From the same Exod. ch. 12, two propositions can be brought forward, by which the right of eating the Passover is either denied or granted. The former [is] from v. 48, & 43, 44, 45: “No uncircumcised [person] can eat of the Passover.” And the reason is clear, and twofold: First, because the paschal lamb was [one] of the chief sacraments of the Mosaic law; and therefore [it] taught [that] no one, unless initiated by the first initiations of that same law, [could] become a partaker of it. But the first initiations were circumcision. Second: only the circumcised were passed over, safe and unharmed, by the passing Angel. These alone, therefore — because [it] was sacred for the perpetual remembrance of this safety — [it] was fitting [to admit], as [it were, to] a symbol. But two [things] can be asked. The one: whether those who ate the Passover at Mount Sinai—
(col. 550 — right column; printed “557”)
—were circumcised? The answer [is] already [given] above (quaest. 5). Yes [they were]. The other: whether [it] was lawful for women also to eat the Passover? For, in the cited place, Josephus says [that] for each victim to be eaten [there] had to be present at least ten men, though sometimes more were present; and [that] from that [fact] the number of men was reckoned. But if to ten men [there] had been present ten wives, and their sons and daughters, [and] male- and maid-servants, the lamb would scarcely have sufficed. What if [there] had been twenty men? I do not wish here to repeat the [things] which I said about circumcision (Gen. 17); as certain, I only now take [it] that women were not circumcised; and at the same time I answer [that] [it] was lawful for them to eat the Passover — because the circumcision which barred [one] from eating the Passover bound only men. For so [it] was done also in all other ceremonies, sacraments, and even in the very observance of the law — the profession of which St. Paul (Gal. 5 v. 3) establishes [to be] circumcision. But [that] which is adduced from Josephus [is] explained above (quaest. 18). And indeed, since [Josephus] afterward removes the menstruating [women] from the eating of the Passover, he clearly teaches [that] to the other women who were unstained [clean], that eating of the lamb was usual. And of the Jews — as I was saying above (quaest. 12) — the “55th” precept is, “that male and female rightly make [keep] the Passover.”
The latter proposition [is] from vv. 44, 48: “Whoever was circumcised could eat the Passover” — nay, as [in] Num. 9 v. 13 [it] is added, “ought [to].” For thus [it] is written there: “If anyone is both clean, and was not on a journey, and yet did not make the phase, that soul shall be exterminated from his peoples, because he did not offer the sacrifice to the Lord in his [due] time. He shall bear his [own] sin.” But here some [things] are asked.
First: whether infants [had to] eat, and the sick, who loathed either all food, or at least that [food]? [It] is answered [that] no one was obligated by that precept, except him in whom [there] was the natural faculty of eating. If, therefore, [there] were an infant who could feed only on milk and pap, not on more solid food; if a sick [person] from whom the force of the disease had taken away the tasting either of all foods, or of flesh and unleavened [bread] and bitter [herbs] — [for such,] to keep a pascha was not necessary. For if certain of the travelers were excused, as the context shows, why not these too?
The other [sub-question]: whether he who was greater in age [an adult] was to be circumcised against [his] will, that he might eat the Passover? Concerning the slaves of the Israelites, Abulensis (Exod. 12 q. 56) and Cajetan (in the same place) think thus — yet in a different manner. For he [Abulensis] reckons [that] slaves — since [they] are wholly in the power and property of [their] masters — could be circumcised against [their] will, and [compelled] to observe all the rest of the law; but this [Cajetan holds] [that] only [that] they could be circumcised against [their] will, but not compelled to the profession of the Law. Yet each opinion is weakened [by] Gen. 17, from Josephus (in his Life), Soto (4, dist. 1), Abulensis (4th part, quaest. 72). And therefore [only] one freely circumcised — if indeed he be [an] adult — ought to approach the paschal table.
Thirdly: what cleanness was required for making [keeping] the Passover? [In] Numbers ch. 9, only one kind of legal uncleanness — which prohibited [one] from the eating of the Passover — is mentioned: namely, the contact of the dead. But the same reckoning was in all the other kinds of legal uncleanness, as both the thing itself shows, and Josephus (bk. 6 of the Captivity ch. 45): “For neither to the leprous,” he says, “and to those with a [seminal] flux, nor to women in their menses, nor to others [defiled] with any other—
(col. 551 — left column; printed “558”)
—[nor to others defiled] in any way was [it] lawful to become partakers of this very sacrifice; but neither to foreigners [aliens] who [might] have been present for religion’s sake.” Yet Rufinus renders the contrary sense in [his] later [version], thus: “But not even to foreigners, unless [to those] who had come for religion’s sake.” But [that is] little skillfully [done]. For the Greek says, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τοῖς ἀλλοφύλοις ὅσοι κατὰ θρησκείαν παρῆσαν [all’ oude tois allophylois hosoi kata thrēskeian parēsan, “but not even to the foreigners, as many as were present for [their] religion”]. For Josephus wishes to augment the discourse, and the sanctity and excellence of this ceremony. And therefore, when he had said [that] from it [the Passover] all Israelites whom any stain had polluted [were] wholly kept away, he subjoined [that] “not even to foreigners — even if they were otherwise pure and clean, nay, even if [they] had come to Jerusalem for religion’s sake — was [it] lawful to be admitted to the banquet of this victim, because, namely, [they] were not circumcised.” For of such [foreigners] who piously approached the Jerusalem Temple [there] was a great multitude of Gentiles, as is manifest from Solomon (3 Kings [1 Kgs] 8 v. 41), from St. John (ch. 12 v. 21), from Leontius on St. John. To which also contribute the [things] which I noted about the sacred gifts of those Gentiles (2 Macc. ch. 3), and about the outermost court of the Temple (3 Kings [1 Kgs] ch. 6), from Josephus himself, and others.
Fourthly: whether cleanness of this kind was required in the eater of the Passover as much as [in] the immolator? Lyra (bk. 2 Paralip. [Chr.] ch. 30) seems to require purity only in the immolators, not in the eaters. For because certain heads of households were not pure, he says [that] pure Levites immolated the Passover for them; yet he grants them the eating of the immolated Passover. On the contrary, Burgensis (in the same place, first addition) does not demand purity in those who slaughter the lamb, but in the eaters. But that that purity was necessary in both, I indeed reckon [there] is nothing to doubt. For generally, purity is required in those making [keeping] the Passover (Num. 9). But not only those slaughtering the lamb, but also those feasting [on it] — nor these alone, but both the slaughterers (and indeed much more) “made” [kept] the Passover, as was proved above (quaest. 16). Then, how [could it be that], whereas purity ought to be in the immolators and eaters of the other sacrifices, [yet] in this one [sacrifice] — so holy, so celebrated, and venerable — either [party] should be impure and contaminated? Thirdly: (2 Paralip. [Chr.] 30 v. 16) certain of the priests are said not to have immolated the lamb, but to have received and poured out the blood only from the hands of the Levites, because [they] were not sanctified. In the immolators, therefore, purity ought to be. Again (v. 18): since many of the people, not sanctified, had eaten the lamb, by that very [fact] [they] are shown to have sinned. For thus [it stands] there: “A great part also of the people of Ephraim, and Manasseh, and Issachar, and Zebulun, which had not been sanctified, ate the phase not according to that which is written.” And afterward (v. 19): “Hezekiah prayed for them, that the Lord would not impute [it] to them, that [they] had been less sanctified. Whom the Lord heard, and was appeased toward the people.” [It] behooved, therefore, that the eaters too be chaste and pure. So indeed [in] ch. 35 too, about the immolators (v. 6).
Fifthly: whether — because in the second month of the year [it] was lawful to make the Passover for those who in the first month had been polluted, or had gone on a longer journey (as will appear below, quaestion 27) — [it] was also lawful in the third [month], if in the second, again, [it] happened [that] they were either polluted or away on pilgrimage? I think not. Because, since the first month had been destined by God for this solemnity, [it was] not [permitted] even in the second month—
(col. 552 — right column; printed “559”)
—did Moses dare either to determine or answer (Num. 9), unless he had consulted the Lord, and received that enlargement of one month. How, therefore, should we dare to enlarge [it] further? In St. Jerome, the Traditions on Paralipomena [Chronicles] say: “In the third month, [it] was unlawful to perform the Passover.”
Sixthly: what penalty was [there] for an Israelite and circumcised [person] omitting the Passover at his [due] time? [It] was capital. For [it] is said (in the cited chapter of Numbers): “That soul shall be exterminated from his peoples. And he shall bear his [own] sin.” Now these are formulas in capital penalties. But by whom was this penalty inflicted? Those Traditions, in the same place, hand down [that it was] inflicted by God, thus: “They say [that] no polluted [person] could eat the phase without dying at once; and by this they knew the Lord [to be] appeased, because the eaters were not destroyed.” Yet [it is] more credible [that] this punishment [was] imposed by the magistrate, the guardian and avenger of the Laws. For why here, rather than in the violation of all the other Laws, would the Lord himself repeat [i.e. personally exact] the penalty? Why would he not have punished — by the ordinary manner of punishing through men — [what] could be an ordinary crime? To whom, therefore, the right of eating the Passover was, or was not, has hitherto been said.