilils iiiili(|iiis iiuclorllMis."
Piin r.ilioiio r.il.Milor , rcsloiii (licrii rp(iiiirc-
rc viiciilioiiiMii iil) ()pcr(> corporiili . ci si iil iic^m-
rciil, prolian possci rx llicroiiyino in cpisl.ntl Ki|.
slocliiiiiii (lc cuslodia viruimliilis. olii ,|icll: Momi-
clios siii liMiiporis c\crccri solilos in o|»cril)iis mn-
iiiiiiiii oii.iiiliiis liitlnis . c\ccplis (lomuiicis. cl si-
mililius lcsiis. .Vunuslimis (]uoipii^ sorm. 2."»1. fil
(Irc^onuslil). U. cpisiol. ^ .licuiil, fcsUs (licbus
\iu'iiiiiliim iil) optM"c corporiili.
SccuikIo iiola: Opiis scr\ilc possc Iribiis Tnndis
iiocipi; (piacdam ciiim siiiil opcni . (iiiilms liomo
scrvil ciipi(|iialil)iis suis. niminim piM-cala. ct liacc
noii ilicuiiliir propric op(Ma S(M\ilia. scd mclaiilio-
rico liinluin; uon onlm sniil propriii scrvorum. scd
commiiiiia omnilMis, cl niaximc divilihns cl nobi-
lil)iis,(|iii aliis doininanliir:iiC(pic |iroliil)cnliir liaiM',
spcciali priiccoplo. scd omnilnis pracccplis siiniil.
\lia siinl opcra (piilms liomo scrvil Dco. iil imnio-
l.iliosacrillcii, oblalio lluiris. cl similia. cl liacc iln
scrvilia snnt.ui sinl ctiam rcj^alia; nam scrvirc Dco
rcjinarc csl.cl haco non modo non pmliihcntur.scd
cliam praccipinnlni' inaximc dic fcslo. Alia siinl ,
Huibiis lioiiio lioinini scrvit . ipialia siint qnac pcr
se spcclnnl od eos, qnos propric voramns scrvos ,
qiiiilia sunl oninia incchanica nrlificia, a^TicoIanim
labores, ct similia, cl hncc prnpric scrvilia dictin-
lur. et probibiln in rcslis inlcUi^Minlnr.
Terlio: Nom qnod liccl soln istn opcrn pcr se
probibcanlnr in lestis.lnmcn justisdc canssis qnnc-
(!nni spinlunlia ct liberalin iiilcrdicnnlnr clinin; cl
quncdnm corpornlia ac scrvilia pcrmillnnlnr. Li-
bcrnlin. quac probibcntnr in fcslis . snnl qnnlnor,
mcrcalum faccre, ajicrc cnussas , jus dicerc ct jn-
ramcnlum solcmne in judicio prncstnre . nisi ob
canssam pncis, vel nlinm ncccssitntcm. Ila enim
hubctur cnpit. Omncsc/jcs capil. Conqucshis, (ic
leriis.
Corporalia, quae pcrmiltunlur. sunt cliam qiia-
tuor. Primo ca, qunc ad opcrn rcli^ionis vcl spiri-
tunlin. per so ordinnntur, IIoc mocio licet in festis
campanns pulsare. el olim liccbnt mnclare oves ct
1'oves nd sacrificia. >Intlh. 12. Saicrdoicsin tcm-
■plo sabbaUium liolant. ct sinc criminc sunt. Sic
elinm liccl scribcrc in ordinc ad inlcllcctum.ut ad
ivirandnm Icclioncm vel concioncm , non tameri
liccl transcribcre, sine nccessilnte.libroslucri grn-
tin. Sccundo, opcra illa pcrmitlnnlur . quae\'cl
propriae, vel aliorum saluli nccessaria sunt, ut est
labor pbarmacopolanim. chirurfrornm . coquorum
etc. quoinodo etinm Judaeis liccbat in snbbatho e-
ilucercjuincntadc fovea . ci forte cccidisscnt . et
duccre ad fontem ad bibcndum. .Malth. 12. Tertio,
opera concessa a praclalis. Qunrto. opera qune e.v
consuetudine fncla sunl liciln. Numqunm enim Ec-
clesia tnm sevcre praecepit vacareab opere,qnain
lc.x judaica; el rntio csl. quia vacnlio apnd Judaeos
erat figura fut-jrorum , figurac auicm debent esse
cxaclae, alioqui non bcnc sij,'nificanl ; noslra au-
liMii vnciillo cllainHl iiitonluin Hl((iii(l('!i( iilbpioi ru-
loniiii, tiiiiiiMi iioii csl lilc fjiiH pr.ict l|iiiii-^ lliiii ,
mimI iioii iinpcdiro o|i(!rii Hpiriluiillti.
I'i(ibiiliir iinnc propo^olioiPriiiKi. (iiiiinl.ii^ :ir({ii-
iiiciilis, (piibiis uli.is prob.iMiiio^ I . ( li^i .!• pr.iicn-
plii olili^'arn iii C(iilHi!li*iilln
S(MMintl(), jiiri! diviiit) pr.ici ijKliir, iil alKpii <\\»'A
rcsll obscrv(Mitiir, ct laiiKMi iiiilli niini ccrii itic^ a
pirc (liviiio dclcrmiiiali. criro dcbuil itssc in Ki cIr-
sia polusliis (bttnrininaiidi rc.rtos dioH , el ohliituiKU
ad coniin obscrvaliniiciii: qiiia aliiiipii noii sorva-
rctur jiis tliviniim. Si (Miim dcl<M"iiiiiiiilio Kcclcsliio
iion obli^nil, pot(;ruiil ndi*|(;H nnn S(!rv.iro (lieiii do-
miniciim, ikm", p;isc|iii, ncc iilia fcsia iiidicia, cl
|)roind(; iiiilla. .Nim', cnim iilbi iilia fcstu suiit. «pi.in
s(M"vari |)ossinl. I''csl;i oniiii (IcImmiI csse coiirnuMi.i
toli Kcclcsiiie: nuIlaauliMii cssiipossiinl coiimKiiiia,
nisi (piai; indicniiliir ;i piiblic;i |)oti*st;ito.
Tcrlio. .Marddcliaciis cl (^iclcri Jinl.ici riim rcj,'i-
iiii llcstli(*r inslitucrunt rcstinn. (piod I)(mis rion
priicccpcr;il, ct obli^MVcrnnt, nd illud scrv;induin,
llcsllicr \). .\ulU lircat /los duox dicx, alfsijuc m-
lcninilatc trawiificrc elc. cri»o idcin licchil Kcclc-
siiic. Xaiii lolii ciiussa.cnr criMlanl h;icrclici non li-
ccrc Kc(lcsi;ic ()bli;:;irc lidclcs ad istani rcslnrutTi
()I)Scrv;ilioiiiMn. csl. (piin DtMis li;icc hvsla in |);irti-
ciibiri nnn prnecepit. Jil nec praeceperiil fcslum il-
lud Sortiuin. (piod M:inlocIi;icns inslitnit.
Oirarlo. niili(pi;i Kcclcsia rosla cum iiiqicrio iti-
diccbat. nec fiiil uiKpiiim ullus pracler haerelicos,
(]ni cjusmodi pracccpt;i rc|)rchcnderil. (j^nciliuin
a^atlicnsc anlc inillc iinnos ciip. il. .l/(.s.sa.s. in-
quil. dic ilominico saorularibu<, tolas aiidirc spc-
ciaJi ordinc pr<iccipinuis. ita ul ante bcncdictio-
ni'in saccrdolis cgrrdi populns non praosumnl.
Quod SL frccrinl.ab cpiscopo pubticc confundan-
tur. Concilium laodiceniim anle 1200. annos cap.
21). ^on oportcl. inqnil, Cliristianos judaizarc.ct
in sabbatho racarc. scd opcrari cos in cadcjn
(/)>, liominicam pracponcndo eidcm dici. Conci-
lium nurclianense III. eliain anlc nnnos niille c;m.
27. prncccpil. nt puninnlur. qui dicbus festis opc-
ranlur. et simul lamcn damuiil eos, qni judaic-.o
more ita vacanl. ut non pntent licere pararc in die
dominico quic ticccssaria sunt ad vicluin. Simili-
lcr concilium VI. gcnerale can. 8. dic dominica ju-
bet audiri s.icruin. et nulla opcra corporalia Geri
praeter ca, quae ad viclum neccssaria sunt et alia
similiter nccessnrin. Nec est isle canon cx TruIIa-
iiis Ciinonibus. Antisiodorensc anle annosOOO.cap.
1(). yonlicct. inquit. dic dominico.boves junyere,
vcl alia opcra e,Tcrcere. Similia li.ibcnlur in conci-
lio II. Mnlisconensi c;ip. l.conciiiura moiiuntinum
antcannos700.canon.3G.et37.enumeralfestaprae-
cipiia totius nnni, et jnbel oinnino ab opere in cis
diebus vncare. Vidc plura decreta conciliorum et
ponlificum. extra de feriis. Neque nriiumenta in
contrarium concIudunl:nam ad primum Magdebur-
gensium dieo.festorum dierum cullura cx se indif-
ferentem esse.sed posiialege esse necessarium.AiI
exemplura Pauli.nego illura aliquando coluisse di-
era sabbathi. Concionabalur enim die sibballii.
qiiia tunc invcniebat Judaeos congregalos. non
quia ipse colerct sabbalhura. Porro in epist. ad
b46
DE CULTU S.\i\CTORUM
Galatas non iirguil pseudoaposlolos, quod obliga-
ronl ad fesla, sed quod obligarenl ad fesla ju-
(laica.
Adillud Ileshusii, quod si feslonim Icges obli-
geiil, erit juguui Chrislianorum iulollcriilMlius ju-
go Judacorum, cum iios plura fesla linbeamus,
quam ilii habiierinl. Uespondeo. Primo cimi b. Au-
guslino lib. conlra Adimanlum cap. IG. scrvarc
fcsla judaicc esse jngum, non aulcm more chrisli-
anoiquia illi non inlelligebanl finem vocalionis,nos
inlelligimus.
Secundo dico, fesla Judaeorum vere fuisse gra-
via. quia cogebanlur singulis sabbalhis non acceu-
dcrc ignem, non coquere cibos.non iter facere, ni-
si ad mudicum spalium. Ilem oporlebal eos ter in
aiuiu ad quacdam fcsta ire iti Ilierusalem, eliamsi
longissimc abessenl: ilem in paschale cogebaiUur
per dies septcm comedere azima insipida, qui De-
uleron. 16, ideo vocatur panis aniicliouis,ei. iaclu-
cas agresles plenas amaritudine. et alia mulla,
(|uae lcsla onerosa reddebanl. At noslra fesla nihil
laboris liabent: quis enim labor audire sacrum, et
vacare a quibusdam operibus?
Adde Ullimo, quod cum Pflriis Aclor. la. legem
judaicara, intolerabilem jugum vocavil, non^hoc
propler fesla, sed propter alias innumeras et mi-
uulissimas caeremonias dixit, quas non tantum
observare, sed eliam memoria relinere fere im-
possibile erat. Ad lestimonium Socratis dico: So-
cralem haerelicum fuisse Novalianum neque ejus
leslimonium in dogmatibus ullius esse momenli.
Quarta proposilio. Non tenemur diebus feslis
cx praecepto peculiari ad non peccandum, sive
ad avtum contritionis, vel dilectionis Dei. Haec
cstb. Thomae in 2. 2. quaesf. 122. art. 4. et con-
Ira Scolum in dist. 27. et 37. qiii dicit, homines
tc^neri die feslo ad actum dilectionis Dei internum:
et conlra Abulensem ao Lyranum in cap. 20. Exo-
di: qui dicunl, hoc praecepto specialiler prohiberi
opera scrvilia, idest, peccala,el proinde oinne pec-
calum faclura in die feslo esse duplex.
Probatur Primo: Quia jus divinum praecipiebat
solum abstinere ab opere servili. Si dicas, opus
servilc est peccalum. Conlra, quia praecepta de-
bent inlelligi proprie, non melaphorice, peccata a-
ulem non suiit opera servilia,nisi raelaphorice. Se-
cundo, Ecclesia delerminavit tempus, et raodum
obscrvandi jus divinum de observalione praece-
plorura: al Ecclesia nusquam praecipit aolus illos
inlernos. Terlio, id habel communis sensus fideli-
um. Nulli enim sunt, qui pulent se novum pecca-
lum commisisse, si die dominico non habuerint
conlrilionera. Quarto, actus ille inlernus est finis
hujus praeccpti, non autera finis, sed raedia pro-
prie imperantur. Quinlo, cultus inlernus praece-
plus jam erat in priino raandato; nara hic est ordo
primae labulae; in primo praecepto mandalur ciil-
tus cordis, in secundo cullus oris, in lerlio cultus
operis. Sexlo.praeceptum de colendo sabbalho est
praeceplum religionis; at contritio esl aclus poe-
nilenliae, non religionis. Septimo,quia alioqui es-
set valde noxiumlot fcsla mulliplicare; esset enim
tendere laqueos aniraabus.
At objiciunt; Priino, fornicari, vel occidere ho-
minein in loco sacro est homicidium et sacrile-
gium, ergo simililer occidere vel fornicari in die
festo.
Respondeo : Circumstantiam loci et temporis
semper aggravare peccalura, sed non semper ila
aggravare, ut censealur novuin peccatum. Tunce-
nim solum Qt novum peccalum, quando circum-
slanlia loci, vel temporis est essenlialis, et inlrin-
seca peccato, idesl,quanflo violalur ipsum tempus,
aul locus sacer, verbi gmlia, qui fornicatur, aut
humicidium facit in templo,commitlit sacrilegium,
quia per ea peccata tollilur sanclitas loci. Violalur
enim templum per effusionem seminis aut sangui-
nis voluntariam ex lege ecclesiaslica: At qui in
templu menlilur eliam perniciose,aut blasphemiil,
non commillit proprie sacrilegiun), quia mendaci-
um elblasphemia non tollunt templi sanclilalein.
Idem dico de lempore sacro. Non enim violalur
lempus sacrum per quaecumque peccala, sed so-
lum per ea, quae opponuntur ipsi terapori Siicro,
qualia sunt, non audire sacrum, et operari corpo-
raliter, quae sunt specialiler prohibila.
Secundo objiciunl lestimonia Auguslini. qui di-
cil, praecepto sabbathi prohiberi opera servilia, id-
esl, peccata. Sic enim loquilur .iuguslinus tracl.3.
in Joannem, el in psiilra. 32. concione 1. llespon-
deo: Eum loqui de praeceplo sabbathi,ul cslgene-
ndc praeceplum. spirilualiter significalum per sab-
biilhum Judaeorum.
Terlio objiciunt Auguslinum, qui llb. de decem
chordis cap, 3. dicil: Melius faceret Judaeus in
agro aliquid utiie, quaru in theatro seditiosus
existerel; et melius foeminae Judaeorum domi,
lanam facercnt,quam tota dic in ISeomeniis suis
impudice saltarent.
Hespondeo: Augustinum non velle dicereabso-
lute esse melius, seu minus malura, die festo ope-
rari aliquid ulile, licet prohibitum tali die,quam a-
liud peccalum facere, Polesl enim fieri,ut aliquan-
do sil inelius, aliquando pejus; Nara rainus inalum
esl die dominico operari in agro, quam blasphe-
raare Deura; sed e contrario, majus malum esl, o-
perari in agrodie dominico,quam menliri oificiose.
Et tamen Augustinus videlur velle , minus malum
esse die fcsto operari aliquid ex genere suo ulile,
quain peccatura aliquod commillere, Auguslinus
ergo vull dicere, raagis pugnare quaelibet peccala
cum fine sanclificalionis sabbalhi, quam opera cx
se uiilia, quae tamen prohibenlur in sabbalho;nam
finis est quies mentis in Deo, cui (|uieli raagis re-
pugnat quodlibet peccalum, quain dislractio operis
corporalis, el ideo magna esl caecitas Judaeorum ,
quia abulunlur oliosiibbalhi ad muUa peccata com-
millenda, ut Auguslinus dicil.
Objicies: Si peccata magis repugnant fini hujus
legis, quam opera servilia,ergo omnia peccata pro-
hibentur hoc praeceplo magis , quam opera servi-
lia; nara hoc praeceptum posilum est ad removen-
da impedimenta cullus divini inlerni. Respondeo :
Omnia peccala prohibita esse, et magis quam ope-
ra servilia;nam peccala in nullo casu permitluntur:
opera autem servilia etiam in festo saepe permit-
luntur, Non tamen omnia peccala prohibentur hoc
praecepto speciali de sabbalho , quia non erat ne-
IIIIKU ll.llllLS
M1
1'i'SM'; 11.1111 |.iiii iiiilcii |)iiiliiltila rr,iiil. (I|irrn ini
Inii siMViliii pruliiticnliir liiic. s|ii'riiili lcKO,i|iilii iiii-
lcii |U'i)liiliilii 11(111 niiiit.