[It] was asked (quaest. 17) why the Passover [was] instituted; but now, why its material was instituted [to be] a lamb or a kid, and why [it was] affected with such conditions as I said in the preceding question, is asked. And truly the cause [is] most true, [that] it so pleased him who instituted [it] — namely, the highest Commander, God. But, although this [is] most true, [something] more general—
(col. 544 — right column; printed “551”)
—[is to be sought]: and, when the cause of the divine ceremonies and precepts is asked, [it] is already established [that it comes] from God’s will itself; and therefore [it] is investigated whether any special reason consonant with this will can be adduced. But the best [rule] is that of Abulensis himself — [his] rule in ancient-law rites of this kind (quaest. 8 on Exod.): namely, that regard be had, first, to that state of the Israelite people which then was; then, to that [state] which was signified by that [former] state as [it were] by a certain figure — that is, to the coming of the Messiah, and the state of his people. For the divine ceremonies and precepts could look either to something which was useful in those times, or [something] which aptly indicated Christian things to come, or certainly both. “For all [things] happened to them in figure” (1 Cor. 10). As regards, then, that ancient time, Abulensis (in the cited place) denies [that there] is a cause why a lamb rather, or a kid, than a sheep, goat, ox, or any other animal whatever, was prescribed. For since this ceremony served only for propagating the memory of the Lord’s crossing to posterity, what did it matter whether [it] were done with a sheep, or a goat, or an ox, or a dove? He reckons, therefore, [that] the whole cause is to be sought from the figure. For since he was to be signified by that rite who, by his blood, would snatch [those] sprinkled and marked [with it] from the butchery of the destroying Angel, and would make these [Israelites] pass through wholly unharmed and immune [from it] — what animal could be apter than a tender, clean, and innocent [one], either a lamb or a little kid? For that [Christ] is often called “a lamb”: Isaiah 53, “Like a lamb before the shearer he shall be dumb, and shall not open his mouth”; John 1 v. 29, “Behold the Lamb of God; behold [him] who takes away the sins of the world”; and [v.] 36, “Behold the Lamb of God.” But why could not a clean, simple, little-white dove have been chosen in the same way? Why not a whole, clean, and rather-strong ox, or a calf? For from these too many likenesses, which fall most aptly upon Christ, could have been drawn.
To me, therefore, [it] seems [that] some regard [was] had of that time and opportunity too. They worshipped — as was said above (quaest. 17) — the Egyptians, sheep (especially [those] of Sais and Thebes); others, he-goats; and [they] abstained from eating them, as [there] are [as] authors Diodorus (bk. 1), Aristotle (bk. 5 of the Ethics, ch. 7), Strabo (bk. 7), St. Epiphanius (in the Anchoratus). Therefore, that the Lord might now show [that] the gods of the Egyptians, [their] rites, and the land itself, [were] to be despised, he rightly prescribed to all the Jews universally, and at one and the same time together, the slaughter and eating of these [animals]. Then, the Shepherds of sheep the same Egyptians despised, for the same cause (Gen. 46) — so much so that Apion frequently called the Jews, in contempt, hycsos [Hyksos], that is, “Shepherds,” in Josephus (bk. 1 against him, f. 922, 923). The Lord willed, therefore, to make [them] — fed on lamb and kid, and as [it were] bloodied [with it] — marvellous [an object of wonder] to the Egyptians themselves. Thirdly: through the name and care of sheep the Israelites obtained (Gen. 47) the best place of dwelling in the land of Egypt [Goshen]. Therefore [it] was most just [that] by the immolation of sheep they give thanks to God, and, under the same auspice, seek better lands. Fourthly: a lamb could easily be at hand for all the families, both in that exodus and afterward yearly; an ox not likewise. Fifthly: since the Angel, the author of the slaughter of the Egyptians, had passed over the individual houses of the Israelites, [it] was consonant [that] — for the—
(col. 545 — left column; printed “552”)
—[it was consonant that,] for the memory of his benefit, such an animal be slaughtered, whose eating would be enough for one — for the most part — family; and [that it] be neither too little, nor overmuch abound. Sixthly, into no other animal would all the rites — which the Lord willed [to be] sanctioned in the Passover, partly for the figure, partly for other causes — have so suitably agreed.
But why the Lord required the first condition in the lamb or kid — [that] of integrity and soundness — cannot be obscure. For reason forbids [that] mutilated, diseased, and [things] deformed by other defects be offered to him whom [it] behooves [us] to worship with [our] whole heart and all [our] strength — [him] who is the author of all goods to us, and most beneficent toward us, and best. Whence, too, you may see the Gentiles carefully choose, with great zeal and care, from herds and flocks, the best and choicest beasts for sacrifices — and, as the Greeks say, ἐκκρίνειν [ekkrinein, “to pick out”], nay, as in Apollonius, διακρίνειν [diakrinein] — which signifies not simply “to separate and choose,” but “to well separate and choose.” For Jason, about to immolate, ordered his herdsmen: ταύρους βόας ἀγελαίων διακρίναντες ἴλαδον [taurous boas agelaiōn diakrinantes hiladon, “having picked out the bulls from the herd-oxen, in troops”]. And in Homer (Odyssey ξ [14]), another: τῶν ἄριστον ἐπικρίνας ἀποπέμπω [tōn ariston epikrinas apopempō, “having chosen the best of them, I send [it] off”]. “A priest,” says Seneca, “not of whole body, [is] to be avoided, as [it were] a thing of ill omen. This is noted in the victims — how much more in the priests.”
The second condition was [that] of sex. Why, then, did the Lord will [it] male? In Cicero (bk. On the nature of the gods), to some gods, victims [were] sacrificed [that were] male; to others, female. But let that reason be set aside. There is not in God, who is spirit, “male, or female.” But [those things] which are male are wont to be more perfect; and so Agamemnon immolates οὖν ἄρρενα [oun arrena, “males then”] (Iliad, bks. 1 & 6) — so much so that this appellation is transferred even to the more perfect fruits of trees and to herbs. For “male palm” and “male vines” [are] in Pliny; “male frankincense” in Apuleius (Apology 1; Augustine, q. 42 on Exod.); “male mullein” in Apuleius (bk. On the virtues of herbs, ch. 71); “male tobacco.” Therefore, although God — because he does not always wish to exact the most perfect [things] from us — sometimes admits barren ewes and other females into sacrifice, yet when he wishes more perfect victims, he prescribes males. But why he here willed the more perfect, and was not content with a female, the figure made [so]. For CHRIST the Lord was male, not only in sex, but much more in strength and power against the tartarean [hellish] enemies (Apoc. 12) — even while [he] still lay hidden in [his] mother’s womb (Jer. 31). “Males,” says Pliny (bk. 11 ch. 49), “[are] stronger in every kind, except in panthers and bears.”
The third condition was [that] of age. Yearling beasts are wont, in almost every kind of animals, to be more pleasing in aspect and in eating, [more] chaste, [more] innocent. And therefore Homer describes the victim of Minerva [as] ἦνιν [ēnin] — that is, “having one year only,” says Eustathius. But what [is] more pleasing to God the Father [than] Christ Jesus, [more] chaste, [more] innocent? And here could be adduced the [things] treated above (quaest. 19), the words of Lactantius. But all those conditions together, Rupert clearly transferred to that Lamb of God (on Exod. ch. 8): “A blemish is sin; but he did not commit sin, nor was guile found in his mouth. He will be, therefore,” he says, “‘without blemish’ — that is, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, in whom [there] is no iniquity. But innocence alone would have little glory, if [there]—
(col. 546 — right column; printed “553”)
—[were] not also strength [present] for doing the perfect works of justice. ‘He will be, therefore,’ he says, ‘also Male. For [he is] male — that is, strong — because he admits nothing feminine, that is, soft or fluid. Whence also in the Apocalypse [it] is said of the great woman, that she brought forth a male son, who was to rule the nations with an iron rod. [It] is further added, [that] he will be a yearling. A yearling — that is, perfect; for we obtain perfection from him, as he himself also testifies in the Prophet: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to announce to the meek, to heal the contrite of heart, and to preach to the captives indulgence, and to the shut-up [prisoners] an opening — to preach the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance to our God.” “The acceptable year,” he says, “for those whom he has prepared for glory; and the day of vengeance upon those whom he has destined for wrath.” For “the acceptable year,” or “the year of favor,” he means the full acceptance, which the Apostle too proclaims in these words: “Behold, now [is] the acceptable time; behold, now [are] the days of salvation,” &c. Of the fullness of that year — nay, of ours — [it] is said to him by the mouth of the Psalmist: “Thou shalt bless the crown of the year of thy goodness” — understand, when all flesh shall have come to thee to be rewarded, in that length of eternal days.’”