Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Triumphant, Book III: On Churches, Vows, Pilgrimages and Feasts
Chapter 13: On Pentecost; On Septuagesima
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).
Chapter 13. On Pentecost
The Magdeburgers, Century 2, chapter 6, column 110, not only say that the apostles instituted no law about feasts, but even add that in those first ages of the Church nothing is read expressly of any feast except Easter. But that this is most false the antiquity of Pentecost teaches us. For in the first place Paul mentions this feast in the first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 16: “I will tarry at Ephesus,” he says, “until Pentecost.” And in Acts 20 Luke says of Paul: “He hasted, if it were possible for him, to keep the day of Pentecost at Jerusalem.” And although it is not wholly certain whether these Scriptures speak of the Pentecost of the Jews or of the Christians, yet Epiphanius, heresy 75, expounds them of the Pentecost of the Christians.
Besides, very ancient authors mention this feast: Clement, book 5 of the Constitutions, chapter [20?]; Irenaeus in Justin, question 115; Tertullian in the book On the Soldier's Crown; Origen, book 8 against Celsus; Hilary in the preface to the Psalms; Theophilus, book 1 of the Paschal Letters; Jerome in the letter to Marcella on the errors of Montanus, and on chapter 4 to the Galatians; Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Maximus, Leo and others, who left sermons written on this feast. Lastly Augustine, letter 118, says that the feasts of the Passion of the Lord, of the Resurrection, of the Ascension, of Pentecost and the others which are kept in the whole Church were without doubt instituted either by general councils or by the apostles. And it is certain that they were not instituted in general councils; for their mention is found in Clement, Justin, Tertullian and Origen, who came before all the general councils.
But there is a grave difficulty, whether the feast of Pentecost is rightly kept on the fiftieth day from the day of the resurrection. For it is certain that this feast is kept because of the coming of the Holy Spirit, as Jerome says on chapter 4 to the Galatians, and the other Fathers cited above. And the Holy Spirit seems to have come on the forty-ninth day, or even before the forty-ninth, from the day of the Lord's resurrection, and so not on the Lord's day, but on the sabbath, or Friday, or Thursday. For, as we have in Acts 2, the Holy Spirit came “when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished,” that is, on the very day of the Pentecost of the Jews; for Luke cannot there be understood of any other Pentecost than that of the Jews. And the Pentecost of the Jews was either the feast of the law given on Mount Sinai, as Augustine says, letter 119, chapter 16; or the feast of weeks, as Jerome would have it on chapter 4 to the Galatians; or perhaps both at once. But neither seems to have fallen on the Lord's day in the year of Christ's passion. For the feast of the giving of the law was kept on the third day of the third month, as is had in Exodus 19; from which Augustine draws that fifty days were counted from the very pasch of the Jews, that is, from the fourteenth day of the first month inclusive; and the day of the Jewish pasch in the year of Christ's passion was a Thursday; therefore Pentecost too was completed on a Thursday, namely three days before our Sunday of Pentecost.
Further, the feast of weeks, which is more properly called Pentecost, began to be counted from the second day of unleavened bread, as is gathered from the book of Leviticus, chapter 23, where it is commanded that on the day after the sabbath they offer the sheaves of the first fruits, and from then count seven weeks, which are forty-nine days, and on the following day, that is, the fiftieth, keep a feast day. And in this place by the name of sabbath is understood the first day of unleavened bread, which was solemn and by a general name was called a sabbath, as Lyra, Abulensis and Cajetan expound on this place, and Josephus, book 3 of the Antiquities, chapter [10?].
Since then the first day of unleavened bread at the time of Christ's passion was a Friday, if we count fifty days from that day exclusive, we shall find that Pentecost was completed on the sabbath, not on the Lord's day. Nor can anyone escape the difficulty by saying that the Holy Spirit indeed did not come on the Lord's day which is the fiftieth from the Lord's day of the resurrection, but that the Church willed to keep the memory of this coming on the Lord's day. For Clement, book 5, chapter [20?], of the Constitutions, Theophilus, book 1 of the Paschal Letters, Augustine, letter 119, Leo in the sermon on Pentecost, and all the others teach that in truth the Holy Spirit came on the tenth day from the Ascension and the fiftieth from the Resurrection.
Leaving aside this escape, then, I answer that the feast of weeks and the feast of the giving of the old law were one and the same; and that it was wont to be kept both in memory of the giving of the old law, and as a figure of the giving of the new law through the coming of the Holy Spirit, and also in thanksgiving for the gathered harvest; and that this one feast in the year of Christ's passion fell on the Lord's day which was the fiftieth from the Lord's resurrection.
And that all these things may be explained, those two places are to be considered, Exodus 19 and Leviticus 23. As to the first place, it is to be known that it cannot be gathered evidently from Scripture on what day the old law was given. For Scripture says that Moses came with the people into the desert of Sinai in the third month of the going out from Egypt, and then on the third day the law was given; but it does not explain on what day of the third month he came into the desert of Sinai; and so we do not know for certain from where are counted those three days of which it is said, “Be ready against the third day.”
And I find four opinions. The first is that of blessed Augustine, letter 119, chapter 16, and question 70 on Exodus, where he says that the people came into the desert of Sinai on the first day of the third month, and on the third of the same the law was given, and that that day was the fiftieth from the day of the first pasch. But against it there are arguments. The first: because if we count so, the feast of the giving of the law will not coincide with the feast of weeks, which is properly called the feast of Pentecost. For the feast of Pentecost is the fiftieth day from the second day of unleavened bread, not from the feast of the pasch; and yet they ought to coincide, or there will be no feast of the giving of the law, which is absurd, and against Augustine himself, who would have the feast of the giving of the law be the feast of Pentecost.
The second: because in truth our first difficulty is not taken away. For if the law was given on the fiftieth day from the pasch of the Jews, and that day is the feast of Pentecost, and the Holy Spirit came on the day of Pentecost, surely it follows that the Holy Spirit came not on the Lord's day but on Thursday.
The third: because blessed Augustine does not seem to count rightly. For he takes from the first month seventeen days, from the second month thirty days, from the third month three days, and so makes fifty days. But he could not take seventeen days from the first month and thirty from the second. For lunar months, such as were the Jews', do not all consist of thirty days, but one of thirty and the other of twenty-nine. Therefore Augustine should have taken seventeen days from the first month and twenty-nine from the second; or sixteen from the first and thirty from the second; and so he does not make fifty but forty-nine. Add too that Moses does not say in the third month of the pasch, but in the third month of the going out from Egypt; and the going out was not on the fourteenth day but on the fifteenth, as is had in Numbers 33.
The fourth: because if the law was given on the third day of the third month, far more things must have been done on the first day of the month than the time of one day allows. For in the first place the children of Israel are said to have come in the third month into the desert of Sinai; from which it appears that some part of that first day was spent on the journey. For it is not credible that they arrived at first dawn, since they were not wont to travel by night. Then, when they arrived, they pitched their tents, in which very much time was spent, since there were more than a thousand thousand men in that multitude. Then, the tents being pitched, Moses went up into Mount Sinai, which was very high, and, having spoken with God, came down and called together all the elders and held an assembly with them, and through them with all the people. Then again he went up into the mountain a second time, and again came down, and speaking with the people ordered all to wash their garments; and when they had washed their garments, says Scripture, Moses said to them, “Be ready against the third day.” Who would believe that on one and the same day the tents were set up, and Moses went up the mountain twice, came down twice, and spoke to the people twice? And if this is not credible, surely that opinion of St. Augustine can hardly be defended.
Another exposition is that of Rupert and Abulensis on chapter 19 of Exodus, who say that the law was indeed given on the third day of the third month, but that that day was not the fiftieth, as Augustine said, but the forty-ninth from the pasch; and so that the feast of Pentecost was kept not because of the law given, but because of the covenant struck between God and the people, which was made on the fourth day of the third month, as is said in Exodus 24.
This exposition pleases less than the former. For in the first place the arguments already made hold against this opinion, except the third; and besides, the most beautiful figure of our Pentecost will perish, which yet Augustine, Leo and others acknowledge, namely that the Pentecost of the Jews was the feast of the giving of the old law, and our Pentecost is the feast of the giving of the new law.
The third opinion is that of Cajetan, who says that Moses came into the desert of Sinai on the first day of the third month, but that those words, “Be ready against the third day,” were said on the fourth day of the month, and so the law was given on the sixth day of the same month, which was the fiftieth from the second day of unleavened bread inclusive; and in this way this feast coincides with the feast of weeks, and everything holds together.
The fourth opinion is that of Rabbi Solomon and Lyra, who say that Moses came into the desert of Sinai on the third day of the third month, and then on the fourth said, “Be ready against the third day,” and at last on the sixth day the law was given. Which opinion agrees with Cajetan's as to the day of the law given, which was the chief question. And this opinion seems more agreeable to the letter; for the text has thus: “In the third month of the departure of Israel out of the land of Egypt, on this day they came into the wilderness of Sinai”; where that “on this day” seems to be referred to the number named before, namely to the third, so that the sense is: in the third month, and on the same day, that is, of the same number, that is, the third. Although that “on this day” can also be referred fitly enough to the beginning of the month, so that the sense is: in the third month, on this day, that is, on the very beginning of the month. It remains, however, that the law was given on the sixth day of the third month, whether the people came into the desert of Sinai on the first day or on the third.
As to the second place, from Leviticus 23, there are two expositions. The first is of Isychius and Rupert on this place, who would have that “the day after the sabbath” understood as the first day of the week, that is, the Lord's day which immediately follows after the sabbath, and the sense of the law to be that the days of Pentecost should be counted from the first Lord's day which came after the feast of the pasch; which opinion, if it is true, favours us most. For in that way the Pentecost of the Jews always came on the Lord's day; and because in the year of Christ's passion the first Lord's day after the pasch of the Jews was the Lord's day of the resurrection, therefore in that year the days of Pentecost were necessarily completed on the fiftieth day from the day of the Lord's resurrection.
The other opinion is that of Lyra, Cajetan, Abulensis, of all the Bibles, and of Josephus himself, book 3 of the Antiquities, chapter [10?], who understand by “the day after the sabbath” the first day after the feast of unleavened bread. And indeed the authority of Josephus moves me much, since he knew the practice of that law, being himself a priest, and having lived in Jerusalem while that law was still kept. But this opinion being admitted as true, it follows that the days of Pentecost in the year of Christ's passion began to be counted on the sabbath; for the sabbath in that year came next after the feast of unleavened bread. From which it follows that the days of Pentecost were completed also on the sabbath.
How then do we keep Pentecost on the Lord's day? Rupert answers, in the place above, that even with this opinion admitted Pentecost could not fall or be completed on the sabbath, because the Jews had a certain custom of never keeping two feasts on two days in a row; and so if ever the first day of unleavened bread fell on the sixth day of the week, the Jews were wont to move that feast day to the following day, and on the sabbath day to keep both the feast of the sabbath and the feast of unleavened bread; and so in the year of the Lord's passion the first day of unleavened bread was kept by the Jews not on Friday but on the sabbath, and so the days of Pentecost began to be counted on the following day, which was the Lord's day.
But because this opinion is commonly refuted, and there is no leisure now to discuss it, I will say what I think; and although I have no author for my opinion, yet I hope it will not easily be disapproved, since it seems to me to rest on a certain reason.
I answer, then, that ordinarily indeed the days of Pentecost began to be counted from the second day of unleavened bread; but yet, if that second day was the sabbath, then they began to be counted from the third day of unleavened bread. Nor can anyone find fault with this. For the cause why those fifty days did not begin from the first day of unleavened bread but from the second is that on that day many servile works had to be done which were forbidden on a feast day; namely, the sheaf of grain had to be reaped and dried and brought to the priest. But all these were more forbidden on the sabbath day than on the first day of unleavened bread; therefore it was not lawful to begin those fifty days on the second day of unleavened bread when that day was the sabbath. And I think this is the cause why Scripture said, “the day after the sabbath,” and not, the day after the pasch; namely because it wished to give a general law, that the first day on which no feast fell after the pasch should be counted, and so on.
And so that “the day after the sabbath” signifies the first profane day after the feast of the pasch. And because for the most part no feast came after the pasch except the first day of unleavened bread, therefore Josephus, speaking of what was wont to be done for the most part, wrote that Pentecost began on the sixteenth moon; although in the year of Christ's passion it began on the seventeenth moon, because, namely, the sabbath fell on the sixteenth moon. And if the days of Pentecost began to be counted that year on the seventeenth moon, which was the Lord's day, it follows that the days of Pentecost were completed also on the Lord's day. And this is what was asked.
Chapter 14. On Septuagesima and the Following Sundays
We have spoken of the fiftieth day, which is kept after Easter; now let us discourse briefly of those which are kept before Easter. Of Septuagesima, Sexagesima and Quinquagesima I find no mention before the times of blessed Gregory; but in the Antiphonary and Sacramentary of Gregory the offices of these Sundays are expressly noted, and many authors later than Gregory mention them: namely Bede in the little book On the Divine Offices; Alcuin in the book on the same subject; Amalarius, book 1, chapter 1, On Church Offices; Rabanus, book 2, chapter [34?], On the Institution of Clerics; Ivo in the sermon on Septuagesima; Rupert, book 4, chapter 1, On the Divine Offices; and blessed Bernard in the sermon on Septuagesima. But the reason of these names is not the same with all. Bede and Alcuin say that some added one week to the fast of Lent and called it consequently Quinquagesima; that others added yet another, because they would not fast on Thursday and yet wished the number of days kept whole; and so added one week before Quinquagesima, and consequently called that week Sexagesima; and lastly others, who did not fast on Thursday or on the sabbath, added yet another, and called it Septuagesima.
But this opinion is improbable. For it is not likely that because of the abuse of a few, who did not fast on Thursday and the sabbath, the Church instituted such solemn Sundays. And besides, we do not find mention of these Sundays except after the times of Gregory, when that abuse no longer existed.
Others would have Septuagesima named from the number of days, because there are seventy days from that Sunday to the Saturday in white; Sexagesima named because there are sixty days from that Sunday to the Wednesday after Easter; Quinquagesima named because there are so many days from then to Easter. A foolish opinion; for so any Sunday could be called Septuagesima, if we count seventy days and do not care where they end. Add that by the seventy days these authors would have signified the spiritual captivity under the power of the devil, whose type had been the Babylonian captivity of seventy years. But it is most absurd to include among the days of captivity the day of the Lord's resurrection, which is the day of perfect freedom.
Others more prudent say that all these Sundays are named from Easter, but by synecdoche. For from Septuagesima to Easter there are about seventy days, that is, sixty-four; from Sexagesima to Easter about sixty, that is, fifty-seven; from Quinquagesima to Easter fifty days. But this opinion seems to fail in the name of Septuagesima; for sixty-four days ought rather to be called sixty than seventy.
There is, then, the opinion of Rupert, which I think most true, that these names are not taken from the number of days but from the number of Sundays. For the Church wished to set before Passion Sunday seven solemn Sundays, by which she might recall to us the memory of our spiritual captivity, as by Passion Sunday and the following one the redemption from captivity is remembered.
And so the first Sunday of the seven is called Septuagesima, because it is the first of seven. The second is called Sexagesima, because it is the first of six. The third is called Quinquagesima, because it is the first of the five following. The fourth is called the first of Lent, for the same reason. The fifth is called the second of Lent; the sixth, the third of Lent; the seventh, the fourth of Lent. And thereafter it is not called the fifth of Lent, but Passion Sunday. And hence too it is that on Septuagesima Sunday, because captivity is remembered, there is read in the office, from the beginning of Genesis, the sin of the first man, and all the glad canticles are left out, and at Mass we begin, “The sorrows of death surrounded me, the perils of hell found me.” But on Passion Sunday we begin, “The banners of the King go forth,” and so on.
Of the Sundays of Lent and of the Passion there is very frequent mention among all the Fathers; but of these we will discourse in the controversies on fasting. Meanwhile see Epiphanius in the Summary of Doctrine, which is had at the end of the books against the heresies; Theophilus in the Paschal Letters; Cassian, Conference 21; and Augustine, letter 118.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
C A P U T XIII.
De pentecosle.
Magdcbiirgenscs Ccnt. 2. cap. 6. col. 110. non
sohim diciinl, aposlolos nuliatn iegemde festis in-
sliluissc, sed cliam addunl. primis illis sacculis
l'.'cclesiac nihil expresse legi de ulio fcslo praeler-
(piam de paschate. Al hoc esse falsissiraam, docet
iios antiquilas pentecostes. Nara in prirais mcmi-
iiit ejus festi Paulus in priore epist. ad Corint. 10.
Manebo, inqoit, Ephesi iisque ad pentecoslcn. Et
Act. 20. de Paulo inqoit Lucas: Feslinabat, ul, si
quo modo posset, pentccoslen ageret IlievosoUj-
mis. El quamvis non sit omnino cerlum. an io-
(luanlur hae Scripturae de peiUecosle Judaeorum,
iin Ciiristianoruin: tamen Epiplianius haeres. 73.
cxponil de pentecoslc Chrisiianorum.
Praclcrca meminerunt hujus festi, anliquissimi
auctorcs; Cleincns lib. o. conslil. cap. 21. Irenae-
III upiid Jiisliiiiiiii (pidu»l. II.V Teriiilliiiiiiit lib. do
uoroiiii iiiililit ; OriKiMifM lit). H. cdiilrii Ci'l4iiiii;Mi-
l.irio^ pr.icr,iliiiiic 111 pf.iliii. Tlii-opliilos lih. 1. P.i •
.schiili; llirroiiyiiiiii iii cpist. ud .Miiii-ll.iiii ilu vr-
roriliiis .Moiiliiiu.cl iii cnp, 4. iui (jul. GrcKoriiM iia*
7.i.iii/.iMiiis, ChryM)sloiiiiis, .\111bro-4i11s, M.iMiiiiii,
l.(M), rl iilii, «pii scriiioiics «lc lioc fcsli) Mripto"» ri!-
liipiiM-iiiil. |)(Miiipii) Aii;{iisliiiiM t'pi<tl. IIH. diril,
ru.slii iiis-ttoins Doiiiiiii, ri;Hurr<'i;(toiils. usciMDttn-
iils, p(Miti-c<i<<tus, (-1 iiliii, ipiai^ in lola Kecliisjii ce-
lubi.iiitiir, siiiu diibiliitioiic vel ii ((uiicr.ilibun 'coii*
ciliis, vcl iib uposlolis liiHliliila: coiislul utilnin.noii
c,ssi< iiiittlnl,! iii ^(;ncr,dil)iis co:ii:ilii>; ii.iiii iM^riiiii
iiKMitiii itivciiiliir 111 CliMiiiMiio, Jtitliiio, rcrlnlli.itio
ul (>riguiii!,(pii prjuuosseru it oiiiniii gciiuruli.i coii •
ciliii.
I']sl aiittMii griivis dini<-ult,is, iiii rectu cclubrc-
lur lcsliiiii piMitccostcs dic (|uiiK](iiigesiiiio u dio
rcsnrrcclioiiis. .N.iiii ccrluiii i'.>>i, c(-l<;briiri hoc tn-
slUMi proptcr advcnlnin Spirtliis s.uicti, ut iliero-
nytniis (Ik-iI iii cap. l. ad Ijil.il. cl alit P.ilri;s sii-
pra citali. Vidcliir autciii Spirittis Siiiiclus udveiiis-
su die It). vcl eliaiti iiiilc il). a iIk; rcsurrcctionis
Doinint, cl proiiiiic iioti dic doiiiiiiico.scd die sab-
bathi, aul vcncris, aiiljovis. .Nain ut habcmus A-
clor. 2. Spirilus s;iiictiis vcnil, dumcotniilercnlur
dies pcnlccostes, idesl, ipso dic pcntecostcs Jit-
dacoriim. .Non enini ibi l.ucas potesl intciligi (hi
aliii pent(!coslc, (piam Judaeorum. I*cntccostc a-
utein Judacomm aut erat fcstutn datac lcgis in
monlc Siiia, ol dicit Aogostiiius c()ist. 11'J. uiip.
10. aut cral fesliim lid) loin idiruin, ut vull Hicro-
nyiiuis in cap. i. ad (Jalal. atil fortiisse utrurnipie
simul: al nculrum iii <licin dotniiiicain incidissc vi-
delur anno passionis Christi; nara feslum datjie lc-
gis cclcbralialiir dic tcrlio lcrlii mensis.ul biibcliit-
Kxod. ID. cx quo dciliicit Au^Mislinus dies j<>. nu-
mcriiri ab ipso pascli;ile Jodacorum, idcsl, a die
li. p.imi incnsis inciusivc;fuit aulein dies pascbiie
Judiicorum. aniio passionis Cliristi, dic jovis: crgo
pcntecostcs complebalur ctiain die Jovis, nimiiuin
triduo ante nostram domiiiicam pentecostcs.
Porro fcslum Iiebdomadarum, quod niiigis pro-
prie dicitor penlccostes, numeran incipiebat a sc-
cundo die azyraorum, ut coiligitur ex iibro Lcvi-
lic. cap. 23. ubi praecipilur. ut allera die sabbathi
offerant raanipulos primitiarnni, cl iiule numerenl
septem Iiebdomadas, qui suiil dics i9. ct scqueii-
ti (iie, idest quinquagesimo, festum diein aganl.
Porro hoc loco nomine sabbathi inlelligilur priinus
dies azymorum, qui solemnis cral, et generali no-
mine sabbalhum dicebalur, ut cxponunl Lyranus,
Abulensis, Cajetanus in hunc iocum, el Josephus
lib. 3. anliquil. cap. 13.
Cum crgo priraus dies azyraorum leinpore pas-
sionis Christi fueril dic veneris, si ab ilio dic ex-
ciusive numeremus dics quinquaginla, invenie-
mus, pentecosten complelam fuisse dic sabballii,
non die dominica. Neque potest aliquis effugere
diHicuIlalem. si dicat, Spirilum quidem sancluru
non advenisse die dorainico, qui est quinquagesi-
mus a dominica resurreclionis, l;iineu Ecclesiani
voluisse die dominico celcbrare niemoriain bujus
advenlus. ?iam Clemens lib. 5. cap. 21. conslilut.
5SJ
bli CULTU SA^CTOUUM
riicopliylus lib. i. Paschalis. Augiislinus cpisl.
\\d. Leo iii scrm. tlo pcrilocosle, cl ;»Iii omnc.s.do-
rcnt. revcra dic decimo ab ascensionccl quinqua-
sjesimo a rcsurreclione venissc Spirilnni sanclum.
Iloc crgo eflugio praclcrmisso,respondeo: Feslum
liebdomadarum, cl fcstum dalac legis velcris,fuis-
sc unum el idcm; clcclcbrari solilum tum iu mc-
moriani dalae lcgis velcris, ac figuram dandac lc-
gis novae pcr advcntum Spiritns sancli.lum eliam
in graliarum aclioncm pro coUcclis frugibus; et
hoc unum festum anno passionis Chrisli incidisse
iu dicm dominicum, qui fuil quinquagesimus a re-
surreclionc Domini.
Ul aulem ista omnia cxpliccnlur, considcranda
sunt duo illa loca.Exod. 19. et Levil. 23. Quanlum
ad Trimum locum, sciendum, non posse cvidenter
coliigi ex Scriplura. quo die data sil lex velus.
Ni.m Scriplura dicil, vcnissc Moyscm cum populo
in dcserlum Sinai mensc tcrlio egrossionis ab Ac-
gyplo. ac dciudc lerlia dic diiLiim legcm; scd non
cxplical quo die inensis lcrtii veneril in descrlum
Siiiai; el proinde non ccrto scinuis, unde numc-
rcnlur tres ilii dies, de quibus dicilur: Eslole jja-
rali iii dieni lerlium.
Invcnio aulcm qualuor senlcnlias, Prima esl, b.
Augustini episl. 119. cap. 16. cl quacsl. 70. in E-
xod. ubi dicit, venisse populum in dcserlum Sinai
prima dic mensis lerlii,el lcrlia ejusdcm dalamcs-
se legem, ct iliam diem esse quinquagesimam a
die primi paschalis. Sed conlra sunl iirgumenla.
Primum; Quia si ila numercmus non coincidel
loslum dalac legis cum feslo hcbdomad.irum, quod
proprie dicitur fcslum penlecoslcs: nam reslum
penlecostes csl dies quinquagcsimus a secundo
die azymorum. non a feslo paschatis.el tamen de-
benl coincidcre, vel nullum cril feslum dalac lc-
gis, quod estabsurdum, el contra ipsum Augusli-
num, qui ipsum fcstum dalae legis, vull csse fc-
slum peutccoslcs.
Secundum: Quia rcvera non tollilur nostra pri-
ma diflicultas; nam si lex dala csl dio quinquagc-
simo a paschatc Judaeorum, cl illa die csl fesluni
pcntecosles, cl Spirilus sanclus venil in die pen-
lecostcs, certc scquilur, Spirilum sanclum non vc-
nisse die dominico, scd die jovis.
Tcrlium, quia b. Augustinus non videtur rcclc
numcrare; ipsc enim accipit cx primo mcnse dics
seplcmdecim, et secundo mensc dies triginta, ex
tcrlio niensc dics Ires, ct bic cfficit dics quinqua-
ginta. Al non poluil accipere cx priino mcnse dies
seplemdecim, et ex secundo dies triginla. Kam
racnses lunares, qualcs cranl Judaeorum, non o-
mncs coRstanl cx Iriginia dicbus, sed unus ex Iri-
ginla, aliusex viginti novem; crgo dcbuil accipere
Augustinus cx primo mense dios' scptemdccim, ex
sccundo dies vigiiili novcm; vcl cx primo dies se-
dccim, ex sccundo dies triginla, el sic non efllcil
quinqnaginla, scd quadraginla novcm. Adde eliam
(luod xMoyses nondicit, mense lcrlio paschalis.scd
mcnsc tcrtio cgrcssionis dc Acgyplo; cgrcssio a-
utcm non fuit dccimoquarto die,'sed decimoquinlo,
ul hidjctur .\um. 3.*).
Quarlum, quia si tcrtia dic mcnsis lcrlii data est
Jex, oporlcbil, piima die mcnsis mullo plura cssc
facta, quam palialur lempus unius dici.-nam in pri-
misdicunlur filii Isriiol mensc terlio pervcuisse in
dcserlum Sinai; cx fpio apparct, aliquam partem
dici illius primac consumplam in ilinerc.INon cnim
crcdibile est, cos pcrvenisse summo mane, cum
iion consucvcrint noctu iler facerc. Dcinde, ubi
pervenerunl. fixcrunt tabernacula sua, in quo plu-
rimum lcmporis consumcbalur, cum esscntin illa
multitudine supra millc millia horainum. Deinde
postfixa labcrnacula, ascendit Moyses in monlera
Sina, qui altissimus erat, et cum Deo Ioquutus,dc-
sceiidil ct convocavit omnes majoresnatu, et con-
cioncm habuil ad illos, et per illos ad omnem po-
pulum. Deinde rursum in montem secundo asccn-
dit,ct ilcrum desccndit,et cura populo loquulus jus-
sil, ul onmcs lavarenl veslimcnta sua: Cumque la-
visscnt veslimenla sua, inquit Scriplura, dixit eis
3Ioyses: Estole parati in diem tertium. Quis por-
ro credal, una, alque eadem die tabernacula ere-
cta, eliMoysembis ascendisse ad monlem, bis de-
scendisse,bis populo concionaluro? Quod si id cre-
dibile nou csi, ccrle senienlia illa s. Augustini ae-
gre defendi potcst.
Alia expositio esl Ruperti el Abulensis in cap.
19. Exod. qui dicunl: Legem quidcm dalam die ter-
tio terlii mensis, sed eum diem non csse quiuqua-
gesimum, ulAuguslinus dicebat, sed quadragesi-
mum nonum a paschate, et ideo festum penteco-
sles non celebrari propter legem dalam, sed pro-
plcr foedus iclum inter Deum et populum, quod fa-
ctum esl die quarta lertii mensis, ut dicitur E*
xod. 24.
Ilaec expositiominus placet, quam prior; nam
in primis valcul contra hanc senlentiam argumen-
ta jam facta, cxcepto tcrlio; et praeterea pcribit fi-
gura pulcherrima noslrae penlccostcs,quara lamen
Auguslinus, Leo, clalii agnoscunt, nimirum quod
pcnlecoste Judaeorum fuerit feslum dalae legisvc-
tcris, el noslra penlccosle sil festum dalae legis
novae.
Terlia senlcnlia est Cajelani, qui dicil, Moysem
vcnisse in desertum Sinai prima die mcnsis tcr-
tii , sed illa vcrba : Estolc 'parali in diem ter-
tiam , dicla csse die quarto mensis, ct proinde
lcgcm dalam die scxla ejusdem mensis , qui fuit
quinquagesimus a secundo die azymornm inclu-
sivc, et hoc modo coincidit hoc festum cum sc-
slo hebdomadarum , ct omnia cohaerent.
Quarla scnlenlia csl Kabbi Salomonis ct Ly-
rani, qui dicunt Moysem venissein deserlum Sinai
die lcrlia mensis tcrtii,ac deinde die quartadixisse:
Estotc parati in diem tertiam,ei tandem die sexla
dalam lcgem.Quae scntentia coincidilcumsenlenliii
Cajelani quoad diem datae Iegis,de quo eral prac-
cipua quaestio. Vidclur aulem haec senlcnlia ma-
gis conrormis literae; nam sic habel lextus: .Men-
se tertio egressionis filiorum Israel de Aegypto,
in die hac venerunt in solitudinem Sinai; ubi
illud: In die hac, vidclur refcrri ad numcrum
antca nominalum, nimirum ad tertium, ul sil sen-
sus: Mensc tcrlio, ct die ipsa, idesl, cjusdcm nu-
mcri, hoc csl, lcrlia. Quamquam polcst cliam sa-
tis commodc illud In die hac , rcfcrri ad ini-
lium mensis, ul scnsus sil: In mensc tcrtio, in
iiitrit -iittiiis
IIS
ilic luic, Itlcsl, in ip^ti iiiiln» mi'ii.si>. .M.iiieiil |-
;>illl|-, lll SfXltl (llt^ MMMIHis lOllll (lllltl Sil l(*\, MiVU
|i*i|llllllS ill (l(!MTlMIll .Siiiiii \ciicril (llC |iriiiiti, si-
\(l Irrllll.
^Jiuiiiliiiii iiil siMUiitliiiii l(i(*iiiii ('\ I *Ml. 2.'l. (Iiiiin
siiiil (>\|)()sili(iiics. rriiiiii rsl Isicliii i*l lliipcrli
ill (Mllll Incillll, (|lli Vnliitll, |icr l'|UMimi «lilMII Mlll-
liiillii, iiilclli;;i iMiiiiniii >.ilili.illii, iilcsl, iliiiiiiiti
ciiiii, <|iiii(> iiiiiiicdiiilo s(M|(iiliir |i()sl stililiiilliiiiii, cl
SOIISIIIII lcj,MS CSSC, lll illfS piMlhMMi^lc^ llll llCltMI-
liir !i priMiii (liiMiinicii. (|ii!io (XMMirril posl [(jsliiin
|»;iSC.Ilil(\ (pillC S(MlUMlliil si VIMM Sll, llohlS IllllXiMIC
liiv(!l. Niiin (M) iikkIo s(M1i|)(M' .lii(l;i(Miriiiii p^miUmm)-
slc viMiissd in iloiiiiniiM dic, cl (pii.i iiiiiio p:is-
sioiiis C.lirisli priiiiii iloiiiiiiicii |iosl piiscliii JuiI.kmi
iiiiii liiil iloiiiiiiicn rcsurriMMionis, imlo oo mmo
iuMM'ssiirio ilics |)imiUm oslcs(Miiii|i|cli;mlurilic <piiii-
ijUin^csiino n iIk; resuircclionis lioiiiini.
All(M'i\ scnUMiliii esl Lyrani, r.iijoUmi , Ahuloii-
sis, llihliiiioruiu ouiuiuin, cl ipsius .foscplii lih. 3.
;mliquil;iluiu c;ip. \'.\. ipii iiilclli^uul pcr iiIUMiun
(li(Mn s;il)hiillii priuKuu ditMii posl fcsUim Ji/,ymo-
ruin. Kl sanc uiovol mo uiullum ;iucU»riliis josc-
plii. ipiippn (lui uovcriil i)r;i\iiu cjus lc^iis. (Miin
ipso (pioquo osscl s;K'(M'dos, cl vixisscl iu llioru-
Siilem, cum aduo lex illa sorvarelur. Scd Iiac scn-
(cnlia, l;mKiu;.m vcra . admiss;i . scipiiUir , dics
liculccoslos auuo p;issioiiis Clirisli uuuuMMri coo-
pisso in sahhalho: sahhallium cnim eo nnno pro\i-
1110 occurrchiii posl fcslum ay.imoium. V.\ quo so-
(juilur ul dios pcnlccoslos coiuplcrculur oli;\m in
sahhalho.
Quomodo ij:;iUiruos pculocoslcn iu domiuica cc-
lchriimus? l\osi>oudol iluporlus, uhi suprii, cliam
liac sculoulia iuimissa, uou poUiisso pcnlocoslcu
iucidcro, aul complori in sahl);ilho, (iui;i Judaoi
liahohiuU quaudam consuoUulinoui, ul nuuKpKun
oolchraronl duo fosla duo!)US diohus oonliuuis,
ol idoo si quaudo occurrcrol primus dics nzymo-
rum foria 0. solilos Judacos illum dicm fcsluni
Iransforro in soquonlcui: cl dic sahbalhi. oolchra-
ro lam foslum sahbalhi, quam fcslum azymorum.
AUiuc ila nnno passionis Domiui dicm primum a-
zymorum colohralum a Judacis non fcria G. scd
sahhallio, cl proindo dios ponlcooslcs cocpissc
nuinerari die scquonli. qui fuil dominicus.
Scd quia Iiacc sculcnUa passim refolli solcl.
nequc vacalnunc oani disculere: dioam quod scn-
lio: cl licol auctorcm meac sculcntiae non ha-
bcnm, spcro lamcn o.tui nou f;icilo improbandam
cum ccrta raliono nili luihi vidcalur.
r\cspondcoii:ilur:0rdiuario quidom cocpissc nu-
nicrari dios pculecostcs a sccunda die azymorum .
scd tamcn si sccunda illa dios csscl sahballmm .
lunc cocpisse uumerari a lorlia dic azymorum: ne-
quc uUus hoc argucre potcsl: Nam caussa, cur illi
dics oO. non incipcrcnl a die primo nzymorum.sed
a secuudo , esl, quia oportebal illo dic mulla opc-
ra scrvilia faccrc, quae dic feslo eranl prohibila ,
nimirum oporlobal mctcre mnnipulum frumeuli, ct
oxsiccare. ol adferrc ad sacerdolom. At isln oninia
niagis prohibita ernuUlio sahha!hi,quam dio primo
azymorum: crgo non licobat iusccundn die azymo-
lum, quando ea dic cral snbbalhum. inciperc dios
lllos (piliiijiiiiKiiilu Kl haiiR OHnn |)Ulo ciiiiNituiii, iitr
Scripliini dixcril, AUera (ii> Hahhalhi; cl riim. »1-
lcrn dic piiMliac, \<l 'iiii, (|uiji o k vo-
liiil ^(Mii r.iliin liK IikI' I. (piK' iMi ' oc*
« urniil posl pii)»cliii, cl (iiiuin, nlrc filiirn.
Ilaqiio illiiil: /W/or(i (i«c fl«i''/"W/i<, l primii
dio prof.iiiii po-^i fo^liiMi piischiic. I.l 'j ol phiii-
iiuiiii posi p.iHchii iioii iK'currih;il fcnliim. iiiKl pri-
1111) dio nzymoriim.ldiMMKiii intilo JioicptMiH |iiipiiMi.<i
dc iM), «ptixl iil pliuiiiKiin ;k'i i.l«*hiil , scrlpsil iiiol-
poro pciiloc(.si(*ii luii.i dcoiiii:i>«c\l'i, (pi;iiiKpi;iiii aii-
tin (llirlsli piiHsioitis (*ii<!|>erii luiia (looiiiiiisopii-
iu;i,qitiii viil(*licoi siihhalliiuii fiiil Iiiiki «lcciiiiiisoxi.i .
Oiioil si dios pciii«M!osics 01) ;iiiii') iiii«iii*r.iri c«)opc-
ruui luiia docliuiisopliiiiii, «pii (li(*s criil «lominicus,
seipiiiur, iil comploronliir dios pcul«M'osi«*s oiiaiii
dic dominico. AUpio lioc osl (piod i|u;i(;r(!baliir.
CAPrr .\iv.
Dc sci)laa(jesinia cl scquenlihufi (Lominicis.
Pivimus do sopluagesimn, qunc c«l«'briiUir (losl
piiscliii: iiuuc de ca hrcvilor dissonMuus, qune c«;-
lohraUir aiilo pascha. Scpluagesimne, scxagcsimac
«*t ipiiiKpuigosimao uou iuvcuio iiiciiliouom anlo
tomp()r;i h. Crcgorii, s(!d in aiitipliouiirio oi sacr;i-
mciilario Crogorii aunot;intur cxprcsse oITicin h;i-
rum doiiiiuiciiriim, ol earumdcm mcmincruiit iniilli
auciorcs Grogorio poslerioros; uimirum Uoihi iu Ii-
hcllo do oniciis diviuis : Alcuinus in lih. «*jus'loni
argumenli; Amalarius lib. I. o. I. do onioiis cccli!-
siiislicis: Riihiiiius lih. 2. c. .14-. do inslilul. olori-
cor. Ivo iu sorm. do scpluagesiina: Uupcrlus Iih.4.
c. 1. do divinis ofTiciis : el b. Bornardus in seiiu.
de scpUiiigos. Riilio aulcm horum nominum noii
csl oadcm apud omiios: Boda ct Alcuinus'dicunl ,
(piosdam addidisse unnmhcbdoniiKlaiu nd jcjuuiuni
quadrngesimac.oi illain cousequenter vocassc quiu-
qungosimnm: alios nddidissc ndhuc nliam. quia no-
lobiinl liic jovis jcjuiiare, cl tnmcn numcrum dic-
rum integrum servnri volebanl. Ilnque addidisse u-
nam hobdomadam nnle quinquagcsimam , et enm
hobdomadam conscquenlcr vocassc se.vagcsimam;
alios dcnique, qui non jcjun;ihaul die jovis. nec
(tio sahballii, addidissc adliuc aliam , el illam vo-
cassc scpiuiigosimnm.
Sed iinprob;ibilis esl haec sentcnlia. Nam noii
osl verisimilc proplcr abusum p;iucorum. qui non
jpjun;ibant dio jovis cl dic sabbatlii. Ecclesinm in-
sliluisse tain solcmnos dumiuicas. Kl piaclerca
non invenimus menlioncm harum domiiiicarum,
nisi posl lempora Grcgorii, quando j;im non erat
illc abusus.
Alii volunl sepluagesimam dici a numerodierum,
quia sunt dios 70. ab ea dominica usque ad
sabbatlium iu albis: Soxngcsimom dici , quia sunt
dics sexagiut;i ab ea dominica usque nd foriam 4.
post pascha: Quinquogcsimnm dici . quia tol suul
(lies inde usque ad pascha. Incpta opinio; nam s'c
531
DE CLLTU S.VNCTORUM
omnis dominica poloril vocari sepluagcsima,si nu-
nieremus 70. dics, cl non curemus ubi lerminen-
lur. Adde, quod per scpliiaginUi dics volunl isli
aiiclores signilicari oaplivilalcm spiriUialem sub
di.iboli poloslalc, cujus typns fucral caplivilas Ba-
bylonica 70. annorum. Al absurdissimum esl, in-
ti.M- dies caplivilalis includere diem resurreclionis
Domini. qui esl dios pcrroclac libL-rtalis.
Alii prudenliorcs dicunl, dcnon)inari a paschate
bas omnes dominica?, sed per synccdoclien: nam
a scpluagcsima usque ad pasclia sunl fere 70.dies,
idest, 04. A sexagesima usque ad pascha sunt cir-
citcr GO. dies, idesl, 57. A quinquagesima us(]ue
ad pasclia sunl 50. dies, Sed videlur dcficerc isla
opinio in noniinc sepluagesimae ; nam sexaginta
(lualuor dics magis dici deberenl sexaginta, (luain
scpluaginta.
Esl crgo senlenlia Rnperli. quam pulo verissi-
inam, ista nomina non essc desumpla a numero
ihcrum. sed a numcro dominioarum, voluil eni(n
Kcclcsia.anle dominicam passionis pracmitlere se-
I)lem cclebres dominicas. quibus revocarcl nobis
in memoriam, spirilualem noslram captivitalem ,
sicul per dominicam passionis. el sequcnlcm com-
memoratur redemplio a caplivitale.
Itaque prima dominica cx septem dicitur seplua-
gesima, quia est prima ex sepiem. Secunda dicilur
scxagesima, quia est prima ex sex. Tcrlia dicilur
(piinquagcsiiua.quia est prima ex quinque sequcn-
tibus. Quarta dicitur prima quadragesiujae eadera
ratione. Quinla dicitur secunda quadragesimae.Se-
xta dicitur tertia quadragcsimae. Septima dicilur
quaria quadragesin)ae.Deinccps aulem non dicilur
quinla quadragesimae, sed don)inica passionis. Et
hinc cliam est, quod in dominioa septuagesimac ,
(|uia commeraoratur caplivilas, legitur in olTicio ,
ox inilio Geneseos, peccatum primi hominis, et o-
mittunlur omnia canlica laeta, et ad missam inci-
pimus; Circumdederunl me dolores moriis, peri-
cAda inferni invenerunt mc. !n don)inica aulem
passionis incipimus: Yexillaregis prodeunl elc.
De dominicis quadragesimae el passionis fre-
qnentissima mentio est apud omnes Patres; sed de
(■;i nos dissercmus in conlroversiis dc jejunio. In-
tcrim vide Epiphanium in compendiaria doclrina ,
(luac habelurad finem librorum advcrsus haereses,
Theophylum )n epistolis paschalibus , Cassianum
cullal. 21. ct Auguslinuin cpist. 118.