Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 9: The Arguments of the Greeks, and of Others Who in Any Way Favor Them, Are Resolved
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 remains now that we briefly resolve the arguments of the Greeks, and of those who favor them. Their arguments they draw first from the Scriptures, then from the Fathers, lastly from reason.
The first testimony of Scripture, Matthew 26: But they said: Not on the festival day, lest perhaps there should be a tumult among the people. I answer: That was the opinion of some in that council, but it did not prevail: for the opinion of those prevailed who judged that the occasion of killing Christ was not to be neglected, at whatever time.
The second testimony, Mark 15: Joseph bought fine linen, and Luke 23: the women prepared spices. In the same place the Jews conducted a criminal case against Christ, and apprehended Him, examined Him, etc. Which indeed on a festal day were not lawful: for in Leviticus 23, on the feast of unleavened bread all servile works are forbidden. I answer: On a feast servile works are forbidden, but not works of piety and charity, and most necessary ones. But to bury the dead is a work of charity, not a servile work; and therefore also to prepare spices and buy linen to bury the body could not have been forbidden, especially since that work could not be deferred, the Sabbath being now imminent. For on the Sabbath a greater rest was prescribed than on any other feast. Whence on the Sabbath neither could fire be kindled nor food be prepared: which were lawful on other feasts, even on the Pasch, as is clear from chapter 12 of Exodus. And as to the Jews who conducted the criminal case, they were not of so delicate a conscience as to think this could not be done: they thought they had paid enough honor to the festal day in that they did not stone Christ with their own hands.
The third testimony, John 13: Before the festival day of the Pasch. I answer: He speaks of the artificial day, as we said above. For although in that night in which the Lord was speaking the feast of the Pasch began, yet the festal day was that which followed that night, not that which preceded: just as we too are wont on the evening of Holy Saturday to say, Tomorrow will be the feast of the Pasch; although the feast has already begun to be celebrated in the Ecclesiastical office.
The fourth testimony, John 18: They themselves went not into the hall, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Pasch. I answer: The other solutions being omitted, in that place the Pasch is called not the paschal lamb, which was immolated only on the 14th day at evening, but the paschal victims which of sheep and oxen were immolated daily on the days of the Pasch. Deuteronomy 16: Thou shalt immolate the Phase to the Lord thy God of sheep and of oxen, in the place which the Lord shall choose. 2 Paralipomenon 35: They gave to the priests to make the Phase two thousand small cattle and six hundred oxen. Josephus, Book 3 of the Antiquities, chapter 13, referring to that which is had in Numbers 28 concerning the immolation of two calves, a ram, and a goat, and seven lambs, which was done on each of the days of the Pasch, says that the calves, ram, and lambs were holocausts, but the goat was a sacrifice for sin, and that from it a banquet was wont to be prepared daily for the priests. That paschal victim, then, which was to be eaten by the priests, is that Pasch of which St. John speaks when he says: They themselves, namely the priests, went not in, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Pasch. For that it was not lawful for the priests, unless purified, to eat the sacrifices, is clear from Leviticus 22.
The fifth testimony, John 19: And it was the Parasceve of the Pasch, about the sixth hour. I answer: The Parasceve was among the Hebrews only on account of the Sabbath: since before the Sabbath the Parasceve, that is, the preparation of food, was necessary, because on the Sabbath food could not be prepared. Wherefore in John 19 we read thus: On account of the Parasceve of the Jews, that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the Sabbath: for that Sabbath day was a great one. Where you see that the Parasceve was not for the Pasch, but for the Sabbath, which that year was more celebrated, and was called the great Sabbath, because it fell within the paschal week, which was wholly solemn, although the first and last days were more solemn. Hence too Mark, chapter 15, expressed the same thing thus: It was the Parasceve, which is before the Sabbath, and Luke chapter 23 says, And it was the Parasceve, and the Sabbath drew on. That Parasceve of the Pasch, then, does not signify the Parasceve for the Pasch, but the Parasceve falling in the Pasch: as if we should say, It was the sixth feria of the Pasch.
Lastly, the Greeks used of old, as Anselm witnesses, that of Amos 4: Sacrifice of leavened praise, or, as Aquila renders it: Sacrifice of leavened the Eucharist. I answer: This testimony is a testimony of the unskillfulness, or impudence, of the Greeks. For the prophet says those things in mockery and reprehension of the Hebrews, who worshipped idols for God, and offered leaven for unleavened bread. For thus it precedes: Come to Bethel, and act impiously: to Gilgal, and multiply transgression, etc. See Jerome and Rupert on this passage of the prophet. And these are the things they are wont to bring forward from the Scriptures.
Now some things are brought forward from the Fathers, whose testimonies are to be briefly explained. First, St. Irenaeus, Book 4, chapter 23, says that Moses, Deuteronomy 16, foretold the passion of Christ, as to place, when he says that the paschal lamb is to be immolated in the place which the Lord shall choose, that is, in Jerusalem; as to day, when he named the day of the Pasch; and as to hour, when he said it was to be immolated at evening. From these some gather that Christ was killed, according to the opinion of Irenaeus, on the 14th moon, when the lamb was wont to be immolated, and therefore that the Lord's Supper was celebrated on the 13th moon.
I answer: What Irenaeus says is most true, but makes nothing for the adversaries: for Christ was killed in Jerusalem; likewise on the day of the Pasch, although on the 15th moon, not the 14th. For (as we said above) the first day of the Pasch began at evening of the 14th day and lasted until evening of the 15th day. Finally He was killed at evening, because He died at the ninth hour, which is an evening hour. Add that Irenaeus by evening understood not so much the evening of the day as the evening of the world: for he says that by evening Moses signified the extremity of times; in which way Cyprian too, Book 2, letter 3, and Ambrose, letter 3, expounded that, at evening.
Secondly Tertullian is objected, who in his book against the Jews says thus: “For Moses too prophesied that you would do this at the beginning of the first month of new fruits, when the whole multitude of the children of Israel would immolate the lamb at evening.” Where he speaks of the passion of Christ, and says that it was foretold that Christ would be killed at that time in which the lamb was immolated: and it is established that the lamb was wont to be immolated on the 14th moon at evening.
I answer: Tertullian signifies that on that very day on which the lamb was immolated Christ was to be immolated, and this was fulfilled: for (as we said above) the first day of the Pasch extended to the evening of the sixth feria. But he does not signify that Christ was to be immolated at precisely the same hour at which the lamb was immolated; for this could not be. For the lamb was immolated after sunset, and Christ was to be immolated at midday. And moreover, if on the Friday at evening the lamb was to be immolated, as the adversaries say, then Christ would not have been killed on the Pasch: for He was killed before sunset; but the Pasch began after sunset. Finally, that the killing of Christ was not accomplished except on the 15th day Tertullian most openly teaches in the same place, when he says that that day was festal for the Hebrews; and of it he expounds the words of Amos 8: The sun shall set at midday, and I will turn your feast into mourning, etc.
Thirdly Epiphanius is objected, who in heresy 50 says thus: “Christ ought to be immolated on the fourteenth day according to the law.” And if the day of Christ's passion was the 14th, certainly it follows (as the Greeks will) that the day of the Lord's Supper was the 13th.
I answer: Epiphanius speaks of the immolation of Christ not in itself, but in type and figure, as if he had said more clearly, that the lamb, which was a figure of Christ, ought to be immolated on the 14th moon at evening. For therefore he added, “according to the law”; for in that place Epiphanius reprehends the Judaizing Quartodecimans, and says that they receive much harm from the fact that they celebrate the Pasch on the fourteenth day with the Jews, and not rather on the Lord's day with the Christians; and he renders the reason, because the immolation of Christ, namely the typical one, which was done according to the law on the 14th day, signified that the Synagogue would lose its light at the coming of Christ. For the 14th day is the last of the increase of the moon itself; but the 14th day being past, the light of the moon begins to fail, namely on the 15th day. And so the Jews, when they immolated the lamb on the 14th moon at evening, prophesied their own obscuration: of which obscuration all become partakers who prefer to imitate them in the celebration of the Pasch rather than the Church of Christ. This is in this place the opinion of Epiphanius, whose most open testimonies for us we reported above.
Fourthly they object Chrysostom, homily 82 on John, where he says two things. The first is that Christ ate His Pasch the day before the Jews ate it. The other, that Christ anticipated one day in the supper to be eaten, that He might reserve His death for the Parasceve, when also of old the Pasch was. From which it is gathered, according to Chrysostom, that the day of the Parasceve, on which the Lord was killed, was the 14th moon, on which the Pasch according to the law ought to be celebrated. Theophylact writes altogether the like on chapter 18 of John.
I answer: This passage of Chrysostom and Theophylact is to be explained by another of the same authors. For Chrysostom, homily 85 on Matthew, and Theophylact on chapter 26 of Matthew, write that the chief priests were occupied the whole night in the business of procuring Christ's death, and therefore could not with the rest eat the Pasch at the due time, namely in the night of the fifth feria, but deferred that supper of the Paschal lamb to the following day. Where too those authors add that in this matter those chief priests transgressed the law of God, in that they did not keep the Pasch at the due time, and in this way they expound that passage: They themselves went not in, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Pasch, John 18. Hence, then, it is to be understood in the testimony objected to us, when Chrysostom and Theophylact say that Christ ate the Pasch the day before they ate it, that it does not signify the day before the people of the Jews, but only the day before those priests who had been occupied the whole night in the killing of Christ. And so the Lord ate on that night on which all the others commonly ate.
Then what Chrysostom and Theophylact add, that Christ anticipated one day, that He might reserve His death for the Parasceve, when also of old the Pasch had been, can be expounded in two ways. First, that that (when also of old the Pasch had been) be referred not to the Parasceve, but to the preceding day; so that the sense is: Christ anticipated by one day the chief priests of the Jews in eating the Pasch, that He might reserve His killing for the Parasceve. For He ate the Pasch the day before the Parasceve, that is, on the 14th moon, when also of old the Pasch was: and according to this exposition no difficulty remains.
Secondly it can be said that that (when also of old) be referred to the Parasceve: but that Chrysostom does not speak of the Pasch as the Pasch signifies the immolation of the lamb, as the Greeks falsely think, but as it signifies the feast of the Pasch. Wherefore this is the sense of those words: Christ in eating the paschal lamb anticipated by one day those chief priests, and therefore ate on the Thursday, which was the 14th moon, that He might reserve His death for the very feast of the Pasch, that is, for the 15th moon, when also of old the Pasch, that is, the feast of the Pasch, was. And that this is the true sense, and that Chrysostom does not wish to say that that sixth feria was the 14th day and the lawful time of the immolation of the paschal lamb, is manifestly gathered from two things. First, because if it were so, those chief priests would not have transgressed the law in deferring the eating of the lamb to the sixth feria. But Chrysostom in express words teaches that they transgressed. Then, because the same Chrysostom, homilies 86 and 87 on Matthew, affirms that the very day of the killing of Christ was festal and solemn for the Hebrews.
Fifthly Augustine is objected, and with him the venerable Bede. For Augustine, Book 3 on the agreement of the Evangelists, chapter 13, reports that some said that the Pasch of the Jews, in the year in which Christ died, began on the following Sabbath; and therefore that sixth feria was called the Parasceve of the Pasch. But since Augustine does not approve this, but simply reports it, there is no need to labor much about it. Augustine indeed approves what those same men had said, that the preparation for the immolation of Christ began at the ninth hour of the night; and therefore the third hour of the day was the sixth hour of the Parasceve of the Pasch of the Christians, that is, of Christ's death: and this same he repeats in tract 117 on John, and the same has Bede on chapter 19 of John. But that former opinion, about the Pasch of the Jews beginning on the Sabbath, Augustine nowhere approves, nor Bede, nor any good author of the ancients.
Again it is wont to be objected, what Augustine says, tract 120 on John, and Bede on chapter 19 of John, that the Lord's burial was hastened on account of the Parasceve of the Jews, because that night they were to eat the pure supper. But there is no difficulty here: for the pure supper does not signify the eating of the paschal lamb, but a certain solemn supper which the Jews take on the evening of the sixth feria, namely at the beginning of the Sabbath. Whence from that supper, the sixth feria itself too was called by them the pure supper, as is clear from Irenaeus, Book 1, chapter 10, and Book 5, chapter 23, and from Bede on chapter 23 of Luke.
Sixthly Anselm can be objected, who on chapter 27 of Matthew says that he found by a certain reasoning that Christ was killed on the 14th moon, and on the 13th moon celebrated His Pasch beside the order of the divine law. But there can be no doubt that this whole passage was inserted into the book of St. Anselm by some favorer of the Greeks, and indeed rather imprudently. For Anselm most openly teaches the contrary in his commentary on chapter 26, on those words, And on the first day of unleavened bread, where he says that Christ ate the lamb on the 14th day and was crucified on the 15th day.
Seventhly the Greeks objected canon 11 of the Sixth Synod, in which it is provided that clerics or laymen do not eat the unleavened bread of the Jews. I answer: By that canon commerce with the Jews is forbidden, especially concerning the rites of religion. And so the Fathers were unwilling that Christians should celebrate with the Hebrews the days of unleavened bread, or other rites of that kind.
Eighthly John Hentenius, in his prefaces to Euthymius, and Cornelius Jansenius, in his commentary on Matthew chapter 26, object the testimony of a certain ancient historian who wrote in Hebrew the book Seder Olam, in which it is asserted that that tradition of the Hebrews, that the feast of the Pasch be not celebrated on the 2nd, 4th, or 6th feria, had its beginning immediately from the temple restored after the return from the Babylonian captivity; from which it follows that in the time of Christ that tradition was already received in use.
I answer: In the book Seder Olam, both the greater and the lesser, which Gilbert Genebrard lately made Latin, that tradition is not found. Then, even if it were found there, since that author wrote scarcely five hundred years ago, and delivered many other false things, it would be no wonder if in this too he had lied. Certainly that it is false that in the time of Christ that tradition was in use we most evidently demonstrated above, even by the testimony of Rabbi Aben Ezra.
Lastly Calvin objects, in the place cited, testimonies of the histories which say that it was ordained by Pope Alexander that the Eucharist be confected of unleavened bread, whereas before Alexander the whole Church was wont to use leavened. And so the custom of the Greeks was in the primitive Church, and is to be deemed Apostolic, and seems deservedly to be retained.
I answer: Calvin did rightly in ascribing the name of no historian: for none delivers what he says; nor is it in any way likely. For Calvin cannot speak of Alexander II or III or the other later ones: for these were all after Leo IX, who most sharply defended the opinion of the Latin Church about confecting the Eucharist in unleavened bread. He speaks, then, of Alexander I, who sat about the year of the Lord 110. And to omit that it is written by no one that this Alexander instituted unleavened bread, it is not probable that in those first years, in which the Churches in very many things Judaized, and the deed of the Lord was so recent, any Church would have preferred to use leavened bread rather than unleavened. Add that Leo IX, in his letter to Michael, chapter 5, says that the Roman Church learned from Peter, not from Alexander, as Calvin lies, how the divine mysteries ought to be celebrated; and for 1020 years from the Passion of the Lord retained the same custom; and in chapter 24 he says that the holy Martyrs of the primitive Church were fattened on our unleavened bread. And these things concerning the testimonies.
There remain the arguments from reason. And indeed the Greeks chiefly used three reasonings, which are in Anselm in his book on unleavened bread, and are most verbosely reported by the Magdeburg Centuriators from the books of Michael, Bishop of Constantinople, and Nicetas, Century 11, chapter 8, and in Euthymius on chapter 16 of Matthew, and lately too repeated by Jeremias, Bishop of Constantinople, in his censure on the Augsburg Confession, chapter 10.
The first reason is of this kind: “The Lord, when He instituted the Eucharist, took bread. But unleavened bread is not bread. For bread in Greek is called artos, from the verb airo, which is to lift up: but flour, or dough, is not lifted up except by leaven.”
I answer: This argument either proves nothing, or makes for us against the Greeks: for in Scripture the name of bread is common to unleavened and leavened. And because no one doubts of leavened, it is proved of unleavened from that of Luke last: He took bread, blessed it, etc. And below: How they knew Him in the breaking of bread. For that it was unleavened bread is certain, because what Luke narrates was done on the third day of unleavened bread, or the second day according to the Greeks; on which days there was found among the Hebrews nothing but unleavened bread: besides, in Leviticus 7 there are called loaves with leaven and loaves without leaven. Finally Theodoret, a Greek author, on chapter 10 of Daniel, notes as unskillfulness those who deny that unleavened bread can be called bread.
This foundation, then, being laid, we gather that in Matthew 26 those words, He took bread, blessed it, etc., can be expounded of unleavened bread, but also must be, since we have already shown that it was done on the first day of unleavened bread. Either, then, unleavened bread differs in species from leavened, or not. If it differs, as the Greeks will, then the Eucharist cannot be confected in leavened bread: for it cannot be confected in another species than that which the Lord instituted. If it does not differ, as the Latins truly affirm, then it can be confected both in unleavened and in leavened; in unleavened indeed because the Lord did so; but in leavened because it does not differ in species from unleavened. And so you see that the argument, if it is worth anything, is worth something against the Greeks. But really it is worth nothing, since unleavened and leavened do not differ essentially.
Moreover that etymology of the word artos from lifting up is taken from an accidental condition, as we see done in many other cases: or it is not called artos because it is lifted up by leaven, but rather because it lifts up human nature by nourishing and increasing our bodies, which effect is common to unleavened bread with leavened.
But hence arises the argument of Calvin, in the place above noted. For if the difference between unleavened and leavened is accidental, such as is also that between white and red wine, there would be no need in the Sacrament of the Eucharist to seek unleavened bread with greater care than we seek white wine; but it would be permitted to all to use any bread freely, as they freely use any wine.
I answer: There is a great difference between the difference of unleavened and leavened, and the difference of white and red wine. For first it is established that the Lord used unleavened bread; but it is not established whether He used white or red wine; and therefore we constantly retain unleavened bread on account of the Lord's example; about the wine we are not solicitous, because we have no similar example. Then the difference of unleavened and leavened God often used to signify various mysteries, as is clear from the whole of Leviticus, where almost always unleavened loaves are prescribed, on account of the signification of purity and sincerity; but nowhere did God use the difference of white or red wine to signify anything: therefore the Church, on account of the signification, retains unleavened bread, but employs wine indifferently, whether it be white or red.
The second reason of the Greeks is that unleavened bread is proper to the Jews; therefore to consecrate the Eucharist in unleavened bread is to Judaize.
I answer: It is not to Judaize to use the same things which the Jews used; but to use the same rite, and for the same end. And so to use unleavened bread with the paschal lamb, and to signify the future purity and sincerity of Christ, and His passion and death, is plainly to Judaize, and unlawful: but to use unleavened bread for confecting the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and to signify the purity and sincerity of Christ, which was and is, is not to Judaize, but to fulfill the figures of Judaism. Otherwise we ought not to use water in Baptism, because the Jews too used it in their purifications: and finally Christ Himself would have taught us to Judaize, if this were to Judaize. Add that the Jews in sacred matters used not only unleavened bread, but also leavened, as is clear from Leviticus 7, where loaves are bidden to be offered without leaven; and a little after in another sacrifice they are bidden to be offered with leaven, and in Leviticus 23 the Phase is bidden to be made with unleavened bread, and in the same place on the feast of weeks, that is, the feast of Pentecost, a sacrifice of leavened fine flour is prescribed. Wherefore if it is not lawful to use unleavened bread, lest we Judaize, for the same cause it will not be lawful to use leaven either.
The third reason: “The immolation of the paschal lamb was a figure of the Passion of Christ. But the lamb is immolated on the 14th day; therefore the Lord too ought to suffer on the 14th day; therefore He instituted the supper on the 13th.”
I answer: The paschal lamb, as we said above when we explained the figures of the Eucharist, was a figure of Christ as He was to be set before us in the Sacrament to be eaten, and therefore that immolation signified rather the mystical immolation of Christ, which is done in the Sacrifice of the Mass, than the bloody immolation which was accomplished on the cross: for therefore the rite of the paschal lamb delivers rather the mode of eating than of immolating. Yet because the immolation of the lamb was also a figure of the Lord's passion, the passion ought to be accomplished on the same day on which the lamb was immolated. And so it was done: for that evening of the 14th day, on which the lamb was immolated, pertained to the following day, as that day was festal. And so the institution of the Eucharist, which was principally figured by the paschal lamb, was accomplished on the same day and at the same hour on which the lamb according to the law was immolated: but the passion of Christ, which was less principally figured by the same immolation, was accomplished on the same day, though not at the same hour.
A fourth reason could be added, not a little difficult. For according to the law the day of Pentecost is celebrated on the fiftieth day from the second day of unleavened bread, as is clear from Leviticus 23. But in the year in which the Lord died, the day of Pentecost was on the Lord's day, as is clear from the tradition of the Church; therefore the second day of unleavened bread too was on the Lord's day. For if the fifty days be numbered from the second of unleavened bread inclusive, as the law commands, it necessarily comes about that Pentecost falls on the same day of the week on which falls the second day of unleavened bread. But if the Lord's day was the second of unleavened bread, then the Sabbath day was before the day of unleavened bread, and much more the day of the Lord's Supper; and thus the opinion of the Greeks seems to be true.
I answer: Of this argument I treated at length in Book 3 on the Church Triumphant, near the end. The sum of the answer is that the days of Pentecost are to be numbered from the first profane day after the feast of the first day of unleavened bread: and therefore if the second day of unleavened bread be profane, as generally happens, from it the days of Pentecost ought to be numbered. But if it happen to be a festal day, as if the second day of unleavened bread fall on the Sabbath, then the days of Pentecost are to be numbered from the third day of unleavened bread. Since therefore in the year in which the Lord died the second of unleavened bread was the Sabbath, therefore in that year from the third day of unleavened bread, which was on the Lord's day, which among the Jews is profane, they began to number the days of Pentecost; and thence it came about that in that year Pentecost fell on the Lord's day.
And let these things be said of this whole disputation, in which I cannot deny that I was greatly helped by the excellent work of Doctor Marcellus Francolinus on the canonical hours, in which he most fully handles this question, chapter 51 and following. And I altogether wondered how we fell into the same solution concerning the difficulty about the time of Pentecost, for neither had I seen his book when I wrote of the Feasts in Book 3 on the Church Triumphant, nor had he seen my writings when he composed his book, as he himself afterward confirmed to me.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IX. Solvuntur argumenta Graecorum, et aliorum, qui quocumque modo eis favent. Restat nunc, ut argumenta Graecorum, et eorum qui eis favent, breviter diluamus. Argumenta ducunt primum ex Scripturis, Deinde ex Patribus. Postremo ex ratione. Primum testimonium Scripturae, Mattii, xxvi. Dicebant autem: Non in die festo , ne forte tumultus fieret in populo (1). Respondeo Fuit illa quorumdam sententia in eo Conci¬ lio, sed non obtinuit : praevaluit enim eorum sententia, qui judicarunt non esse negligen- dam occasionem Christum necandi quocum¬ que tempore. Secundum testimonium Marci xv. Joseph mercatus est sindonem, et Luc. xxm. mu¬ lieres paraverunt aromata. Ibidem Judaei egerunt causam criminalem contra Christum, et eum comprehenderunt, examinarunt, etc. Quae sane in die festo licita non erant : nam Levit, xxvi. in festo azymorum prohibentur omnia opera servilia. Respondeo : In festo prohibentur opera servilia, sed non opera pietatis et charitatis, et maxime necessaria. Sepelire autem mortuos, opus charitatis est, non opus servile ; et proinde etiam aromata parare, sindonem emere ad corpus sepelien¬ dum, non potuit esse prohibitum, praesertim cum opus illud differri non posset, imminente jam Sabbato. In Sabbato enim major quies praecipiebatur, quam in ullo alio festo. Unde in Sabbato neque ignis accendi poterat , neque cibi praeparari : quae licita erant in aliis festis, etiam in Paschate, ut patet cap. xn. Exodi. Quod autem attinet ad Judaeos, qui causam criminalem egerunt, non erant illi tam delicatae conscientiae, ut putarent id fieri non posse : satis existimabant se detu¬ lisse honoris diei festo, quod non suis mani¬ bus Christum lapidarunt. Tertium testimonium Joan. xm : A nte diem festum Paschae (2). Respondeo : Loquitur de die artificiali, ut supra diximus. Etsi enim in illa nocte, in qua Dominus loquebatur, festum Paschae inciperet, tamen dies festus erat is, qui sequebatur eam noctem, non qui praecesserat : quemadmodum et nos so¬ lemus in vespera Sabbati sancti dicere : Cras erit festum Paschae; licet jam coeperit festum celebrari in officio Ecclesiatico. Quartum testimonium Joan. xviii : Ipsi non introierunt in praetorium, ut non contamina¬ rentur, sed ut manducarent Pascha (3). Respon¬ deo : Omissis aliis solutionibus, pascha voca¬ tur eo loco non agnus paschalis, qui solum 14. die ad vesperam immolabatur, sed vi¬ ctimae paschales, quae ex ovibus, et bobus quotidie in diebus Paschae immolabantur. Deuteron. xvi. Immolabis Phase Domino Deo cie ovibus , et bobus in loco, quem elegerit Domi¬ nus. II Paralipom. xxxv. Dederunt sacerdoti¬ bus ad faciendum Phase pecora duo millia et <T) Matth, XXVI, 5. — (2) Joan. XIII, 1. — (3) Joan. XVIII, 28. CAPUT IX. 223 boves sexcentos Josephus lib. hi. antiquit. c. 13. referens id quod habetur Num. xxvm. de immolatione duorum vitulorum, arietis, et hirci, et septem agnorum, qua) fiebat sin¬ gulis diebus Paschae : dicit vitulos, arietem, et agnos holocausta fuisse, sed hircum fuisse sacrificium pro peccato, et ex eo quotidie pa¬ rari solitum epulum sacerdotibus. Illa igitur victima paschalis, qua) edenda a sacerdoti¬ bus erat, est illud Pascha, de quo loquitur S. Joanncs, cum ait : Ipsi, nimirum Pontifices, non introierunt, ut non contaminarentur , sed ut manducarent Pascha (2). Nam non licuisse Sacerdotibus, nisi purificatis, edere sacri¬ ficia, patet Levit, xxn. Quintum testimonium Joan. xix. Erat autem Parascevc Paschae hora quasi sexta. Respondeo : Parasceve non erat apud He¬ braeos, nisi propter Sabbatum :siquidemante Sabbatum necessaria erat Parasceve, id est, praeparatio ciborum, quia in Sabbato cibi parari non poterant. Quare Joan. xix. sic legimus : Propter Parasceuen Judaeorum, ut non remanerent in cruce corpora Sabbato : erat enim magnus dies ille Sabbati (3). Ubi vides, Parasceven fuisse non ad Pascha, sed ad Sabbatum, quod illo anno celebrius erat, et magnum Sabbatum dicebatur, quia inci¬ debat intra hebdomadam paschalem, qua) tota solemnis erat, licet primus, et ultimus dies solemniores essent. Hinc etiam Marcus cap. xv. ita illud idem expressit : Erat Para¬ sceve, quod est ante Sabbatum , et Lucas cap. xxm. inquit, Erat autem Parasceve , et Sabba¬ tum illucescebat. Illud igitur Parasceve Pascha) non significat Parasceven ad Pascha, sed Parasceven inPaschate occurrentem : quo¬ modo si nos diceremus, Eratferia6. Pascha). Ultimo, proferebant olim Gra)ci teste An- selmo illud Amos iv : Sacrificate de fermentato laudem , vel ut vertit Aquila : Sacrificate de fermentato Eucharistiam. Respondeo : Te¬ stimonium hoc, testimonium est imperitiae, vel impudentia) Graecorum. Nam propheta illa dicit irridendo, et reprehendendo He- bra)os, qui pro Deo idola colebant, et pro azymis fermentum offerebant. Sic enim praecedit : Venite ad Bethel, et impie agite : ad Galgalam , et multiplicate praevaricationem etc. (4). Yide Hieronymum, et Rupertum in hunc locum propheta). Atque ha)C sunt qua) ex Scripturis proferre solent. Jam ex Patribus nonnulli proferuntur, quorum testimonia breviter explicanda sunt. Primo S. lrenseus lib. iv. cap. 23. dicit, Mosen Dcuteronom. xvi. pr a) dixisse Christi passionem, quoad locum, cum ait, immo¬ landum esse agnum paschalem in loco , quem elegerit Dominus, id est, in Hierusa¬ lem ; quoad diem, cum nominavit diem Pas¬ cha) ; et quoad horam, cum dixit ad vespe¬ ram esse immolandum. Ex his nomullis colli¬ gunt, Christum occisum esse secundum Irensei sententiam luna 14. quando agnus immolari solebat, et proinde ccenam Domini celebratam luna 13. Respondeo : Qua) dicit lrenseus verissima sunt, sed nihil faciunt pro adversariis : nam Christus occisus est in Hierusalem : item in die Pascha), quamvis luna 15. non 14. Nam ( ut supra diximus ) primus dies Paschae in¬ cipiebat in vespera dici 14. et durabat usque ad vesperam diei 15. Denique occisus est ad vesperam, quia obiit hora nona, qua) est hora vespertina. Adde, quod Irenams per vesperam, non tam intellexit vesperam diei, quam vesperam mundi : dicit enim per ve¬ speram, non significasse Mosem temporum extremitatem ; ad quem modum exposue¬ runt illud, ad vesperam , etiam Cyprianus lib. ii. epist. 3. et Ambrosius epist. 3. Secundo objicitur Tertullianus, qui in lib. contra Judaeos sic ait : « Hoc enim et Moyses initio primi mensis novorum facturos vos prophetavit, cum omne vulgus filiorum Israel ad vesperam agnum esset immolatu¬ rum. )> Ubi loquitur de Christi passione, ac dicit, pra)dictum fuisse, ut Christus occide¬ retur illo tempore quo agnus immolabatur : constat autem agnum immolari solitum luna 14. ad vesperam. Respondeo : Significat Tertullianus illa ipsa dic, qua agnus immolabatur, Christum immolandum, et hoc impletum est : non (ut supra diximus) dies prima Pascha) extende¬ batur usque ad vesperam feria) sextae. Non autem significat eadem hora praicise fuisse immolandum Christum, qua agnus immola¬ batur ; id enim fieri non poterat. Nam agnus immolabatur post occasum Solis, et Chri¬ stus immolandus erat in meridie. Et praeter¬ ea si die Veneris ad vesperam fuisset agnus immolandus, ut adversarii tunc non fuisset Christus occisus in Paschate : nam ipse occi- (I) Deut. XVI, 2 ; II. Paral. XXXV, 8. - (2) Joan. XVIII, 28. — (3) Joan. XIV, 21 ; Joan. XIX, 14. — (4) Amos. IV, 4 ure ii iv. sus fuit unie occasum solis ; Pascha autem in¬ cipiebat post occasum solis. Denique occi¬ sionem Christi non peractam, nisi dio 15. apertissime ibidem Tertullianus docet, cum ait, fuisse diem illum Hebraeis festivum ; et de illo exponit verba Amos 8. Occulet sol in meridie , et convertam diem festum vestrum in luctum etc. (1). Tertio objicitur Epipbanius, qui- haeresi 50. sic ait: « Oportebat Christum in deci¬ ma quarta die immolari secundum legem. » Quod si dies passionis Christi fuit 14. certe sequitur (ut Graeci volunt) diem crenae Domi¬ ni fuisse 13. Respondeo : Loquitur Epipbanius de im¬ molatione Christi non in se, sed in typo et figura, ac si clarius dixisset , oportuisse agnum, qui figura Christi erat, immolari luna 14. ad vespeiam. Nam idcirco addidit, <t secundum legem » ; reprehendit enim eo loco Epipbanius Quairtaidecimanos judaizan¬ tes, ac dicit, eos multum de trimenti accipere ex eo, quod celebrant Paschai decima quarta dic cum Judaeis, et non potius die Dominico cum Christianis ; et rationem reddit, quia immolatio Christi, typica nimirum, quae fie¬ bat secundum legem die li. significabat Sy¬ nagogam lumen suum amissuram Christo ve¬ niente. Nam dies 14. est ultima incrementi ipsius lunae ; peracta autem die 14. incipit luna; lumen deficere, nimirum in dic 15. itaque Judaei cum agnum immolabant luna I 4. ad vesperam, obscurationem suam pro¬ phetabant : cujus obscurationis participes fiunt quotquot eos in Paschae celebratione imitari maluut. quam Ecclesiam Christi. Ilaec rsteo loco sententia Epiphanii, cujus auctoris apertissima testimonia pro nobis supra re¬ tulimus. Quarto objiciunt Chrysostomum liomil. 82. in Joan. ubi duo dicit. Primum est, Chri¬ stum comedisse suum Pascha pridie, quam illud comederint Judaei. Alterum, Christum praevenisse unum diem in cama manducan¬ da, ut reservaret mortem suam Parascevc, quando etiam olim fuit Pascha. Ex quibus colligitur secundum Chrysostomum diem Parasceves, in quo Dominus necatus fuit, fuisse lunam 14. in qua Pascha secundum legem celebrari debuit. Similia omnio scribit Thcophylactus in can. 18. Joan. Respondeo : Hic locus Chrysoslomi et Thcophylacti explicandus est per alium eo- rumdem auctorum. Nam Chrysostomus ho¬ rni!. 85. in Matthaeum, et Thcophylactus in cap. xxvi. Mattii . scribunt, Principes sacer¬ dotum tota nocte occupatos fuisse in negotio mortis Christi procurandae, et ideo non po¬ tuisse cum caderis debito tempore pascha manducare, nimirum in nocte feriae quin¬ ta', sed distulisse crenam illam agni Pascha¬ lis in sequentem diem. Ubi etiam addunt ii auctores in hac re prae varicatos esse legem Dei Principes illos sacerdotum, quod Pascha non egerint tempore debito, et hoc modo exponunt locum illum : Ipsi non introierunt , ut non contaminarentur . sed ut manducarent Pascha , Joan. xvm. Hinc ergo intelligcndum est in testimonio nobis obiecto, cum Glirv- sostomus et Thcophylactus dicunt, Christum comedisse Pascha pridie, quam illud ipsi comederint, non significare, Pridie, quam populus Judaeorum, sed solum pridie quam sacerdotes illi, qui in nece Christi tota nocte occupari fuerant. Itaque Dominus manduca¬ vit illa nocte, qua omnes alii communiter manducabant. Deinde quod Chrysostomus efThcophy- lactus addunt, Christum praevenisse unum diem, ut servaret mortem suam in Parasce- ven, quanclo etiam olim Pascha fuerat, duo¬ bus modis exponi potest. Primum, ut illud (quando etiam olim Pascha fuerat) non refe¬ ratur ad Parasceven, sed ad praecedentem diem ; ut sensus sit : Christus praevenit uno dic Principes Judaeorum in Pascha edendo, ut caedem suaun servaret in Parasceven. Ipse enim Pascha manducavit pridie Para¬ sceves, id est, luna 14. quando etiam olim Paschai fuit : et secundum hanc expositio¬ nem nulla remanet difficultas. Secundo dici potest illud ( quando etiam olim) referri ad Parasceven : sed Chrysoslo- mum non loqui de Pascha, ut Pascha signi¬ ficat immolationem agni, ut false Graeci existimant, sed ut significat festum Paschae. Quare hic est eorum verborum sensus : Christus in manducando agno paschali prae¬ venit uno die principes illos sacerdotum, et proinde manducavit die Jovis, qui fuit 14. lunae, ut servaret mortem suaun in ipsum Paschae festum, id est, in diem 15. lunae quando etiam olim Pascha, id est, Paschae festum erat. Quod autemhic sit verus sensus, et non velit Chrysostomus dicere, feri a illa sexta fuisse diem 14. et tempus legitimum (1) Amos. VIII, 9. CAPUT IX. immolationis agni paschalis, ex duobus ma¬ nifeste colligitur. Primum, quia si ita esset, . Pontifices illi non fuissent praevaricati le¬ gem, dum distulerunt manducationem agni in feriam sextam. At Chrysostomus disertis ' verbis prsevaricatos illos fuisse docet. Dein¬ de, quia idem Chrysostomus homil. 86. et 87. in Matth. affirmat, ipsum diem occi¬ sionis Christi fuisse festivum, et solemnem Hebraeis. Quinto objicitur Augustinus, et cum eo ve¬ nerabilis Beda. Nam Augustinus lib. m. de consensu Evangelistarum, cap. 13. refert quosdam dixisse, Pascha Judaeorum eo an¬ no, quo Christus mortuus est, incoepisse in sequenti Sabbato ; et ideo sextam illam fe¬ riam dictam esse Parasceven Paschae. Sed cum id Augustinus non approbet, sed sim¬ pliciter referat, non est multum de ea re la¬ borandum. Approbat quidem Augustinus, quod illi iidem dixerant, praeparationem ad Christi immolationem coepisse ab hora nona noctis ; et proinde horam tertiam diei fuisse horam sextam Parasceves, Pascha) Christia¬ norum, id est, Christi mortis : et hoc idem repetit tract. 117. in Joan. et idem habet Beda in cap. xix. Joannis. Priorem autem il¬ lam sententiam de Pascha Judaeorum in¬ choante die Sabbati ; nusquam approbat Augustinus, vel Beda, vel alius bonus auctor ex veteribus. Rursus objici solet, quod dicunt, Augusti¬ nus tractat. 120. in Joan. et Beda in cap. xix. Joan. acceleratam fuisse Domini sepulturam propter Parasceven Judaeorum, quia illa nocte ccenam puram comesturi erant. Sed nulla hic difficultas est : non enim cm na pura significat agni paschalis manducationem, sed ccenam quamdam solemnem , quam Ju¬ daei sumunt in vespera feriae sexta), ad ini¬ tium videlicet Sabhathi. Unde ab ea coena, ipsa etiam feria sexta dicebatur ab eis coena pura ut patet ex Irenaeo lib. i. cap. 10. et lib. v. cap. 23. et ex Beda in cap. xxm. Luc. Sexto objici potest Anselmus, qui in capite xxvii. Matth. dicit, se certa ratione coinpe- risse Christum luna 14. esse occisum, et luna 13. praeter ordinem divinae legis celebrasse suum Pascha. Sed dubium esse non potest, quin totus iste locus ab aliquo Graecorum fautore fuerit insertus in lib. S. Ansclmi, et quidem parum prudenter. Nam Anselmus apertissime contrarium docet in comment. cap. xxvi. in illa verba : Prima autem die azy¬ mo) um (1), ubi dicit, Christum 14. die come¬ disse agnum, et lo. die fuisse crucifixum. Septimo objiciebant Graeci can. n. VI Sy- n°di, in quo cavetur, ne clerici, aut laici comedant azyma Judaeorum. Respondeo : prohibetur eo canone commercium cum Ju- dafis, praecipue circa ritus religionis. Itaque noluerunt Patres, ne Christiani celebrarent cum Hebraeis dies azymorum, aut alios ejus¬ modi ritus. Octavo objiciunt Joannes Hentenius prae- fationes in Euthymium, et Cornelius Janse- nius in comment. Matth. cap. xxvi. testimo¬ nium historici cujusdam antiqui, qui Hebrai¬ ce scripsit, librum &315? seder olam, in quo asseritur, traditionem illam Hebraeo¬ rum, ne festum Pascha celebretur feria 2, 4, aut, 6. initium habuisse statim a templo reparato post reditum a captivit. Babyl. ex quo sequitur, Christi tempore jam usu re¬ ceptam fuisse illam traditionem. Respondeo : In libro seder olam , tam ma¬ jore, quam minore, quem nuper Latinum fecit Gilbcrtus Genebrardus, non invenitur ea traditio. Deinde etiamsi ibi inveniretur, cum auctor ille vix ante quingentos annos scripserit, et multa alia falsa tradiderit, nihil mirum esset, si etiam in hoc mentitus esset. Certe falsum esse, Christi tempore eam tra¬ ditionem in usu fuisse, supra evidentissime demonstravimus etiam testimonio Rabbi A- benezree. Ultimo objicit Calvinus loco citato testi¬ monia historiarum, qua) dicunt, ab Alexan¬ dro Papa institutum esse, ut ex pane azymo Eucharistia conficeretur, cum ante Alexan¬ drum omnis Ecclesia fermentato uti consue¬ visset. Itaque mos Graecorum fuit in primitiva Ecclesia, et Aposfcolicus censendus, ac me¬ rito retinendus videtur. Respondeo : Recte fecit Calvinus, quod nullius historici nomen adseripsit : nullus enim id tradit, quod ipse dicit ; nec verisi¬ mile est ullo modo. Nam loqui non potest Calvinus de Alexandro II. aut III. aut aliis posterioribus : isti enim fuerunt omnes post Leonem IX. qui acerrime defendit senten¬ tiam Latinte Ecclesia) de Eucharistia in azy¬ mis conficienda. Loquitur igitur de Alexan¬ dro I. qui sedit circa annum Domini 110. Ac ut omittam, a nemine scriptum esse, quod hic Alexander azyma instituerit, non est pro- 16 (I) Matth. XXVI, 17. Tom. IV. LIBER IV. 22 Labile primis illis annis, in quibus Ecclesiie in plurimis judaizabant, et factum Domini adeo recens erat, ut aliqua Ecclesia fermen¬ tato uti maluerit quam azymis. Adde, quod Leo IX. in epist. ad Michaelem cap. 5. dicit, Romanam Ecclesiam a Petro, non ab Alexan¬ dro, ut Calvinus mentitur, didicisse qualiter divina mysteria celebrari debeant : et per 1020. annos a Passione Domini retinuisse eumdem morem ; et cap. 24. dicit, sanctos Martyres primitiae Ecclesiae nostris azymis saginatos*. Atque haec de testimoniis. Restant argumenta ex ratione. Et quidem Graeci triplici ratione potissimum utebantur, quae sunt apud Anselmum in libro de azy¬ mo, et verbosissime referuntur a Centuriato- ribus Magdeburgensibus, ex libris Michaelis Episcopi Constantinopolitani, et NicetaeCent. xi. cap. 8. et apud Euthymium in cap. xvi. Matth. et nuper etiam repetitae sunt ab Ilie- remia Episcopo Constantinopolitano in cen¬ sura ad Confessionem Augustanam, cap. 10. Prima ratio est ejusmodi : « Dominus cum Eucharistiam instituit, panem accepit. At azymum non est panis. Panis enim Graece dicitur apro; a verbo aipw, quod est attollo : non autem attollitur farina , seu conspersio, nisi per fermentum. » Respondeo : IIoc argumentum, vel nihil probat, vel pro nobis facit contra Graecos : num in Scriptura nomen panis commune est ad azymum, et fermatentum. Et quia de fermentato nemo dubitat ; probatur de azy¬ mo ex illo Lucae ult. : Accepit panem benedi¬ xit pie. Et infra : Quomodo cognoverunt illum in fractione panis (1). Illum enim fuisse pa¬ nem azymum, certum est, quia id factum est, quodLucasnarrat, tertia die azymorum, vel secunda die secundum Graecos ; quibus diebus non inveniebatur apud Hebraeos nisi azymus : panis praeterea Levitic. vn. dicun¬ tur panes cum fermento, et panes absque fermento. Denique Thcodoretus, Graecus auctor, in cap. x. Danielis notat inscitiae eos qui panem azymum, panem vocari posse negant. Hoc ergo fundamento posito, colligimus Matt. xxvi. illa verba : Accepit panem , bene¬ dixit , etc. de Azymo exponi posse, sed etiam oportere, cum jam ostenderimus id factum primo die azymorum. Vel igitur panis azy¬ mus differt specie a fermentato, vel non. Si differt, ut Graeci volunt ; ergo non potest Eucharistia confici in fermentato : non enim confici potest in alia specie, quam in ea, quam Dominus instituit. Si non differt, ut vere Latini affirmant ; ergo potest confici, tum in azymo, tum in fermentato ; in azymo quidem quia Dominus sic fecit ; in fermen¬ tato autem, quia non differt specie ab azymo. Itaque vides argumentum, si quid valet, contra Graecos valere. Sed revera nihil va¬ let, cum non differat essentialiter azymus, et fermentatus. Porro illa etymologia vocis apxo;ab elevan¬ do, aut ab accidentali conditione sumpta est, ut in aliis multis factum videmus : aut non dicitur apro;, quia elevetur per fermen¬ tum, sed potius, quia elevet naturam huma¬ nam nutriendo et augendo corpora nostra, qui effectus communis est pani azymo cum fermentato. Sed hinc nascitur argumentum Calvini, loco supra notato. Nam si accidcntaria dif¬ ferentia est inter azymum, et fermentatum, qualis est etiam inter vinum album et ru¬ brum, non oporteret in Sacramento Eucha¬ ristia; majori cura quaerere panem azymum, quam quierimus vinum album ; sed esset omnibus permittendum, ut libere uterentur quovis pane, ut libere utuntur quovis vino. Respondeo : Multum interest inter diffe¬ rentiam azymi et fermentati, et differentiam albi et rubri vini. Nam in primis constat Do¬ minum usum esse azymo ; non autem con¬ stat utrum vino albo, an rubri usus sit ; et idcirco constanter retinemus azymum pro¬ pter Domini exemplum ; de vino non sumus solliciti, quia non habemus simile exemplum. Deinde differentia azymi, et fermentati Deus scepe usus est ad varia mysteria significan¬ da, ut patet ex toto Levitico, ubi fere sem- per praescribuntur panes azymi, ob significa¬ tionem puritatis et sinceritatis ; nusquam autem Deus usus est differentia vini albi, aut rubri ad aliquid significandum : ideo Ecclesia ob significationem retinet azymum, vinum autem indifferenter adhibet seu al¬ bum sit, seu rubrum. Secunda ratio Graecorum est, quia azy¬ ma sunt propria Judaeorum ; ergo conse¬ crare Eucharistiam in azymo pane, est ju¬ daizare. Respondeo : Non est judaizare, uti iisdem rebus, quibus utebantur Judaei ; sed uti eo- (!) Lue. XXIV. 30 31. CAPUT IX. dem ritu, et ad eumdem finem. Itaque uti azymis cum agno paschali, et ad significan¬ dam Christi puritatem, et sinceritatem fu¬ turam, et ipsius passionem et mortem, est plane judaizare, et illicitum : at uti azymis ad Sacramentum Eucharistia} conficiendum, et ad significandam Christi puritatem et sinceritatem, queo fuit, et est ; non est judai¬ zare, sed implere Judaismi figuras. Alioqui non deberemus uti aqua in Baptisma, quia illa utebantur etiam Judaii in suis purifica¬ tionibus : et denique Christus ipse nos ju¬ daizare docuisset, si hoc esset judaizare. Adde, quod Judaei in rebus sacris, non tan¬ tum utebantur azymis, sed etiam fermentato, ut patet Levitic. vn. ubi jubentur offerri pa¬ nes, absque fermento ; et paulo post in alio sacrificio jubentur offerri cum fermento, et Levitic. xiii. jubetur Phase fieri cum azymis, et ibidem praecipitur in festo hebdomada¬ rum, id est, festo Pentecostes, sacrificium ex simila fermentata. Quare si uti azymis non licet, ne judaizemus, eadem de causa nec fermento uti licebit. Tertia ratio : « Immolatio agni paschalis figura fuit Passionis Christi. Sed agnus im¬ molatur die 14; ergo et Dominus pati debuit die 14 ; ergo coenam instituit die 13. » Respondeo: Agnus paschalis, ut- supra diximus, cum explicaremus figuras Eucha¬ ristia}, figura fuit Christi, ut in Sacramento nobis apponendus erat manducandus, et ideo illa immolatio potius significabat immolatio¬ nem Christi mysticam, quae fit in Sacrificio Missa}, quam immolationem cruentam, qua} in cruce peracta est : nam ideo ritus agni paschalis potius tradit modum manducandi, quam immolandi. Quia tamen agni immola¬ tio erat etiam figura passionis Domini, de¬ buit, eodem die passio peragi, quo agnus immolabatur. Et sic factum est : nam illa vespera diei 14. in qua agnus immolabatur, ad diem sequentem pertinebat, ut dies ille fe¬ stivus erat. Itaque institutio Eucharistia}, quae principaliter figurata fuerat per agnum pa¬ schalem, peracta est eodem die, et eadem hora, qua agnus secundum legem immola¬ batur : Christi autem passio, quae minus principaliter per eamdem immolationem figu¬ rata fuerat, eodem die, licet non eadem hora, peracta fuit. Quarta ratio addi posset, non parum dif¬ ficilis. Nam secundum legem dies Penteco¬ stes celebratur die quinquagesimo a secundo die azymorum, ut patet Levitic. xxiit. Sed co anno, quo Dominus mortuus est, dies Pentecostes fuit in Dominica die, ut ex tradi¬ tione Ecclesia} patet ; ergo etiam secundus dies azymorum fuit in Dominica die. Nam si numerentur dies quinquaginta a secundo azymorum inclusive, ut lex praecipit, neces¬ sario fiet, ut in eodem die hebdomadae oc¬ currat Pentecostes, in quo occurrit dies se¬ cundus azymorum. At si dies Dominica fuit secundus azymorum : ergo dies Sabbati luit ante diem azymorum, et multo magis dies ccenae Domini ; atque ita vera esse videtur Graecorum sententia. Respondeo : De hoc argumento fuse tra¬ ctavi in iii. lib. de Ecclesia triumphante , prope extremo. Summa responsionis est, dies Pen¬ tecostes numerandos esse a primo die pro¬ fano post festum primae diei azymorum : et ideo si secundus dies azymorum fit profa¬ nus, ut plerumque accidit, ab eo numerari debere dies Pentecostes. Si autem forte sit dies festus, ut si occurrat in Sabbato dies se¬ cundus azymorum, tunc a tertio die azymo¬ rum numerandos esse dies Pentecostes. Quia igitur eo anno, quo Dominus mortuus est , secundus azymorum fuit Sabbatum, propterea illo anno a tertio die azymorum qui fuit dic Dominico, qui apud Judaeos pro¬ fanus est, numerari coeperunt dies Pente¬ costes; et inde factum est, ut in diem Domi¬ nicum incideret illo anno Pentecostes. Atque haec de tota ista disputatione dicta sint, in qua negare non possum, quin mul¬ tum me juverit egregium opus Doctoris Mar¬ celli Francolini do horis canonicis, in quo fusissime quaestionem istam pertractat cap. 51. et seqq. Illud autem omnino miratus sum, quemadmodum in eamdem solutionem inciderimus, circa difficultatem de tempore Pentecostes, nam neque ego librum ejus videram, cum scriberem de Festis in 3. libro de Ecclesia triumphante, neque ipse scripta mea viderat, cum librum suum conscriberet, ut idem mihi postea confirmavit.