Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 8: It Is Proved That Christ Instituted the Sacrament on the 14th Day of the Month, According to the Law and the Custom of the Hebrews
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself. 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).
It is proved, then, from the text of all four Evangelists. Matthew, chapter 26, says thus: On the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Pasch? Mark, chapter 14: And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Pasch. Luke, chapter 22: And the day of unleavened bread came, on which it was necessary that the Pasch should be killed. These passages refute the three preceding opinions.
And first the error of the Greeks is manifestly refuted: for nowhere in the whole of Scripture is the first day of unleavened bread called the 13th day of the month, but only the 14th or 15th, as is clear from the book of Exodus, chapters 12 and 13, and Leviticus chapter 23, and Numbers chapter 18.
Some of the Greeks answer, as St. Thomas reports in Book 4, distinction 11, question 2, article 2, question 3, that the three Evangelists erred and were corrected by John. But this is an enormous blasphemy. And then, if the Evangelists did not agree among themselves, which nevertheless cannot be, why should we rather believe one than three?
Euthymius and others more modest answer that the Evangelists speak of the day of unleavened bread, not that which was now present, but that which was next at hand: for this they will have that of Luke to signify, The day of unleavened bread came, that is, is imminent, or draws near. This exposition is refuted. First, because if it were so, Christ would have transgressed the law and could justly have been accused, and certainly the Hebrews, if they could have objected this to Him, would not have labored so much in seeking false witnesses.
Euthymius answers that the law did not forbid the day of the Pasch to be anticipated, but only to be postponed. But he who prescribes that something be done on a certain day, at the same time prescribes that it be not done before nor after. And the law prescribed, and very often repeated, that on the 14th day at evening the Pasch should be kept; therefore it was not lawful to do it on the 13th, otherwise it would also have been lawful on the 10th or even on the 1st. Add that the law permitted the Pasch to be celebrated after a month, provided the same 14th day were observed, as is clear from chapter 9 of Numbers. That the day or month of the Pasch could be anticipated can be proved by no precept and no example.
They will say perhaps what John Hentenius says in his preface to Euthymius, and others who follow Burgos, that Christ kept His Pasch so secretly that no one knew except the Apostles and the master of the house in which the Pasch was kept; and thus there was no danger of His being accused. But could not Judas the traitor, who was present at the supper and immediately ran from the supper to the chief priests, have indicated this to the Jews? True, therefore, is what Chrysostom says, homily 83 on Matthew, that Christ kept the law of Moses until His death and lawfully celebrated the Pasch at its proper time. Nor does it help Euthymius that Luke said, The day came. For this false exposition is refuted by Matthew and Mark, who do not say, The day of unleavened bread came, but say that on the first day of unleavened bread the Apostles said to Christ, Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Pasch?
Besides, nearly all the Fathers, and especially the Greeks, say that Christ celebrated the Pasch on the 14th day. Origen, treatise 33 on Matthew, where he openly says that on the 14th moon Christ was taken. Chrysostom, homily 83 on Matthew, says that Christ ate on that day which the law prescribed. The same has also Theophylact, Theophilus of Alexandria in Bede's book on the reckoning of times, chapters 57 and 59, and Theodoret, question 21 on Exodus, and of the Latins Tertullian in his book against the Jews, Cyprian in his sermon on the Lord's Supper, Ambrose in Epistle 83, Jerome on chapter 26 of Matthew, Augustine in Epistle 86 to Casulanus, and Bede in his book on the reckoning of times, chapter 61.
Besides this argument from the three Evangelists and so many opinions of the Fathers, we have another argument from John, whom the Greeks profess to follow. For St. John affirms that the day of Christ's passion, that is, the sixth feria, was that year solemn and festal, from which it necessarily follows that on the preceding day they ate the lamb. John 13: Before the festival day, Jesus knowing that His hour was come, etc. This Christ said the day before His passion; therefore the day of the passion was a festal day. But because the Greeks could shuffle, as they do, and say that He speaks of the feast to come on the Sabbath, not of the feast immediately following that very night of the fifth feria on which the Lord was speaking; it is added in the same place that when the Lord had said to Judas, What thou dost, do quickly, he went out immediately, since it was already night: and the Apostles thought it was said to him that he should buy the things which were necessary for the festal day. But how could they suspect that so great haste was needed in preparing the things necessary for the feast, if there still remained the whole following day before the solemnity of the feast?
Moreover, John 18, the Hebrews say to Pilate: It is not lawful for us to put any man to death; which signifies that it was not lawful for them on account of the feast which was then being kept, as Chrysostom expounds, homily 82 on John and homily 86 on Matthew, Cyril, Book 12 on John, chapter 6, Augustine, tract 114 on John, Bede on chapter 18 of John, and others. For that at another time it was lawful for them to kill blasphemers is clear from Acts 7, where they publicly stoned Stephen after he had been judged in the Council; and Acts 24, they complain before Felix, Governor of Syria, that when they wished to kill Paul according to their law, the tribune Lysias violently snatched him from their hands.
And what Jansenius says, and certain others, that the Hebrews could kill those guilty of death according to their law, but could not crucify, is too improbable. For neither were the Hebrews chiefly solicitous about the cross, but about the death of Christ in general, whence they wished at one time to cast Him down, at another to stone Him: nor is there any reason why it should have been lawful for them to kill, and yet not lawful to crucify.
Add that those words subjoined (that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled) do not fit except our exposition; for the Lord had foretold that He was to be crucified by the Gentiles; which was a true and marvelous prophecy, if it was lawful for the Hebrews too to kill. For if that was not lawful for them, it was easy to foretell that He was not to be killed except by the Gentiles, and by that punishment which was most frequent among the Gentiles.
Finally, John 18, Pilate says: But you have a custom that I should release one unto you at the Pasch: will you therefore that I release unto you the king of the Jews? Hence, then, it appears that the Paschal days had then already begun to be kept: and more clearly in Matthew 27 the same day is called solemn, and in Mark 15 and Luke 23 it is openly called a festal day.
To these are added the testimonies of the Fathers who say that Christ was killed on the very solemn day of the Hebrews. See Tertullian in his book against the Jews, Origen homily 23 on Numbers, Clement of Rome Book 5 of the Constitutions chapter 14 (otherwise 16), Epiphanius heresy 70, Theophilus of Alexandria in his letter to Theodosius in Bede on the reckoning of times chapter 57, Cyril of Jerusalem catechesis 13, Chrysostom homily 86 on Matthew, Augustine tract 10 on John, Socrates Book 5 of his history chapter 21, Leo sermon 7 on the Pasch, Bede on chapter 18, John Anselm on chapter 26 of Matthew, and Victor of Antioch lately translated from the Greek on chapter 14, where he says that the Hebrews would gladly have transferred the festal day, which fell that year on the sixth feria, to another day, if by the law it had been lawful for them.
Now the second opinion, which was Rupert's, is confuted by the same testimonies of Scripture. For if on the Thursday, on which the Lord instituted the Sacrament, it was the first day of unleavened bread, as the three Evangelists in express words affirm, it necessarily follows that the feast of unleavened bread was that year on the Friday, not on the Sabbath.
For it is to be observed that among the Hebrews the festal days are considered in one way, the natural days in another. For the festal days begin from sunset and end at sunset, as is clear from Leviticus 23; and therefore the festal day of unleavened bread is contained in the night following the 14th day and the whole artificial day of the 15th. But the natural and ordinary day begins from sunrise and ends at sunrise, and therefore contains the artificial day and night, but not the night and the artificial day. This is clear from the beginning of Genesis; for that, The evening and the morning were the first day, as Ambrose and Basil and others expound on that place, signifies that of the artificial day, which ends at evening, and of the following night, which ends at morning, the first day was made. From which the words of the three aforesaid Evangelists, who call the first day of unleavened bread the 14th day of the month, can easily be reconciled with the words of Moses in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, who always calls the first day of unleavened bread the 15th day of the month. For since the first day of unleavened bread, inasmuch as it is festal, as we said, is contained in the latter part of the 14th day and the former part of the 15th, taking the days in the ordinary or natural way, the day of unleavened bread as festal can, by a figure of understanding, be called both the 14th, as the Evangelists do, and the 15th, as Moses does.
And from these things the opinion of Rupert is refuted. For if the 14th day, as the Evangelists say, was the first of unleavened bread, namely in part, it is necessary that the 15th day too was the first of unleavened bread for the other part. Therefore it could not be transferred to the 16th day, as he will: unless perhaps he will (which is most absurd) that only the middle part of that solemn day was transferred.
Add moreover that the reason why that transference ought to be made, which Rupert renders, is utterly vain. For he affirms that the first day of unleavened bread is transferred to the Sabbath when it falls on the sixth feria, lest there be two festal days in a row, namely the first of unleavened bread and the Sabbath: and he does not notice that he falls into the same disadvantage by that transference. For the seventh day of unleavened bread is equally solemn as the first, as is clear from Leviticus 23. But if the first day be placed on the Sabbath, as he will, then the seventh will be placed on the sixth feria, and thus there will be two festal days in a row, the seventh of unleavened bread and the Sabbath day.
Finally, against Rupert's opinion fight all the testimonies of Scripture and the Fathers, who say that the day of Christ's death was festal and solemn that year among the Hebrews.
There remains the opinion of Burgos to be refuted from the same passages of the Gospel, and indeed it is easily refuted. For when the Evangelists say that on the first day of unleavened bread Christ ate the Pasch, they either speak of the first day of unleavened bread according to the ordinary custom and the Calendars of the Synagogue, or not. If the first be granted, then the opinion of Burgos remains refuted; for it will not be true, which he says, that on one day Christ, on another day the people of the Hebrews, ate the Pasch. But if the second be granted, Mark will be opposed, who says: On the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Pasch: for this signifies that the Hebrews sacrificed the Pasch on that day.
But those who follow Burgos answer that that (they sacrificed) is either to be referred to the lawful custom, so that the sense is, when the Pasch ought according to the law to be sacrificed, or also to some few more perfect, who really sacrificed on the lawful day, not caring for the tradition of the Pharisees.
But neither of these can rightly be said. First, because even if that change had been made, all, even the best men, ought to have followed that change. For, as I showed above, it was not against the law of God, but was a certain accommodation of the Calendar prudently made: whence those who did otherwise could deservedly have been punished as schismatics and as disobedient to the Synagogue.
Secondly, it is false that in the time of Christ that tradition was in use, that the feast of unleavened bread should never be celebrated on the 2nd, 4th, or 6th day: for that tradition is much more recent. And this is what deceived very many modern writers, otherwise most erudite: for they all believed Burgos as one skilled in his art: for he too had been a Rabbi of the Hebrews. But that it is false that that tradition was in use in the time of Christ I prove. First, Rabbi Aben Ezra, in his commentary on Leviticus chapter 23, in express words affirms that this tradition not only was not from the beginning of the second temple, as many fable, but was not even at the time when the Talmud was being made. For both in the Mishnah and in the Talmud, as he says, the Pasch is found on the 2nd, 4th, and 6th day: and it is established that the Talmud was made some centuries of years after the passion of Christ.
Moreover St. Epiphanius, who also had been a Hebrew, and knew most excellently the language and rites of the Hebrews, in heresy 30 of the Ebionites and heresy 51 of the Alogi, says that the feast of unleavened bread among the Hebrews falls on any day of the week, even on the 2nd, 3rd, etc. Nor can it be said that Epiphanius speaks of the feast of unleavened bread according to the law, and not according to the custom which was in his time, or in the time of Christ. For he speaks of the custom which was in the time of Christ: for he explains that of Luke 6, It came to pass on the second-first Sabbath, and the Apostles went through the corn and plucked the ears, etc., and says that the second-first Sabbath is not called the seventh day, which is the natural Sabbath, but the feast of unleavened bread, in which the days were solemn and were called Sabbaths, namely the first day of unleavened bread, which is called the first Sabbath, and the 7th day of unleavened bread, which is called the second Sabbath, or second-first, which is equal to the first, as with us the eighth day in feasts which have an octave, because it is solemn like the first, could be called the second-first festal day. Epiphanius says, then, that that day on which the Apostles plucked the ears was not the natural Sabbath, but another day of the week, namely the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, or any other on which that year the 7th day of unleavened bread perhaps fell.
Moreover there is another altogether convincing argument, which can be comprised in this syllogism. The Asiatic Churches, at the beginning of the nascent faith, celebrated the Pasch on the same day as the Hebrews of their time. The same Churches celebrated the Pasch on the 14th moon of the first month, on whatever day of the week that moon fell, and that without any distinction or exception of days; therefore the Hebrews too of that time celebrated the Pasch on any day of the week without any exception. Therefore the feast of unleavened bread could fall on the 2nd, 4th, and 6th day, and therefore that Jewish tradition had not yet begun at that time, nor had that “not on the 2nd, 4th, 6th” yet been heard of; therefore in the time of Christ that tradition did not exist. The proposition of this argument is most certain, for it is had expressly in the letter of the Nicene Council, which Theodoret reports, Book 1 of his history, chapter 9, and in the letter of Constantine sent from the same Council to the Churches, which stands in Eusebius, Book on the life of Constantine, chapter 17. The same Polycrates confesses in Eusebius, Book 5 of his history, chapter 23; Tertullian in his book on the Synods of Rimini and Seleucia; Epiphanius, heresy 50 of the Tessarescaedecatitae and 70, which is of the Audians, where he often repeats that those Asians celebrated the Pasch when the Jews celebrated, so that they did not themselves compute the days and months, but only observed the time in which the Jews of their time began the unleavened bread. Finally, the same has Augustine, Book on heresies, chapter 29. The assumption of the same argument is no less certain. For Eusebius, Book 5 of his history, chapter 22, says that the Asians were wont to celebrate the Pasch on any day of the week. Augustine, Book on heresies, chapter 29, adds, on any of the seven days. Philastrius, in his book on heresies, chapter on the heresy about the feast of the Pasch, says still more expressly that they celebrated the Pasch even on the 2nd, or 4th, or 6th day, on which days it would not have been celebrated, if the opinion of Burgos were true.
Moreover there is an argument not unlike this. Epiphanius, heresy 70 of the Audians, Theophilus in his letter to Theodosius in Bede on the reckoning of times chapter 57, Ambrose Epistle 83 to the Bishops of Aemilia, and Bede on the reckoning of times chapter 59, set down another distinction between the Pasch of the Christians and of the Jews and Judaizers, that the Pasch of the Christians is not only not kept on the 14th moon, if that fall outside Sunday, but not even if it fall on Sunday. For when it happens that the 14th moon falls on Sunday, then we wait for the following Sunday and celebrate the Pasch on the 21st moon. But the Jews and Judaizers celebrated on the very 14th moon, even if it were Sunday; wherefore it sometimes happened (as Bede notes) that the Paschs differed by a whole week, and the Christians began on that day on which the Jews ended. And from this observation it manifestly follows that the Pasch of the Jews in the time of those Fathers sometimes fell on the Lord's day, and the festal day of unleavened bread on the day of the moon, and by this that Jewish tradition had not yet begun which provided that on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday it should not be lawful to celebrate the feast of unleavened bread.
Add to these all the testimonies of Scripture and the Fathers above cited, by which we proved that on the day of the Lord's Passion it was a festal and solemn day for the Hebrews: for thence it necessarily follows that on the same day both Christ and the Hebrews celebrated the Pasch.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VIII. Probatur Christum instituisse Sacramentum 14. die mensis secundum legem , et secundum morem Hebraeorum, Igitur probatur ex textu omnium quatuor Evangelistarum. Matthaeus cap. xxvi. sic ait : . Prima die azymorum. , accesserunt discipuli ad Jesum, dicentes: Ubi vis paremus tibi comedere Pascha ? Marcus cap. xiv. Prima autem die azymorum , quando Pascha immolabant. Lucas cap. xxn. Venit dies azymorum, in quanecesse erat occidi Pascha (1). Haec loca refellunt tres superiores sententias. Ac primus Graecorum error manifeste re¬ fellitur : nusquam enim in tota Scriptura dies primus azymorum dicitur dies 13. mensis, sed solum 14. vel 15. ut patet ex libro Exod. cap. xii. et xm. et Levit, cap. xxm. ex Num. cap. xviii. Respondent Graeci aliqui , referente S. Thoma in iv. dist. xi. quaest. 2. art. 2. quaest. 3. tres Evangelistas errasse, et a Joanne correctos fuisse. At haec ingens bla- sphemia est. Et deinde si Evangelistae inter se non convenissent, quod tamen fieri ne¬ quit , cur potius uni crederemus , quam tribus ? Euthymius et alii modestiores respondent, Evangelistas loqui de die azymorum, non qui jam aderat, sed qui proximus erat : id enim volunt significare illud Lucae : Venit (I) Matth. XXVI, 17 ; Mare. XIV, 12; Luc. XXII, 7. CAPUT VIII. 219 dies azymorum , id est, imminet, seu pro¬ pinquat. Refellitur haec expositio. Primo, quia si ita esset, Christus praevaricatus esset legem, et potuisset juste accusari, et certe Hebraei si hoc illi objicere potuissent, non tantum laborassent in quaerendis falsis te¬ stibus. Respondet Euthymius legem non prohi¬ buisse anticipari, sed solum postponi diem Paschae. Sed qui praescribit, ut aliquid- certo die fiat, simul praescribit, ut non fiat ante, neque post. Praescripsit autem lex, et sae¬ pissime repetivit, ut die 14. ad vesperam fieret Pascha; non ergo licuit id facere die 13. alioqui etiam licuisset die 10. vel etiam 1. Adde, quod lex permisit Pascha celebrari post unum mensem, modo servaretur idem dies 14. ut patet ex cap. ix. Numeri. Anti¬ cipati posse diem , aut mensem Paschae, nyllo neque praecepto, neque exemplo pro¬ bari potest. Dicent fortasse quod ait Joannes Hente- nius in praefatione Euthymii, et alii qui se¬ quuntur Burgensem, Christum agisse suum Pascha ita secreto, ut nemo sciverit praeter Apostolos, et patremfamilias, in cujus domo Pascha fiebat; atque ita non fuisse pericu¬ lum, ut accusaretur. At numquid Judas pro¬ ditor, qui ccenae interfuit, et mox a coena cucurrit ad principes sacerdotum, non po¬ tuisset id Judaeis indicare? Verum igitur est, quod ait Chrysostomus homil. 83. in Mat¬ thaeum, Christum usque ad mortem servasse legem Mosis, et Pascha suo tempore legi¬ time celebrasse. Neque juvat Euthymium quod Lucas dixerit : Venit dies. Nam refel¬ litur haec falsa expositio ex Matthaeo et Marco, qui non dicunt, Venit dies azymorum ; sed aiunt, primo die azymorum Apostolos Christo dixisse : Ubi vis paremus tibi comedere Pa¬ scha ? Accedit quod omnes ferme Patres , et maxime Graeci dicunt, Christum 14. die Pa¬ scha celebrasse, Origenestract. 33. in Matth. ubi aperte dicit, luna 44. Christum fuisse captum. Chrysostomus homil. 83. in Matt. dicit, Christum comedisse illo die, quem lex praecipiebat. Idem habet etiam Theophy- lactus, Theophilus Alexandrinus apud Be- dam libro de ratione temporum, cap. 57 et 59. et Theodoretus quaest. 21. in Exod. et ex Latinis Tertullianus lib. contra Judaeos, Cyprianus in sermone de coBna Domini, Am¬ brosius in epist. 83. Hieronymus in cap. 26. Matth. Augustinus in epistol. 86. ad Casula- num, et Beda lib. de temporum ratione, cap. 61. Praeter hoc argumentum ex tribus Evan- gelistis, et tot Patrum sententiis, habemus aliud argumentum ex Joanne, quem Graeci se profitentur sequi. Nam S. Joannes, af¬ firmat diem passionis Christi , id est, sextam feriam fuisse illo anno solemnem, ac festam, ex quo necessario sequitur, ut die praece- dente agnum comederint. Joan. xm. Ante diem festum sciens Jesus quia venit hora , etc.( 1). Hoc dixit Christus pridie passionis ; ergo dies passionis, erat dies festus. Sed quia possent Graeci tergiversari, ut faciunt, ac dicere loqui eum de festo futuro die Sabbati, non de festo immediate consequente eam ipsam noctem feriae quintae, in qua Dominus loquebatur ; additur ibidem, quod cum Judae Dominus dixisset : Quod facis , fac citius; ille exivit continuo, cum jam nox esset : et Apostoli putarunt, dictum illi esse, ut emeret, quae necessaria erant ad diem festum. At quo¬ modo suspicari poterant tanta festinatione opus esse in parandis ad festum necessariis, si adhuc supererat totus dies sequens ante festi solemnitatem? Praeterea Joan. xvjii. Hebraei dicunt Pi¬ lato : Nobis non licet interficere quemquam (2); quod significat non licuisse id eis ob festum, quod tunc agebatur , ut exponunt Chryso¬ stomus homil. 82. in Joann. et homil. 86. in Matth. Cyrillus lib. xii. in Joan. cap. 6. Au¬ gustinus tract. 114. in Joan. Beda in cap. xv m. Joan. et alii. Nam alioqui licuisse eis alio tempore blasphemos occidere, patet ex Actor, vii. ubi Stephanum in Concilio ju¬ dicatum publice lapidarunt; et Actor. 24. conqueruntur apud Felicem Pracsidem Sy¬ riae , quod volentibus Paulum secundum suam legem interficere, tribunus Lysias violenter eum eripuerit de manibus ipsorum. Quod autem Jansenius dicit, et quidam alii, potuisse Hebraeos occidere reos mortis secundum legem suam, sed non potuisse crucifigere, nimis improbabile est. Nam nec Hebraei solliciti erant praecipuo de cruce, sed de morte Christi in genere, unde, eumdem aliquando praecipitare, aliquandu lapidaro voluerunt : nec est ulla ratio, cur eis licuerit occidere, et tamen non licuerit crucifigere. Adde, quod illa verba subjuncta (ut sermo (I) Joan. XIII, 1. — (2) Joan. XVIII, 31. liber iv. 220 Josu imploretur) non quadrant nisi in no¬ stram expositionem; nani Dominus praedi¬ xerat se. a Gentilibus crucifigendum ; qme vera et mirabilis prophetia fuit, si Hebraus etiam occidere licebat. Nam si eis id non licebat, facile erat praedicere se non occi¬ dendum, nisi a Gentilibus, et illo supplicio, quod erat apud Gentiles frequentissimum. Denique Joan. xm. Pilatus ait : Est nutem consuetudo vo bis, ut unum dimittam, vobis in Pascha : vultis ergo dimittam vobis /legem Judxorum (1). Hinc ergo apparet, jam tunc agi coepisse dies paschales : et clarius Mattii, xxvii. vocatur idem dies solemnis, et Marci xv. et Lue. xxiii. vocatur aperte dies festus. Accedunt ad haec testimonia Patrum, qui dicunt Christum occisum fuisse ipso die so- lemni Hebraeorum. Vide Tertullianum in lib. contra Judaeos, Origencm homil. 23. in Nu- mer. Clementem Romanum lib. v. constitut. cap. 14. alias 16. Epiphanium haeresi 70. Theophilum Alexandrinum in epist. ad Theodosium apud Bedam de ratione tem¬ porum, cap. 57. Cyrillum Hierosolymitanum catechesi 13. Chrysostomum homil. 86. in Matth. Augustinum tract. 10. in Joan. So¬ cratem lib. v. liist. cap. 21. Leonem ser¬ mone 7. do Paschate. Bedam in cap. xvm. Joannem Anselmum in cap. xxvi. Matth. et Victorem Antiochenum nuper versum ex Graeco in cap. xiv. ubi dicit Hebraeos libenter diem festum, qui occurrebat illo anno feria sexta, fuisse translaturos in alium diem, si per legem id cis licuisset. Jam secunda opinio, qiue Ruperti erat, ex iisdem Scripturae testimoniis confutatur. Nam si die Jovis, in quo Dominus Sacramentum instituit, erat primus dies azymorum , ut Evangelistae tres disertis verbis affirmant, necessario sequitur , ut festum azymorum fuerit illo anno die Veneris, non dic Sab¬ bati. Est enim observandum aliter dies festos, aliter dies naturales apud Hebraeos consi¬ derari. Nam dies festi incipiunt ab occasu solis, et desinunt in occasum solis, ut patet Levit, xxiii. proinde festus dies azymorum continetur nocte sequente diem 14. et die toto artificiali 15. Dies autem naturalis, et ordinarius incipit ab ortu solis, et desinit in ortu solis, proinde continet diem et noctem artificialem, non autem noctem et diem ar¬ tificialem. Id patet ex principio Geneseos ; illiul enim : /'actum est vespere, et mane dies primus , ut exponunt Ambrosius et Rasilius, et alii in eum locum, significat ex dic arti¬ ficiali, qui terminatur in vesperam, et ex nocte sequente, qiue terminatur in mane, factum esse primum diem. Ex quo facile conciliari possunt verba trium praedictorum Evangelistarum , qui vocant primum diem azymorum diem 14. mensis, cum verbis Mosis in Exodo, Levitico et Numeris, qui sempor primum diem azymorum vocat diem 15. mensis. Nani cum dies primus azymorum quatenus festivus, ut diximus, contineatur posteriore parte diei 14. et priori parte die 15. accipiendo dies modo ordinario, seu na¬ turali, potest dies azymorum ut festivus, per intellectionis figuram vocari tam 14. ut E- vangelistae faciunt, quam 15. ut Moses facit. Ex his autem refellitur opinio Ruperti, Nam si dies 14. ut Evangelistae dicunt, erat primus azymorum, nimirum ex parte , ne- cesse est, ut etiam 15. dies esset primus azy¬ morum pro alia parte. Ergo non potuit transferri in diem 16. ut ipse vult : nisi forte velit (quod est absurdissimum) mediam par¬ tem solum illius diei solemiiis translatam fuisse. Adde praeterea rationem cur debeat fieri illa translatio, quam Rup ortus reddit, esse pror¬ sus vanam. Affirmat enim ipse transferri diem primum azymorum in Sabbatum, quando occurrit feria/sexta, ne sint duo festa continua, nimirum primus azymorum, et Sabbatum : et non advertit , in idem in¬ commodum se incidere ex ista translatione. Nam dies septimus azymorum est reque so¬ lemnis ac primus, ut patet Levit, xxiii. Si autem dies primus ponatur in Sabbato, ut ipse vult, tunc septimus ponetur feria sexta, atque ita erunt duo dies festi continui, se¬ ptimus azymorum, et dies Sabbati. Denique contra Ruperti sententiam pug¬ nant omnia testimonia Scripturae , et Pa¬ trum, qui dicunt, diem mortis Christi fuisse festum, et solemnem illo anno apud He¬ braeos. Resta sententia Burgensis refellenda ex iisdem Evangelii locis, et quidem facile re¬ fellitur. Nam cum dicunt Evangelistae primo die azymorum Christum comedisse Pascha, vel loquuntur deprimo die azymorum secun¬ dum ordinariam consuetudinem, et Kalenda- ria Synagogae, vel non. Si detur primum, (1) Joan. X V ! 1 T . 30. CAPUT VIII. tum refutata manet Burgensis opinio; ncc enim verum erit, quod ipse ait, alio die Christum, alio die populum Hebraeorum Pascha comedisse. Si autem detur secundum repugnabit Marcus, qui ait : Prima die azymo¬ rum , quando Pascha immolabant : id enim si¬ gnificat Hebraeos eo dic Pascha immolare. Sed respondent qui Burgenscm sequuntur, illud (immolabant) vel referendum esse ad morem legitimum, ut sensus sit, quando Pascha secundum legem immolari debebat, vel etiam ad aliquos paucos perfectiores, qui reipsa immolabant iu die legitimo, non curantes Pliarisaeorum traditionem. At neutrum horum recte dici potest. Primo, quia etiamsi facta esset illa mutatio, debuis¬ sent omnes etiam optimi viri illam mutatio¬ nem sequi. Nam ut supra ostendi, non erat contra legem Dei, sed erat accommodatio quaedam Kalendarii prudenter lacta : undo merito ut schismatici, et ut inobedientes synagoga) puniri potuissent, qui secus fecis¬ sent. Secundo, falsum est tempore Christi fuisse i llam traditionem in usu, ut numquamfeslum azymorum celebraretur die 2, i . vel G. est enim traditio illa multo reccntior. Atque hoc est, quod decepit .plurimos scriptores mo¬ dernos, alioqui eruditissimos : crediderunt enim omnes Burgcnsi tamquam in sua arte perito : nam et ipse Babinus- Hebramrum fuerat. Esseautcm falsum, traditionem illam tempore Christi in usu fuisse, probo. In pri¬ mis Itabbi Abenezra in commentarioLcvitici, cap. xxni. disertis verbis affirmat hanc tra¬ ditionem non solum non fuisse ab initio se¬ cundi templi, ut multi fabulantur, sed ncc fuisse eo tempore, quo fiebat Thahnud. Nam et in Misna, et in Thlamud, ut ipse dicit, invenitur Pascha in T13, id est die 2, i. etO. constat autem Thahnud confectum fuisse aliquot annorum centuriis post passionem Christi. Pricterea S. Epiphanius, qui etiam He- brteus fuerat, et optime noverat linguam, et ritus Hebraeorum, lueresi 30. Ebionitarum, et haeresi 51. Alogorum, dicit festum azymo¬ rum apud Hebraeos incidere in quamlibet diem hebdomada), etiam in 2, 3. et Neque dici potest, Epiphanium loqui de festo azymorum secundum legem, et non secun- duin consuetudinem, quae erat tempore suo, aut tempore Christi. Nam loquitur de con¬ suetudine. qua; erat tempore Christi : expli¬ cat enim illud Lue. vi : Factum csl in Sabbato secundo primo, et Apostoli ibant per sata, et vellebant, spicas ctc. ac dicit, Sabbatum se¬ cundo primum, non vocari septimam diem, qua) est Sabbatum naturale , sed festum azymorum, iu quo dies erant solemnes, et Sabbata vocabantur, nimirum primus dies azymorum, qui dicitur Sabbatum primum, et 7. dies azymorum, qui dicitur Sabba¬ tum secundum, seu secundo primum, qui est aequalis primo, ut apud nos dies octavus in festis qua) habent octavam, quia est so- lemnis sicut primus, vocari posset dies festus secundo primus. Dicit igitur Epiphanius, diem illum, in quo Apostoli vellebant spicas, non fuisse Sabbatum naturale, sed alium diem hebdomada;, nimirum 2, 3. et 'i . aut quemvis alium , in quem forte inciderat illo anno 7. dies azymorum. Praderca est aliud argumentum omnino convincens, quod hoc syllogismo compre¬ hendi potest. Ecclesia; Asiatica; initio na¬ scentis fidei celebrabant Pascha eodem dic. quo Hebraei sui temporis. Eaedem Ecclesia; celebrabant Pascha luna 1 1. primi mensis, quacumque die hebdomada; luna illa incidis¬ set. id que sine ullo dierum discrimine, vel ex¬ ceptione ; ergo etiam Hebraei illius temporis Pascha celebrabant quolibet hebdomada; dio sine ulla exceptione. Ergo festum azymorum incidere poterat in diem 2, b etO. et proinde nondum coeperat eo tempore illa traditio Judaica, neque adhuc fuerat auditum illud S? T12 irca, igitur tempore Christi non fuit illa traditio. Propositio hujus argumenti certissima est, habetur enim expresse in epistola Nieami Concilii, quam refert Theo- doretus lib. Instor, r. cap. 1). et in epistola Constantini ex eodem Concilio ad Ecclesias missa, qua? exstat apud Euscbium lib. de vita Constantini, cap. 17. Idem fatetur Po¬ lycrates apud Euscbium lib. v. liistor. cap. 23. Tertullianus in lib. de Synodis Arimini et Seleuciac, Epiphanius lueresi 50. Tcssarcs- cedeeatitarum,. et 70. qua; est Audianorum, ubi saepius repetit, Asianos illos celebrasse Pascha quando Judaei celebrabant, itant non computarent ipsi dies, et .menses, sed tan¬ tum observarent tempus, quo Judaei sui temporis, azyma incipiebant. Denique idem habet Augustinus lib. de lueresibus, cap. 20. Assumptio ejusdem argumenti non minus est certa. Nam Euscbius lib. v. hist. cap. 22. dicit Asianos Pascha celebrare solitos quo¬ libet die hebdomada). Augustinus libro de lueresibus, cap, 20. addit, quolibet septem LIBER IV. f dierum. Philastrius in lib. de haeresibus, cap. de hseresi de festo Paschae, adhuc expressius dicit, eos Pascha celebrare etiam die 2. vel 4. vel 6. quibus diebus non fuisset celebra¬ tum, si esset vera Burgensis opinio. Praeterea est argumentum huic non dissi¬ mile. Epiphanius hacr. 70 . Audianorum, Theophilus in epist. ad Theodosium apud Bedam de ratione temporum, cap. 57. Am¬ brosius epistola 83, ad Episcopos iEmiliae, et Bcda de ratione temporum, cap. 59. po¬ nunt aliud discrimen inter Pascha Christia¬ norum et Judaeorum, ac Judaizantium, quod Pascha Christianorum non solum non lit luna 14. si illa venerit extraDominicam, sed neque si venerit in Dominica. Quando enim id accidit, ut luna 14. venerit in Dominica, tunc exspectamus sequentem Dominicam, et Pascha celebramus luna 21. At Judaei, et Judaizantes, in ipsa 14. luna celebrabant, etiam si -esset Dominica; quare aliquando fiebat ( ut notat Beda ) ut per integram heb¬ domadam distarent Paschata, et Christiani eo die inciperent, quo Judaei finiebant. Ex hac autem observatione manifeste sequitur, Pascha Judaeorum tempore illorum Patrum aliquando incidisse in Dominicam diem, .et diem festum azymorum in diem lunae, ac per hoc nondum coepisse traditionem illam Ju¬ daicam, quae cavit, ne die Lunae, Mercurii, et Veneris festum azymorum celebrare lice¬ ret. Adde his omnia testimonia Scripturae, et Patrum supra citata, quibus probavimus in die Passionis Domini fuisse Hebraeis diem festum, ac solemnem : inde enim necessario sequitur, ut eodem die tum Christus, tum Hebraei Pascha celebraverint.