Reply to
Objection
2: In all the respects mentioned above (ad 1), there
was a suitable reason for these animals, rather than others, being
offered in sacrifice to God.
was a suitable reason for these animals, rather than others, being
offered in sacrifice to God.
Summa Theologica
2:16,17):
and the same may be said of the oblations and gifts, as appears from
the words of the Apostle (Heb. 9:9): and yet these do not seem to be
inclined in any of those mentioned above. Therefore the above division
of ceremonies is unsuitable.
On the contrary, In the Old Law each of the above is called a ceremony.
For the sacrifices are called ceremonies (Num. 15:24): "They shall
offer a calf . . . and the sacrifices and libations thereof, as the
ceremonies require. " Of the sacrament of Order it is written (Lev.
7:35): "This is the anointing of Aaron and his sons in the ceremonies. "
Of sacred things also it is written (Ex. 38:21): "These are the
instruments of the tabernacle of the testimony . . . in the ceremonies
of the Levites. " And again of the observances it is written (3 Kings
9:6): "If you . . . shall turn away from following Me, and will not
observe [Douay: 'keep'] My . . . ceremonies which I have set before
you. "
I answer that, As stated above ([2110]AA[1],2), the ceremonial precepts
are ordained to the Divine worship. Now in this worship we may consider
the worship itself, the worshippers, and the instruments of worship.
The worship consists specially in "sacrifices," which are offered up in
honor of God. The instruments of worship refer to the "sacred things,"
such as the tabernacle, the vessels and so forth. With regard to the
worshippers two points may be considered. The first point is their
preparation for Divine worship, which is effected by a sort of
consecration either of the people or of the ministers; and to this the
"sacraments" refer. The second point is their particular mode of life,
whereby they are distinguished from those who do not worship God: and
to this pertain the "observances," for instance, in matters of food,
clothing, and so forth.
Reply to Objection 1: It was necessary for the sacrifices to be offered
both in some certain place and by some certain men: and all this
pertained to the worship of God. Wherefore just as their sacrifices
signified Christ the victim, so too their sacraments and sacred things
of the New Law; while their observances foreshadowed the mode of life
of the people under the New Law: all of which things pertain to Christ.
Reply to Objection 2: The sacrifice of the New Law, viz. the Eucharist,
contains Christ Himself, the Author of our Sanctification: for He
sanctified "the people by His own blood" (Heb. 13:12). Hence this
Sacrifice is also a sacrament. But the sacrifices of the Old Law did
not contain Christ, but foreshadowed Him; hence they are not called
sacraments. In order to signify this there were certain sacraments
apart from the sacrifices of the Old Law, which sacraments were figures
of the sanctification to come. Nevertheless to certain consecrations
certain sacrifices were united.
Reply to Objection 3: The sacrifices and sacraments were of course
sacred things. But certain things were sacred, through being dedicated
to the Divine worship, and yet were not sacrifices or sacraments:
wherefore they retained the common designation of sacred things.
Reply to Objection 4: Those things which pertained to the mode of life
of the people who worshipped God, retained the common designation of
observances, in so far as they fell short of the above. For they were
not called sacred things, because they had no immediate connection with
the worship of God, such as the tabernacle and its vessels had. But by
a sort of consequence they were matters of ceremony, in so far as they
affected the fitness of the people who worshipped God.
Reply to Objection 5: Just as the sacrifices were offered in a fixed
place, so were they offered at fixed times: for which reason the solemn
festivals seem to be reckoned among the sacred things. The oblations
and gifts are counted together with the sacrifices; hence the Apostle
says (Heb. 5:1): "Every high-priest taken from among men, is ordained
for men in things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and
sacrifices. "
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE CAUSES OF THE CEREMONIAL PRECEPTS (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider the causes of the ceremonial precepts: under which
head there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether there was any cause for the ceremonial precepts?
(2) Whether the cause of the ceremonial precepts was literal or
figurative?
(3) The causes of the sacrifices;
(4) The causes of the sacrifices;
(5) The causes of the sacred things;
(6) The causes of the observances.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there was any cause for the ceremonial precepts?
Objection 1: It would seem that there was no cause for the ceremonial
precepts. Because on Eph. 2:15, "Making void the law of the
commandments," the gloss says, (i. e. ) "making void the Old Law as to
the carnal observances, by substituting decrees, i. e. evangelical
precepts, which are based on reason. " But if the observances of the Old
Law were based on reason, it would have been useless to void them by
the reasonable decrees of the New Law. Therefore there was no reason
for the ceremonial observances of the Old Law.
Objection 2: Further, the Old Law succeeded the law of nature. But in
the law of nature there was a precept for which there was no reason
save that man's obedience might be tested; as Augustine says (Gen. ad
lit. viii, 6,13), concerning the prohibition about the tree of life.
Therefore in the Old Law there should have been some precepts for the
purpose of testing man's obedience, having no reason in themselves.
Objection 3: Further, man's works are called moral according as they
proceed from reason. If therefore there is any reason for the
ceremonial precepts, they would not differ from the moral precepts. It
seems therefore that there was no cause for the ceremonial precepts:
for the reason of a precept is taken from some cause.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 18:9): "The commandment of the Lord
is lightsome, enlightening the eyes. " But the ceremonial precepts are
commandments of God. Therefore they are lightsome: and yet they would
not be so, if they had no reasonable cause. Therefore the ceremonial
precepts have a reasonable cause.
I answer that, Since, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. i, 2), it
is the function of a "wise man to do everything in order," those things
which proceed from the Divine wisdom must needs be well ordered, as the
Apostle states (Rom. 13:1). Now there are two conditions required for
things to be well ordered. First, that they be ordained to their due
end, which is the principle of the whole order in matters of action:
since those things that happen by chance outside the intention of the
end, or which are not done seriously but for fun, are said to be
inordinate. Secondly, that which is done in view of the end should be
proportionate to the end. From this it follows that the reason for
whatever conduces to the end is taken from the end: thus the reason for
the disposition of a saw is taken from cutting, which is its end, as
stated in Phys. ii, 9. Now it is evident that the ceremonial precepts,
like all the other precepts of the Law, were institutions of Divine
wisdom: hence it is written (Dt. 4:6): "This is your wisdom and
understanding in the sight of nations. " Consequently we must needs say
that the ceremonial precepts were ordained to a certain end, wherefrom
their reasonable causes can be gathered.
Reply to Objection 1: It may be said there was no reason for the
observances of the Old Law, in the sense that there was no reason in
the very nature of the thing done: for instance that a garment should
not be made of wool and linen. But there could be a reason for them in
relation to something else: namely, in so far as something was
signified or excluded thereby. On the other hand, the decrees of the
New Law, which refer chiefly to faith and the love of God, are
reasonable from the very nature of the act.
Reply to Objection 2: The reason for the prohibition concerning the
tree of knowledge of good and evil was not that this tree was naturally
evil: and yet this prohibition was reasonable in its relation to
something else, in as much as it signified something. And so also the
ceremonial precepts of the Old Law were reasonable on account of their
relation to something else.
Reply to Objection 3: The moral precepts in their very nature have
reasonable causes: as for instance, "Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt
not steal. " But the ceremonial precepts have a reasonable cause in
their relation to something else, as stated above.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the ceremonial precepts have a literal cause or merely a figurative
cause?
Objection 1: It would seem that the ceremonial precepts have not a
literal, but merely a figurative cause. For among the ceremonial
precepts, the chief was circumcision and the sacrifice of the paschal
lamb. But neither of these had any but a figurative cause: because each
was given as a sign. For it is written (Gn. 17:11): "You shall
circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be a sign of the
covenant between Me and you": and of the celebration of the Passover it
is written (Ex. 13:9): "It shall be as a sign in thy hand, and as a
memorial before thy eyes. " Therefore much more did the other ceremonial
precepts have none but a figurative reason.
Objection 2: Further, an effect is proportionate to its cause. But all
the ceremonial precepts are figurative, as stated above ([2111]Q[101],
A[2]). Therefore they have no other than a figurative cause.
Objection 3: Further, if it be a matter of indifference whether a
certain thing, considered in itself, be done in a particular way or
not, it seems that it has not a literal cause. Now there are certain
points in the ceremonial precepts, which appear to be a matter of
indifference, as to whether they be done in one way or in another: for
instance, the number of animals to be offered, and other such
particular circumstances. Therefore there is no literal cause for the
precepts of the Old Law.
On the contrary, Just as the ceremonial precepts foreshadowed Christ,
so did the stories of the Old Testament: for it is written (1 Cor.
10:11) that "all (these things) happened to them in figure. " Now in the
stories of the Old Testament, besides the mystical or figurative, there
is the literal sense. Therefore the ceremonial precepts had also
literal, besides their figurative causes.
I answer that, As stated above [2112](A[1]), the reason for whatever
conduces to an end must be taken from that end. Now the end of the
ceremonial precepts was twofold: for they were ordained to the Divine
worship, for that particular time, and to the foreshadowing of Christ;
just as the words of the prophets regarded the time being in such a way
as to be utterances figurative of the time to come, as Jerome says on
Osee 1:3. Accordingly the reasons for the ceremonial precepts of the
Old Law can be taken in two ways. First, in respect of the Divine
worship which was to be observed for that particular time: and these
reasons are literal: whether they refer to the shunning of idolatry; or
recall certain Divine benefits; or remind men of the Divine excellence;
or point out the disposition of mind which was then required in those
who worshipped God. Secondly, their reasons can be gathered from the
point of view of their being ordained to foreshadow Christ: and thus
their reasons are figurative and mystical: whether they be taken from
Christ Himself and the Church, which pertains to the allegorical sense;
or to the morals of the Christian people, which pertains to the moral
sense; or to the state of future glory, in as much as we are brought
thereto by Christ, which refers to the anagogical sense.
Reply to Objection 1: Just as the use of metaphorical expressions in
Scripture belongs to the literal sense, because the words are employed
in order to convey that particular meaning; so also the meaning of
those legal ceremonies which commemorated certain Divine benefits, on
account of which they were instituted, and of others similar which
belonged to that time, does not go beyond the order of literal causes.
Consequently when we assert that the cause of the celebration of the
Passover was its signification of the delivery from Egypt, or that
circumcision was a sign of God's covenant with Abraham, we assign the
literal cause.
Reply to Objection 2: This argument would avail if the ceremonial
precepts had been given merely as figures of things to come, and not
for the purpose of worshipping God then and there.
Reply to Objection 3: As we have stated when speaking of human laws
([2113]Q[96], AA[1] ,6), there is a reason for them in the abstract,
but not in regard to particular conditions, which depend on the
judgment of those who frame them; so also many particular
determinations in the ceremonies of the Old Law have no literal cause,
but only a figurative cause; whereas in the abstract they have a
literal cause.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a suitable cause can be assigned for the ceremonies which pertained
to sacrifices?
Objection 1: It would seem that no suitable cause can be assigned for
the ceremonies pertaining to sacrifices. For those things which were
offered in sacrifice, are those which are necessary for sustaining
human life: such as certain animals and certain loaves. But God needs
no such sustenance; according to Ps. 49:13: "Shall I eat the flesh of
bullocks? Or shall I drink the blood of goats? " Therefore such
sacrifices were unfittingly offered to God.
Objection 2: Further, only three kinds of quadrupeds were offered in
sacrifice to God, viz. oxen, sheep and goats; of birds, generally the
turtledove and the dove; but specially, in the cleansing of a leper, an
offering was made of sparrows. Now many other animals are more noble
than these. Since therefore whatever is best should be offered to God,
it seems that not only of these three should sacrifices have been
offered to Him.
Objection 3: Further, just as man has received from God the dominion
over birds and beasts, so also has he received dominion over fishes.
Consequently it was unfitting for fishes to be excluded from the divine
sacrifices.
Objection 4: Further, turtledoves and doves indifferently are commanded
to be offered up. Since then the young of the dove are commanded to be
offered, so also should the young of the turtledove.
Objection 5: Further, God is the Author of life, not only of men, but
also of animals, as is clear from Gn. 1:20, seqq. Now death is opposed
to life. Therefore it was fitting that living animals rather than slain
animals should be offered to God, especially as the Apostle admonishes
us (Rom. 12:1), to present our bodies "a living sacrifice, holy,
pleasing unto God. "
Objection 6: Further, if none but slain animals were offered in
sacrifice to God, it seems that it mattered not how they were slain.
Therefore it was unfitting that the manner of immolation should be
determined, especially as regards birds (Lev. 1:15, seqq. ).
Objection 7: Further, every defect in an animal is a step towards
corruption and death. If therefore slain animals were offered to God,
it was unreasonable to forbid the offering of an imperfect animal, e. g.
a lame, or a blind, or otherwise defective animal.
Objection 8: Further, those who offer victims to God should partake
thereof, according to the words of the Apostle (1 Cor. 10:18): "Are not
they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? " It was
therefore unbecoming for the offerers to be denied certain parts of the
victims, namely, the blood, the fat, the breastbone and the right
shoulder.
Objection 9: Further, just as holocausts were offered up in honor of
God, so also were the peace-offerings and sin-offerings. But no female
animals was offered up to God as a holocaust, although holocausts were
offered of both quadrupeds and birds. Therefore it was inconsistent
that female animals should be offered up in peace-offerings and
sin-offerings, and that nevertheless birds should not be offered up in
peace-offerings.
Objection 10: Further, all the peace-offerings seem to be of one kind.
Therefore it was unfitting to make a distinction among them, so that it
was forbidden to eat the flesh of certain peace-offerings on the
following day, while it was allowed to eat the flesh of other
peace-offerings, as laid down in Lev. 7:15, seqq.
Objection 11: Further, all sins agree in turning us from God.
Therefore, in order to reconcile us to God, one kind of sacrifice
should have been offered up for all sins.
Objection 12: Further, all animals that were offered up in sacrifice,
were offered up in one way, viz. slain. Therefore it does not seem to
be suitable that products of the soil should be offered up in various
ways; for sometimes an offering was made of ears of corn, sometimes of
flour, sometimes of bread, this being baked sometimes in an oven,
sometimes in a pan, sometimes on a gridiron.
Objection 13: Further, whatever things are serviceable to us should be
recognized as coming from God. It was therefore unbecoming that besides
animals, nothing but bread, wine, oil, incense, and salt should be
offered to God.
Objection 14: Further, bodily sacrifices denote the inward sacrifice of
the heart, whereby man offers his soul to God. But in the inward
sacrifice, the sweetness, which is denoted by honey, surpasses the
pungency which salt represents; for it is written (Ecclus. 24:27): "My
spirit is sweet above honey. " Therefore it was unbecoming that the use
of honey, and of leaven which makes bread savory, should be forbidden
in a sacrifice; while the use was prescribed, of salt which is pungent,
and of incense which has a bitter taste. Consequently it seems that
things pertaining to the ceremonies of the sacrifices have no
reasonable cause.
On the contrary, It is written (Lev. 1:13): "The priest shall offer it
all and burn it all upon the altar, for a holocaust, and most sweet
savor to the Lord. " Now according to Wis. 7:28, "God loveth none but
him that dwelleth with wisdom": whence it seems to follow that whatever
is acceptable to God is wisely done. Therefore these ceremonies of the
sacrifices were wisely done, as having reasonable causes.
I answer that, As stated above [2114](A[2]), the ceremonies of the Old
Law had a twofold cause, viz. a literal cause, according as they were
intended for Divine worship; and a figurative or mystical cause,
according as they were intended to foreshadow Christ: and on either
hand the ceremonies pertaining to the sacrifices can be assigned to a
fitting cause.
For, according as the ceremonies of the sacrifices were intended for
the divine worship, the causes of the sacrifices can be taken in two
ways. First, in so far as the sacrifice represented the directing of
the mind to God, to which the offerer of the sacrifice was stimulated.
Now in order to direct his mind to God aright, man must recognize that
whatever he has is from God as from its first principle, and direct it
to God as its last end. This was denoted in the offerings and
sacrifices, by the fact that man offered some of his own belongings in
honor of God, as though in recognition of his having received them from
God, according to the saying of David (1 Paral. xxix, 14): "All things
are Thine: and we have given Thee what we received of Thy hand. "
Wherefore in offering up sacrifices man made protestation that God is
the first principle of the creation of all things, and their last end,
to which all things must be directed. And since, for the human mind to
be directed to God aright, it must recognize no first author of things
other than God, nor place its end in any other; for this reason it was
forbidden in the Law to offer sacrifice to any other but God, according
to Ex. 22:20: "He that sacrificeth to gods, shall be put to death, save
only to the Lord. " Wherefore another reasonable cause may be assigned
to the ceremonies of the sacrifices, from the fact that thereby men
were withdrawn from offering sacrifices to idols. Hence too it is that
the precepts about the sacrifices were not given to the Jewish people
until after they had fallen into idolatry, by worshipping the molten
calf: as though those sacrifices were instituted, that the people,
being ready to offer sacrifices, might offer those sacrifices to God
rather than to idols. Thus it is written (Jer. 7:22): "I spake not to
your fathers and I commanded them not, in the day that I brought them
out of the land of Egypt, concerning the matter of burnt-offerings and
sacrifices. "
Now of all the gifts which God vouchsafed to mankind after they had
fallen away by sin, the chief is that He gave His Son; wherefore it is
written (Jn. 3:16): "God so loved the world, as to give His
only-begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in Him, may not perish, but
may have life everlasting. " Consequently the chief sacrifice is that
whereby Christ Himself "delivered Himself . . . to God for an odor of
sweetness" (Eph. 5:2). And for this reason all the other sacrifices of
the Old Law were offered up in order to foreshadow this one individual
and paramount sacrifice---the imperfect forecasting the perfect. Hence
the Apostle says (Heb. 10:11) that the priest of the Old Law "often"
offered "the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but"
Christ offered "one sacrifice for sins, for ever. " And since the reason
of the figure is taken from that which the figure represents, therefore
the reasons of the figurative sacrifices of the Old Law should be taken
from the true sacrifice of Christ.
Reply to Objection 1: God did not wish these sacrifices to be offered
to Him on account of the things themselves that were offered, as though
He stood in need of them: wherefore it is written (Is. 1:11): "I desire
not holocausts of rams, and fat of fatlings, and blood of calves and
lambs and buckgoats. " But, as stated above, He wished them to be
offered to Him, in order to prevent idolatry; in order to signify the
right ordering of man's mind to God; and in order to represent the
mystery of the Redemption of man by Christ.
Reply to Objection 2: In all the respects mentioned above (ad 1), there
was a suitable reason for these animals, rather than others, being
offered in sacrifice to God. First, in order to prevent idolatry.
Because idolaters offered all other animals to their gods, or made use
of them in their sorceries: while the Egyptians (among whom the people
had been dwelling) considered it abominable to slay these animals,
wherefore they used not to offer them in sacrifice to their gods. Hence
it is written (Ex. 8:26): "We shall sacrifice the abominations of the
Egyptians to the Lord our God. " For they worshipped the sheep; they
reverenced the ram (because demons appeared under the form thereof);
while they employed oxen for agriculture, which was reckoned by them as
something sacred.
Secondly, this was suitable for the aforesaid right ordering of man's
mind to God: and in two ways. First, because it is chiefly by means of
these animals that human life is sustained: and moreover they are most
clean, and partake of a most clean food: whereas other animals are
either wild, and not deputed to ordinary use among men: or, if they be
tame, they have unclean food, as pigs and geese: and nothing but what
is clean should be offered to God. These birds especially were offered
in sacrifice because there were plenty of them in the land of promise.
Secondly, because the sacrificing of these animals represented purity
of heart. Because as the gloss says on Lev. 1, "We offer a calf, when
we overcome the pride of the flesh; a lamb, when we restrain our
unreasonable motions; a goat, when we conquer wantonness; a turtledove,
when we keep chaste; unleavened bread, when we feast on the unleavened
bread of sincerity. " And it is evident that the dove denotes charity
and simplicity of heart.
Thirdly, it was fitting that these animals should be offered, that they
might foreshadow Christ. Because, as the gloss observes, "Christ is
offered in the calf, to denote the strength of the cross; in the lamb,
to signify His innocence; in the ram, to foreshadow His headship; and
in the goat, to signify the likeness of 'sinful flesh' [*An allusion to
Col. 2:11 (Textus Receptus)]. The turtledove and dove denoted the union
of the two natures"; or else the turtledove signified chastity; while
the dove was a figure of charity. "The wheat-flour foreshadowed the
sprinkling of believers with the water of Baptism. "
Reply to Objection 3: Fish through living in water are further removed
from man than other animals, which, like man, live in the air. Again,
fish die as soon as they are taken out of water; hence they could not
be offered in the temple like other animals.
Reply to Objection 4: Among turtledoves the older ones are better than
the young; while with doves the case is the reverse. Wherefore, as
Rabbi Moses observes (Doct. Perplex. iii), turtledoves and young doves
are commanded to be offered, because nothing should be offered to God
but what is best.
Reply to Objection 5: The animals which were offered in sacrifice were
slain, because it is by being killed that they become useful to man,
forasmuch as God gave them to man for food. Wherefore also they were
burnt with fire: because it is by being cooked that they are made fit
for human consumption. Moreover the slaying of the animals signified
the destruction of sins: and also that man deserved death on account of
his sins; as though those animals were slain in man's stead, in order
to betoken the expiation of sins. Again the slaying of these animals
signified the slaying of Christ.
Reply to Objection 6: The Law fixed the special manner of slaying the
sacrificial animals in order to exclude other ways of killing, whereby
idolaters sacrificed animals to idols. Or again, as Rabbi Moses says
(Doct. Perplex. iii), "the Law chose that manner of slaying which was
least painful to the slain animal. " This excluded cruelty on the part
of the offerers, and any mangling of the animals slain.
Reply to Objection 7: It is because unclean animals are wont to be held
in contempt among men, that it was forbidden to offer them in sacrifice
to God: and for this reason too they were forbidden (Dt. 23:18) to
offer "the hire of a strumpet or the price of a dog in the house of . .
. God. " For the same reason they did not offer animals before the
seventh day, because such were abortive as it were, the flesh being not
yet firm on account of its exceeding softness.
Reply to Objection 8: There were three kinds of sacrifices. There was
one in which the victim was entirely consumed by fire: this was called
"a holocaust, i. e. all burnt. " For this kind of sacrifice was offered
to God specially to show reverence to His majesty, and love of His
goodness: and typified the state of perfection as regards the
fulfilment of the counsels. Wherefore the whole was burnt up: so that
as the whole animal by being dissolved into vapor soared aloft, so it
might denote that the whole man, and whatever belongs to him, are
subject to the authority of God, and should be offered to Him.
Another sacrifice was the "sin-offering," which was offered to God on
account of man's need for the forgiveness of sin: and this typifies the
state of penitents in satisfying for sins. It was divided into two
parts: for one part was burnt; while the other was granted to the use
of the priests to signify that remission of sins is granted by God
through the ministry of His priests. When, however, this sacrifice was
offered for the sins of the whole people, or specially for the sin of
the priest, the whole victim was burnt up. For it was not fitting that
the priests should have the use of that which was offered for their own
sins, to signify that nothing sinful should remain in them. Moreover,
this would not be satisfaction for sin: for if the offering were
granted to the use of those for whose sins it was offered, it would
seem to be the same as if it had not been offered.
The third kind of sacrifice was called the "peace-offering," which was
offered to God, either in thanksgiving, or for the welfare and
prosperity of the offerers, in acknowledgment of benefits already
received or yet to be received: and this typifies the state of those
who are proficient in the observance of the commandments. These
sacrifices were divided into three parts: for one part was burnt in
honor of God; another part was allotted to the use of the priests; and
the third part to the use of the offerers; in order to signify that
man's salvation is from God, by the direction of God's ministers, and
through the cooperation of those who are saved.
But it was the universal rule that the blood and fat were not allotted
to the use either of the priests or of the offerers: the blood being
poured out at the foot of the altar, in honor of God, while the fat was
burnt upon the altar (Lev. 9:9,10). The reason for this was, first, in
order to prevent idolatry: because idolaters used to drink the blood
and eat the fat of the victims, according to Dt. 32:38: "Of whose
victims they eat the fat, and drank the wine of their drink-offerings. "
Secondly, in order to form them to a right way of living. For they were
forbidden the use of the blood that they might abhor the shedding of
human blood; wherefore it is written (Gn. 9:4,5): "Flesh with blood you
shall not eat: for I will require the blood of your lives": and they
were forbidden to eat the fat, in order to withdraw them from
lasciviousness; hence it is written (Ezech. 34:3): "You have killed
that which was fat. " Thirdly, on account of the reverence due to God:
because blood is most necessary for life, for which reason "life" is
said to be "in the blood" (Lev. 17:11, 14): while fat is a sign of
abundant nourishment. Wherefore, in order to show that to God we owe
both life and a sufficiency of all good things, the blood was poured
out, and the fat burnt up in His honor. Fourthly, in order to
foreshadow the shedding of Christ's blood, and the abundance of His
charity, whereby He offered Himself to God for us.
In the peace-offerings, the breast-bone and the right shoulder were
allotted to the use of the priest, in order to prevent a certain kind
of divination which is known as "spatulamantia," so called because it
was customary in divining to use the shoulder-blade [spatula], and the
breast-bone of the animals offered in sacrifice; wherefore these things
were taken away from the offerers. This is also denoted the priest's
need of wisdom in the heart, to instruct the people---this was
signified by the breast-bone, which covers the heart; and his need of
fortitude, in order to bear with human frailty---and this was signified
by the right shoulder.
Reply to Objection 9: Because the holocaust was the most perfect kind
of sacrifice, therefore none but a male was offered for a holocaust:
because the female is an imperfect animal. The offering of turtledoves
and doves was on account of the poverty of the offerers, who were
unable to offer bigger animals. And since peace-victims were offered
freely, and no one was bound to offer them against his will, hence
these birds were offered not among the peace-victims, but among the
holocausts and victims for sin, which man was obliged to offer at
times. Moreover these birds, on account of their lofty flight, while
befitting the perfection of the holocausts: and were suitable for
sin-offerings because their song is doleful.
Reply to Objection 10: The holocaust was the chief of all the
sacrifices: because all were burnt in honor of God, and nothing of it
was eaten. The second place in holiness, belongs to the sacrifice for
sins, which was eaten in the court only, and on the very day of the
sacrifice (Lev. 7:6, 15). The third place must be given to the
peace-offerings of thanksgiving, which were eaten on the same day, but
anywhere in Jerusalem. Fourth in order were the "ex-voto"
peace-offerings, the flesh of which could be eaten even on the morrow.
The reason for this order is that man is bound to God, chiefly on
account of His majesty; secondly, on account of the sins he has
committed; thirdly, because of the benefits he has already received
from Him; fourthly, by reason of the benefits he hopes to receive from
Him.
Reply to Objection 11: Sins are more grievous by reason of the state of
the sinner, as stated above ([2115]Q[73], A[10]): wherefore different
victims are commanded to be offered for the sin of a priest, or of a
prince, or of some other private individual. "But," as Rabbi Moses says
(Doct. Perplex. iii), "we must take note that the more grievous the
sin, the lower the species of animals offered for it. Wherefore the
goat, which is a very base animal, was offered for idolatry; while a
calf was offered for a priest's ignorance, and a ram for the negligence
of a prince. "
Reply to Objection 12: In the matter of sacrifices the Law had in view
the poverty of the offerers; so that those who could not have a
four-footed animal at their disposal, might at least offer a bird; and
that he who could not have a bird might at least offer bread; and that
if a man had not even bread he might offer flour or ears of corn.
The figurative cause is that the bread signifies Christ Who is the
"living bread" (Jn. 6:41, 51). He was indeed an ear of corn, as it
were, during the state of the law of nature, in the faith of the
patriarchs; He was like flour in the doctrine of the Law of the
prophets; and He was like perfect bread after He had taken human
nature; baked in the fire, i. e. formed by the Holy Ghost in the oven of
the virginal womb; baked again in a pan by the toils which He suffered
in the world; and consumed by fire on the cross as on a gridiron.
Reply to Objection 13: The products of the soil are useful to man,
either as food, and of these bread was offered; or as drink, and of
these wine was offered; or as seasoning, and of these oil and salt were
offered; or as healing, and of these they offered incense, which both
smells sweetly and binds easily together.
Now the bread foreshadowed the flesh of Christ; and the wine, His
blood, whereby we were redeemed; oil betokens the grace of Christ;
salt, His knowledge; incense, His prayer.
Reply to Objection 14: Honey was not offered in the sacrifices to God,
both because it was wont to be offered in the sacrifices to idols; and
in order to denote the absence of all carnal sweetness and pleasure
from those who intend to sacrifice to God. Leaven was not offered, to
denote the exclusion of corruption. Perhaps too, it was wont to be
offered in the sacrifices to idols.
Salt, however, was offered, because it wards off the corruption of
putrefaction: for sacrifices offered to God should be incorrupt.
Moreover, salt signifies the discretion of wisdom, or again,
mortification of the flesh.
Incense was offered to denote devotion of the heart, which is necessary
in the offerer; and again, to signify the odor of a good name: for
incense is composed of matter, both rich and fragrant. And since the
sacrifice "of jealousy" did not proceed from devotion, but rather from
suspicion, therefore incense was not offered therein (Num. 5:15).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether sufficient reason can be assigned for the ceremonies pertaining to
holy things?
Objection 1: It would seem that no sufficient reason can be assigned
for the ceremonies of the Old Law that pertain to holy things. For Paul
said (Acts 17:24): "God Who made the world and all things therein; He
being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made by hands. "
It was therefore unfitting that in the Old Law a tabernacle or temple
should be set up for the worship of God.
Objection 2: Further, the state of the Old Law was not changed except
by Christ. But the tabernacle denoted the state of the Old Law.
Therefore it should not have been changed by the building of a temple.
Objection 3: Further, the Divine Law, more than any other indeed,
should lead man to the worship of God. But an increase of divine
worship requires multiplication of altars and temples; as is evident in
regard to the New Law. Therefore it seems that also under the Old Law
there should have been not only one tabernacle or temple, but many.
Objection 4: Further, the tabernacle or temple was ordained to the
worship of God. But in God we should worship above all His unity and
simplicity. Therefore it seems unbecoming for the tabernacle or temple
to be divided by means of veils.
Objection 5: Further, the power of the First Mover, i. e. God, appears
first of all in the east, for it is in that quarter that the first
movement begins. But the tabernacle was set up for the worship of God.
Therefore it should have been built so as to point to the east rather
than the west.
Objection 6: Further, the Lord commanded (Ex. 20:4) that they should
"not make . . . a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything. " It was
therefore unfitting for graven images of the cherubim to be set up in
the tabernacle or temple. In like manner, the ark, the propitiatory,
the candlestick, the table, the two altars, seem to have been placed
there without reasonable cause.
Objection 7: Further, the Lord commanded (Ex. 20:24): "You shall make
an altar of earth unto Me": and again (Ex. 20:26): "Thou shalt not go
up by steps unto My altar. " It was therefore unfitting that
subsequently they should be commanded to make an altar of wood laid
over with gold or brass; and of such a height that it was impossible to
go up to it except by steps. For it is written (Ex. 27:1,2): "Thou
shalt make also an altar of setim wood, which shall be five cubits
long, and as many broad . . . and three cubits high . . . and thou
shalt cover it with brass": and (Ex. 30:1, 3): "Thou shalt make . . .
an altar to burn incense, of setim wood . . . and thou shalt overlay it
with the purest gold. "
Objection 8: Further, in God's works nothing should be superfluous; for
not even in the works of nature is anything superfluous to be found.
But one cover suffices for one tabernacle or house. Therefore it was
unbecoming to furnish the tabernacle with many coverings, viz.
curtains, curtains of goats' hair, rams' skins dyed red, and
violet-colored skins (Ex. 26).
Objection 9: Further, exterior consecration signifies interior
holiness, the subject of which is the soul. It was therefore unsuitable
for the tabernacle and its vessels to be consecrated, since they were
inanimate things.
Objection 10: Further, it is written (Ps. 33:2): "I will bless the Lord
at all times, His praise shall always be in my mouth. " But the solemn
festivals were instituted for the praise of God. Therefore it was not
fitting that certain days should be fixed for keeping solemn festivals;
so that it seems that there was no suitable cause for the ceremonies
relating to holy things.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Heb. 8:4) that those who "offer
gifts according to the law . . . serve unto the example and shadow of
heavenly things. As it was answered to Moses, when he was to finish the
tabernacle: See, says He, that thou make all things according to the
pattern which was shown thee on the mount. " But that is most
reasonable, which presents a likeness to heavenly things. Therefore the
ceremonies relating to holy things had a reasonable cause.
I answer that, The chief purpose of the whole external worship is that
man may give worship to God. Now man's tendency is to reverence less
those things which are common, and indistinct from other things;
whereas he admires and reveres those things which are distinct from
others in some point of excellence. Hence too it is customary among men
for kings and princes, who ought to be reverenced by their subjects, to
be clothed in more precious garments, and to possess vaster and more
beautiful abodes. And for this reason it behooved special times, a
special abode, special vessels, and special ministers to be appointed
for the divine worship, so that thereby the soul of man might be
brought to greater reverence for God.
In like manner the state of the Old Law, as observed above [2116](A[2];
Q[100] , A[12]; Q[101], A[2]), was instituted that it might foreshadow
the mystery of Christ. Now that which foreshadows something should be
determinate, so that it may present some likeness thereto.
Consequently, certain special points had to be observed in matters
pertaining to the worship of God.
Reply to Objection 1: The divine worship regards two things: namely,
God Who is worshipped; and men, who worship Him. Accordingly God, Who
is worshipped, is confined to no bodily place: wherefore there was no
need, on His part, for a tabernacle or temple to be set up. But men,
who worship Him, are corporeal beings: and for their sake there was
need for a special tabernacle or temple to be set up for the worship of
God, for two reasons. First, that through coming together with the
thought that the place was set aside for the worship of God, they might
approach thither with greater reverence. Secondly, that certain things
relating to the excellence of Christ's Divine or human nature might be
signified by the arrangement of various details in such temple or
tabernacle.
To this Solomon refers (3 Kings 8:27) when he says: "If heaven and the
heavens of heavens cannot contain Thee, how much less this house which
I have built" for Thee? And further on (3 Kings 8:29, 20) he adds:
"That Thy eyes may be open upon this house . . . of which Thou hast
said: My name shall be there; . . . that Thou mayest hearken to the
supplication of Thy servant and of Thy people Israel. " From this it is
evident that the house of the sanctuary was set up, not in order to
contain God, as abiding therein locally, but that God might be made
known there by means of things done and said there; and that those who
prayed there might, through reverence for the place, pray more
devoutly, so as to be heard more readily.
Reply to Objection 2: Before the coming of Christ, the state of the Old
Law was not changed as regards the fulfilment of the Law, which was
effected in Christ alone: but it was changed as regards the condition
of the people that were under the Law. Because, at first, the people
were in the desert, having no fixed abode: afterwards they were engaged
in various wars with the neighboring nations; and lastly, at the time
of David and Solomon, the state of that people was one of great peace.
And then for the first time the temple was built in the place which
Abraham, instructed by God, had chosen for the purpose of sacrifice.
For it is written (Gn. 22:2) that the Lord commanded Abraham to "offer"
his son "for a holocaust upon one of the mountains which I will show
thee": and it is related further on (Gn. 22:14) that "he calleth the
name of that place, The Lord seeth," as though, according to the Divine
prevision, that place were chosen for the worship of God. Hence it is
written (Dt. 12:5,6): "You shall come to the place which the Lord your
God shall choose . . . and you shall offer . . . your holocausts and
victims. "
Now it was not meet for that place to be pointed out by the building of
the temple before the aforesaid time; for three reasons assigned by
Rabbi Moses. First, lest the Gentiles might seize hold of that place.
Secondly, lest the Gentiles might destroy it. The third reason is lest
each tribe might wish that place to fall to their lot, and strifes and
quarrels be the result. Hence the temple was not built until they had a
king who would be able to quell such quarrels. Until that time a
portable tabernacle was employed for divine worship, no place being as
yet fixed for the worship of God.
and the same may be said of the oblations and gifts, as appears from
the words of the Apostle (Heb. 9:9): and yet these do not seem to be
inclined in any of those mentioned above. Therefore the above division
of ceremonies is unsuitable.
On the contrary, In the Old Law each of the above is called a ceremony.
For the sacrifices are called ceremonies (Num. 15:24): "They shall
offer a calf . . . and the sacrifices and libations thereof, as the
ceremonies require. " Of the sacrament of Order it is written (Lev.
7:35): "This is the anointing of Aaron and his sons in the ceremonies. "
Of sacred things also it is written (Ex. 38:21): "These are the
instruments of the tabernacle of the testimony . . . in the ceremonies
of the Levites. " And again of the observances it is written (3 Kings
9:6): "If you . . . shall turn away from following Me, and will not
observe [Douay: 'keep'] My . . . ceremonies which I have set before
you. "
I answer that, As stated above ([2110]AA[1],2), the ceremonial precepts
are ordained to the Divine worship. Now in this worship we may consider
the worship itself, the worshippers, and the instruments of worship.
The worship consists specially in "sacrifices," which are offered up in
honor of God. The instruments of worship refer to the "sacred things,"
such as the tabernacle, the vessels and so forth. With regard to the
worshippers two points may be considered. The first point is their
preparation for Divine worship, which is effected by a sort of
consecration either of the people or of the ministers; and to this the
"sacraments" refer. The second point is their particular mode of life,
whereby they are distinguished from those who do not worship God: and
to this pertain the "observances," for instance, in matters of food,
clothing, and so forth.
Reply to Objection 1: It was necessary for the sacrifices to be offered
both in some certain place and by some certain men: and all this
pertained to the worship of God. Wherefore just as their sacrifices
signified Christ the victim, so too their sacraments and sacred things
of the New Law; while their observances foreshadowed the mode of life
of the people under the New Law: all of which things pertain to Christ.
Reply to Objection 2: The sacrifice of the New Law, viz. the Eucharist,
contains Christ Himself, the Author of our Sanctification: for He
sanctified "the people by His own blood" (Heb. 13:12). Hence this
Sacrifice is also a sacrament. But the sacrifices of the Old Law did
not contain Christ, but foreshadowed Him; hence they are not called
sacraments. In order to signify this there were certain sacraments
apart from the sacrifices of the Old Law, which sacraments were figures
of the sanctification to come. Nevertheless to certain consecrations
certain sacrifices were united.
Reply to Objection 3: The sacrifices and sacraments were of course
sacred things. But certain things were sacred, through being dedicated
to the Divine worship, and yet were not sacrifices or sacraments:
wherefore they retained the common designation of sacred things.
Reply to Objection 4: Those things which pertained to the mode of life
of the people who worshipped God, retained the common designation of
observances, in so far as they fell short of the above. For they were
not called sacred things, because they had no immediate connection with
the worship of God, such as the tabernacle and its vessels had. But by
a sort of consequence they were matters of ceremony, in so far as they
affected the fitness of the people who worshipped God.
Reply to Objection 5: Just as the sacrifices were offered in a fixed
place, so were they offered at fixed times: for which reason the solemn
festivals seem to be reckoned among the sacred things. The oblations
and gifts are counted together with the sacrifices; hence the Apostle
says (Heb. 5:1): "Every high-priest taken from among men, is ordained
for men in things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and
sacrifices. "
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE CAUSES OF THE CEREMONIAL PRECEPTS (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider the causes of the ceremonial precepts: under which
head there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether there was any cause for the ceremonial precepts?
(2) Whether the cause of the ceremonial precepts was literal or
figurative?
(3) The causes of the sacrifices;
(4) The causes of the sacrifices;
(5) The causes of the sacred things;
(6) The causes of the observances.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there was any cause for the ceremonial precepts?
Objection 1: It would seem that there was no cause for the ceremonial
precepts. Because on Eph. 2:15, "Making void the law of the
commandments," the gloss says, (i. e. ) "making void the Old Law as to
the carnal observances, by substituting decrees, i. e. evangelical
precepts, which are based on reason. " But if the observances of the Old
Law were based on reason, it would have been useless to void them by
the reasonable decrees of the New Law. Therefore there was no reason
for the ceremonial observances of the Old Law.
Objection 2: Further, the Old Law succeeded the law of nature. But in
the law of nature there was a precept for which there was no reason
save that man's obedience might be tested; as Augustine says (Gen. ad
lit. viii, 6,13), concerning the prohibition about the tree of life.
Therefore in the Old Law there should have been some precepts for the
purpose of testing man's obedience, having no reason in themselves.
Objection 3: Further, man's works are called moral according as they
proceed from reason. If therefore there is any reason for the
ceremonial precepts, they would not differ from the moral precepts. It
seems therefore that there was no cause for the ceremonial precepts:
for the reason of a precept is taken from some cause.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 18:9): "The commandment of the Lord
is lightsome, enlightening the eyes. " But the ceremonial precepts are
commandments of God. Therefore they are lightsome: and yet they would
not be so, if they had no reasonable cause. Therefore the ceremonial
precepts have a reasonable cause.
I answer that, Since, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. i, 2), it
is the function of a "wise man to do everything in order," those things
which proceed from the Divine wisdom must needs be well ordered, as the
Apostle states (Rom. 13:1). Now there are two conditions required for
things to be well ordered. First, that they be ordained to their due
end, which is the principle of the whole order in matters of action:
since those things that happen by chance outside the intention of the
end, or which are not done seriously but for fun, are said to be
inordinate. Secondly, that which is done in view of the end should be
proportionate to the end. From this it follows that the reason for
whatever conduces to the end is taken from the end: thus the reason for
the disposition of a saw is taken from cutting, which is its end, as
stated in Phys. ii, 9. Now it is evident that the ceremonial precepts,
like all the other precepts of the Law, were institutions of Divine
wisdom: hence it is written (Dt. 4:6): "This is your wisdom and
understanding in the sight of nations. " Consequently we must needs say
that the ceremonial precepts were ordained to a certain end, wherefrom
their reasonable causes can be gathered.
Reply to Objection 1: It may be said there was no reason for the
observances of the Old Law, in the sense that there was no reason in
the very nature of the thing done: for instance that a garment should
not be made of wool and linen. But there could be a reason for them in
relation to something else: namely, in so far as something was
signified or excluded thereby. On the other hand, the decrees of the
New Law, which refer chiefly to faith and the love of God, are
reasonable from the very nature of the act.
Reply to Objection 2: The reason for the prohibition concerning the
tree of knowledge of good and evil was not that this tree was naturally
evil: and yet this prohibition was reasonable in its relation to
something else, in as much as it signified something. And so also the
ceremonial precepts of the Old Law were reasonable on account of their
relation to something else.
Reply to Objection 3: The moral precepts in their very nature have
reasonable causes: as for instance, "Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt
not steal. " But the ceremonial precepts have a reasonable cause in
their relation to something else, as stated above.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the ceremonial precepts have a literal cause or merely a figurative
cause?
Objection 1: It would seem that the ceremonial precepts have not a
literal, but merely a figurative cause. For among the ceremonial
precepts, the chief was circumcision and the sacrifice of the paschal
lamb. But neither of these had any but a figurative cause: because each
was given as a sign. For it is written (Gn. 17:11): "You shall
circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be a sign of the
covenant between Me and you": and of the celebration of the Passover it
is written (Ex. 13:9): "It shall be as a sign in thy hand, and as a
memorial before thy eyes. " Therefore much more did the other ceremonial
precepts have none but a figurative reason.
Objection 2: Further, an effect is proportionate to its cause. But all
the ceremonial precepts are figurative, as stated above ([2111]Q[101],
A[2]). Therefore they have no other than a figurative cause.
Objection 3: Further, if it be a matter of indifference whether a
certain thing, considered in itself, be done in a particular way or
not, it seems that it has not a literal cause. Now there are certain
points in the ceremonial precepts, which appear to be a matter of
indifference, as to whether they be done in one way or in another: for
instance, the number of animals to be offered, and other such
particular circumstances. Therefore there is no literal cause for the
precepts of the Old Law.
On the contrary, Just as the ceremonial precepts foreshadowed Christ,
so did the stories of the Old Testament: for it is written (1 Cor.
10:11) that "all (these things) happened to them in figure. " Now in the
stories of the Old Testament, besides the mystical or figurative, there
is the literal sense. Therefore the ceremonial precepts had also
literal, besides their figurative causes.
I answer that, As stated above [2112](A[1]), the reason for whatever
conduces to an end must be taken from that end. Now the end of the
ceremonial precepts was twofold: for they were ordained to the Divine
worship, for that particular time, and to the foreshadowing of Christ;
just as the words of the prophets regarded the time being in such a way
as to be utterances figurative of the time to come, as Jerome says on
Osee 1:3. Accordingly the reasons for the ceremonial precepts of the
Old Law can be taken in two ways. First, in respect of the Divine
worship which was to be observed for that particular time: and these
reasons are literal: whether they refer to the shunning of idolatry; or
recall certain Divine benefits; or remind men of the Divine excellence;
or point out the disposition of mind which was then required in those
who worshipped God. Secondly, their reasons can be gathered from the
point of view of their being ordained to foreshadow Christ: and thus
their reasons are figurative and mystical: whether they be taken from
Christ Himself and the Church, which pertains to the allegorical sense;
or to the morals of the Christian people, which pertains to the moral
sense; or to the state of future glory, in as much as we are brought
thereto by Christ, which refers to the anagogical sense.
Reply to Objection 1: Just as the use of metaphorical expressions in
Scripture belongs to the literal sense, because the words are employed
in order to convey that particular meaning; so also the meaning of
those legal ceremonies which commemorated certain Divine benefits, on
account of which they were instituted, and of others similar which
belonged to that time, does not go beyond the order of literal causes.
Consequently when we assert that the cause of the celebration of the
Passover was its signification of the delivery from Egypt, or that
circumcision was a sign of God's covenant with Abraham, we assign the
literal cause.
Reply to Objection 2: This argument would avail if the ceremonial
precepts had been given merely as figures of things to come, and not
for the purpose of worshipping God then and there.
Reply to Objection 3: As we have stated when speaking of human laws
([2113]Q[96], AA[1] ,6), there is a reason for them in the abstract,
but not in regard to particular conditions, which depend on the
judgment of those who frame them; so also many particular
determinations in the ceremonies of the Old Law have no literal cause,
but only a figurative cause; whereas in the abstract they have a
literal cause.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a suitable cause can be assigned for the ceremonies which pertained
to sacrifices?
Objection 1: It would seem that no suitable cause can be assigned for
the ceremonies pertaining to sacrifices. For those things which were
offered in sacrifice, are those which are necessary for sustaining
human life: such as certain animals and certain loaves. But God needs
no such sustenance; according to Ps. 49:13: "Shall I eat the flesh of
bullocks? Or shall I drink the blood of goats? " Therefore such
sacrifices were unfittingly offered to God.
Objection 2: Further, only three kinds of quadrupeds were offered in
sacrifice to God, viz. oxen, sheep and goats; of birds, generally the
turtledove and the dove; but specially, in the cleansing of a leper, an
offering was made of sparrows. Now many other animals are more noble
than these. Since therefore whatever is best should be offered to God,
it seems that not only of these three should sacrifices have been
offered to Him.
Objection 3: Further, just as man has received from God the dominion
over birds and beasts, so also has he received dominion over fishes.
Consequently it was unfitting for fishes to be excluded from the divine
sacrifices.
Objection 4: Further, turtledoves and doves indifferently are commanded
to be offered up. Since then the young of the dove are commanded to be
offered, so also should the young of the turtledove.
Objection 5: Further, God is the Author of life, not only of men, but
also of animals, as is clear from Gn. 1:20, seqq. Now death is opposed
to life. Therefore it was fitting that living animals rather than slain
animals should be offered to God, especially as the Apostle admonishes
us (Rom. 12:1), to present our bodies "a living sacrifice, holy,
pleasing unto God. "
Objection 6: Further, if none but slain animals were offered in
sacrifice to God, it seems that it mattered not how they were slain.
Therefore it was unfitting that the manner of immolation should be
determined, especially as regards birds (Lev. 1:15, seqq. ).
Objection 7: Further, every defect in an animal is a step towards
corruption and death. If therefore slain animals were offered to God,
it was unreasonable to forbid the offering of an imperfect animal, e. g.
a lame, or a blind, or otherwise defective animal.
Objection 8: Further, those who offer victims to God should partake
thereof, according to the words of the Apostle (1 Cor. 10:18): "Are not
they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? " It was
therefore unbecoming for the offerers to be denied certain parts of the
victims, namely, the blood, the fat, the breastbone and the right
shoulder.
Objection 9: Further, just as holocausts were offered up in honor of
God, so also were the peace-offerings and sin-offerings. But no female
animals was offered up to God as a holocaust, although holocausts were
offered of both quadrupeds and birds. Therefore it was inconsistent
that female animals should be offered up in peace-offerings and
sin-offerings, and that nevertheless birds should not be offered up in
peace-offerings.
Objection 10: Further, all the peace-offerings seem to be of one kind.
Therefore it was unfitting to make a distinction among them, so that it
was forbidden to eat the flesh of certain peace-offerings on the
following day, while it was allowed to eat the flesh of other
peace-offerings, as laid down in Lev. 7:15, seqq.
Objection 11: Further, all sins agree in turning us from God.
Therefore, in order to reconcile us to God, one kind of sacrifice
should have been offered up for all sins.
Objection 12: Further, all animals that were offered up in sacrifice,
were offered up in one way, viz. slain. Therefore it does not seem to
be suitable that products of the soil should be offered up in various
ways; for sometimes an offering was made of ears of corn, sometimes of
flour, sometimes of bread, this being baked sometimes in an oven,
sometimes in a pan, sometimes on a gridiron.
Objection 13: Further, whatever things are serviceable to us should be
recognized as coming from God. It was therefore unbecoming that besides
animals, nothing but bread, wine, oil, incense, and salt should be
offered to God.
Objection 14: Further, bodily sacrifices denote the inward sacrifice of
the heart, whereby man offers his soul to God. But in the inward
sacrifice, the sweetness, which is denoted by honey, surpasses the
pungency which salt represents; for it is written (Ecclus. 24:27): "My
spirit is sweet above honey. " Therefore it was unbecoming that the use
of honey, and of leaven which makes bread savory, should be forbidden
in a sacrifice; while the use was prescribed, of salt which is pungent,
and of incense which has a bitter taste. Consequently it seems that
things pertaining to the ceremonies of the sacrifices have no
reasonable cause.
On the contrary, It is written (Lev. 1:13): "The priest shall offer it
all and burn it all upon the altar, for a holocaust, and most sweet
savor to the Lord. " Now according to Wis. 7:28, "God loveth none but
him that dwelleth with wisdom": whence it seems to follow that whatever
is acceptable to God is wisely done. Therefore these ceremonies of the
sacrifices were wisely done, as having reasonable causes.
I answer that, As stated above [2114](A[2]), the ceremonies of the Old
Law had a twofold cause, viz. a literal cause, according as they were
intended for Divine worship; and a figurative or mystical cause,
according as they were intended to foreshadow Christ: and on either
hand the ceremonies pertaining to the sacrifices can be assigned to a
fitting cause.
For, according as the ceremonies of the sacrifices were intended for
the divine worship, the causes of the sacrifices can be taken in two
ways. First, in so far as the sacrifice represented the directing of
the mind to God, to which the offerer of the sacrifice was stimulated.
Now in order to direct his mind to God aright, man must recognize that
whatever he has is from God as from its first principle, and direct it
to God as its last end. This was denoted in the offerings and
sacrifices, by the fact that man offered some of his own belongings in
honor of God, as though in recognition of his having received them from
God, according to the saying of David (1 Paral. xxix, 14): "All things
are Thine: and we have given Thee what we received of Thy hand. "
Wherefore in offering up sacrifices man made protestation that God is
the first principle of the creation of all things, and their last end,
to which all things must be directed. And since, for the human mind to
be directed to God aright, it must recognize no first author of things
other than God, nor place its end in any other; for this reason it was
forbidden in the Law to offer sacrifice to any other but God, according
to Ex. 22:20: "He that sacrificeth to gods, shall be put to death, save
only to the Lord. " Wherefore another reasonable cause may be assigned
to the ceremonies of the sacrifices, from the fact that thereby men
were withdrawn from offering sacrifices to idols. Hence too it is that
the precepts about the sacrifices were not given to the Jewish people
until after they had fallen into idolatry, by worshipping the molten
calf: as though those sacrifices were instituted, that the people,
being ready to offer sacrifices, might offer those sacrifices to God
rather than to idols. Thus it is written (Jer. 7:22): "I spake not to
your fathers and I commanded them not, in the day that I brought them
out of the land of Egypt, concerning the matter of burnt-offerings and
sacrifices. "
Now of all the gifts which God vouchsafed to mankind after they had
fallen away by sin, the chief is that He gave His Son; wherefore it is
written (Jn. 3:16): "God so loved the world, as to give His
only-begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in Him, may not perish, but
may have life everlasting. " Consequently the chief sacrifice is that
whereby Christ Himself "delivered Himself . . . to God for an odor of
sweetness" (Eph. 5:2). And for this reason all the other sacrifices of
the Old Law were offered up in order to foreshadow this one individual
and paramount sacrifice---the imperfect forecasting the perfect. Hence
the Apostle says (Heb. 10:11) that the priest of the Old Law "often"
offered "the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but"
Christ offered "one sacrifice for sins, for ever. " And since the reason
of the figure is taken from that which the figure represents, therefore
the reasons of the figurative sacrifices of the Old Law should be taken
from the true sacrifice of Christ.
Reply to Objection 1: God did not wish these sacrifices to be offered
to Him on account of the things themselves that were offered, as though
He stood in need of them: wherefore it is written (Is. 1:11): "I desire
not holocausts of rams, and fat of fatlings, and blood of calves and
lambs and buckgoats. " But, as stated above, He wished them to be
offered to Him, in order to prevent idolatry; in order to signify the
right ordering of man's mind to God; and in order to represent the
mystery of the Redemption of man by Christ.
Reply to Objection 2: In all the respects mentioned above (ad 1), there
was a suitable reason for these animals, rather than others, being
offered in sacrifice to God. First, in order to prevent idolatry.
Because idolaters offered all other animals to their gods, or made use
of them in their sorceries: while the Egyptians (among whom the people
had been dwelling) considered it abominable to slay these animals,
wherefore they used not to offer them in sacrifice to their gods. Hence
it is written (Ex. 8:26): "We shall sacrifice the abominations of the
Egyptians to the Lord our God. " For they worshipped the sheep; they
reverenced the ram (because demons appeared under the form thereof);
while they employed oxen for agriculture, which was reckoned by them as
something sacred.
Secondly, this was suitable for the aforesaid right ordering of man's
mind to God: and in two ways. First, because it is chiefly by means of
these animals that human life is sustained: and moreover they are most
clean, and partake of a most clean food: whereas other animals are
either wild, and not deputed to ordinary use among men: or, if they be
tame, they have unclean food, as pigs and geese: and nothing but what
is clean should be offered to God. These birds especially were offered
in sacrifice because there were plenty of them in the land of promise.
Secondly, because the sacrificing of these animals represented purity
of heart. Because as the gloss says on Lev. 1, "We offer a calf, when
we overcome the pride of the flesh; a lamb, when we restrain our
unreasonable motions; a goat, when we conquer wantonness; a turtledove,
when we keep chaste; unleavened bread, when we feast on the unleavened
bread of sincerity. " And it is evident that the dove denotes charity
and simplicity of heart.
Thirdly, it was fitting that these animals should be offered, that they
might foreshadow Christ. Because, as the gloss observes, "Christ is
offered in the calf, to denote the strength of the cross; in the lamb,
to signify His innocence; in the ram, to foreshadow His headship; and
in the goat, to signify the likeness of 'sinful flesh' [*An allusion to
Col. 2:11 (Textus Receptus)]. The turtledove and dove denoted the union
of the two natures"; or else the turtledove signified chastity; while
the dove was a figure of charity. "The wheat-flour foreshadowed the
sprinkling of believers with the water of Baptism. "
Reply to Objection 3: Fish through living in water are further removed
from man than other animals, which, like man, live in the air. Again,
fish die as soon as they are taken out of water; hence they could not
be offered in the temple like other animals.
Reply to Objection 4: Among turtledoves the older ones are better than
the young; while with doves the case is the reverse. Wherefore, as
Rabbi Moses observes (Doct. Perplex. iii), turtledoves and young doves
are commanded to be offered, because nothing should be offered to God
but what is best.
Reply to Objection 5: The animals which were offered in sacrifice were
slain, because it is by being killed that they become useful to man,
forasmuch as God gave them to man for food. Wherefore also they were
burnt with fire: because it is by being cooked that they are made fit
for human consumption. Moreover the slaying of the animals signified
the destruction of sins: and also that man deserved death on account of
his sins; as though those animals were slain in man's stead, in order
to betoken the expiation of sins. Again the slaying of these animals
signified the slaying of Christ.
Reply to Objection 6: The Law fixed the special manner of slaying the
sacrificial animals in order to exclude other ways of killing, whereby
idolaters sacrificed animals to idols. Or again, as Rabbi Moses says
(Doct. Perplex. iii), "the Law chose that manner of slaying which was
least painful to the slain animal. " This excluded cruelty on the part
of the offerers, and any mangling of the animals slain.
Reply to Objection 7: It is because unclean animals are wont to be held
in contempt among men, that it was forbidden to offer them in sacrifice
to God: and for this reason too they were forbidden (Dt. 23:18) to
offer "the hire of a strumpet or the price of a dog in the house of . .
. God. " For the same reason they did not offer animals before the
seventh day, because such were abortive as it were, the flesh being not
yet firm on account of its exceeding softness.
Reply to Objection 8: There were three kinds of sacrifices. There was
one in which the victim was entirely consumed by fire: this was called
"a holocaust, i. e. all burnt. " For this kind of sacrifice was offered
to God specially to show reverence to His majesty, and love of His
goodness: and typified the state of perfection as regards the
fulfilment of the counsels. Wherefore the whole was burnt up: so that
as the whole animal by being dissolved into vapor soared aloft, so it
might denote that the whole man, and whatever belongs to him, are
subject to the authority of God, and should be offered to Him.
Another sacrifice was the "sin-offering," which was offered to God on
account of man's need for the forgiveness of sin: and this typifies the
state of penitents in satisfying for sins. It was divided into two
parts: for one part was burnt; while the other was granted to the use
of the priests to signify that remission of sins is granted by God
through the ministry of His priests. When, however, this sacrifice was
offered for the sins of the whole people, or specially for the sin of
the priest, the whole victim was burnt up. For it was not fitting that
the priests should have the use of that which was offered for their own
sins, to signify that nothing sinful should remain in them. Moreover,
this would not be satisfaction for sin: for if the offering were
granted to the use of those for whose sins it was offered, it would
seem to be the same as if it had not been offered.
The third kind of sacrifice was called the "peace-offering," which was
offered to God, either in thanksgiving, or for the welfare and
prosperity of the offerers, in acknowledgment of benefits already
received or yet to be received: and this typifies the state of those
who are proficient in the observance of the commandments. These
sacrifices were divided into three parts: for one part was burnt in
honor of God; another part was allotted to the use of the priests; and
the third part to the use of the offerers; in order to signify that
man's salvation is from God, by the direction of God's ministers, and
through the cooperation of those who are saved.
But it was the universal rule that the blood and fat were not allotted
to the use either of the priests or of the offerers: the blood being
poured out at the foot of the altar, in honor of God, while the fat was
burnt upon the altar (Lev. 9:9,10). The reason for this was, first, in
order to prevent idolatry: because idolaters used to drink the blood
and eat the fat of the victims, according to Dt. 32:38: "Of whose
victims they eat the fat, and drank the wine of their drink-offerings. "
Secondly, in order to form them to a right way of living. For they were
forbidden the use of the blood that they might abhor the shedding of
human blood; wherefore it is written (Gn. 9:4,5): "Flesh with blood you
shall not eat: for I will require the blood of your lives": and they
were forbidden to eat the fat, in order to withdraw them from
lasciviousness; hence it is written (Ezech. 34:3): "You have killed
that which was fat. " Thirdly, on account of the reverence due to God:
because blood is most necessary for life, for which reason "life" is
said to be "in the blood" (Lev. 17:11, 14): while fat is a sign of
abundant nourishment. Wherefore, in order to show that to God we owe
both life and a sufficiency of all good things, the blood was poured
out, and the fat burnt up in His honor. Fourthly, in order to
foreshadow the shedding of Christ's blood, and the abundance of His
charity, whereby He offered Himself to God for us.
In the peace-offerings, the breast-bone and the right shoulder were
allotted to the use of the priest, in order to prevent a certain kind
of divination which is known as "spatulamantia," so called because it
was customary in divining to use the shoulder-blade [spatula], and the
breast-bone of the animals offered in sacrifice; wherefore these things
were taken away from the offerers. This is also denoted the priest's
need of wisdom in the heart, to instruct the people---this was
signified by the breast-bone, which covers the heart; and his need of
fortitude, in order to bear with human frailty---and this was signified
by the right shoulder.
Reply to Objection 9: Because the holocaust was the most perfect kind
of sacrifice, therefore none but a male was offered for a holocaust:
because the female is an imperfect animal. The offering of turtledoves
and doves was on account of the poverty of the offerers, who were
unable to offer bigger animals. And since peace-victims were offered
freely, and no one was bound to offer them against his will, hence
these birds were offered not among the peace-victims, but among the
holocausts and victims for sin, which man was obliged to offer at
times. Moreover these birds, on account of their lofty flight, while
befitting the perfection of the holocausts: and were suitable for
sin-offerings because their song is doleful.
Reply to Objection 10: The holocaust was the chief of all the
sacrifices: because all were burnt in honor of God, and nothing of it
was eaten. The second place in holiness, belongs to the sacrifice for
sins, which was eaten in the court only, and on the very day of the
sacrifice (Lev. 7:6, 15). The third place must be given to the
peace-offerings of thanksgiving, which were eaten on the same day, but
anywhere in Jerusalem. Fourth in order were the "ex-voto"
peace-offerings, the flesh of which could be eaten even on the morrow.
The reason for this order is that man is bound to God, chiefly on
account of His majesty; secondly, on account of the sins he has
committed; thirdly, because of the benefits he has already received
from Him; fourthly, by reason of the benefits he hopes to receive from
Him.
Reply to Objection 11: Sins are more grievous by reason of the state of
the sinner, as stated above ([2115]Q[73], A[10]): wherefore different
victims are commanded to be offered for the sin of a priest, or of a
prince, or of some other private individual. "But," as Rabbi Moses says
(Doct. Perplex. iii), "we must take note that the more grievous the
sin, the lower the species of animals offered for it. Wherefore the
goat, which is a very base animal, was offered for idolatry; while a
calf was offered for a priest's ignorance, and a ram for the negligence
of a prince. "
Reply to Objection 12: In the matter of sacrifices the Law had in view
the poverty of the offerers; so that those who could not have a
four-footed animal at their disposal, might at least offer a bird; and
that he who could not have a bird might at least offer bread; and that
if a man had not even bread he might offer flour or ears of corn.
The figurative cause is that the bread signifies Christ Who is the
"living bread" (Jn. 6:41, 51). He was indeed an ear of corn, as it
were, during the state of the law of nature, in the faith of the
patriarchs; He was like flour in the doctrine of the Law of the
prophets; and He was like perfect bread after He had taken human
nature; baked in the fire, i. e. formed by the Holy Ghost in the oven of
the virginal womb; baked again in a pan by the toils which He suffered
in the world; and consumed by fire on the cross as on a gridiron.
Reply to Objection 13: The products of the soil are useful to man,
either as food, and of these bread was offered; or as drink, and of
these wine was offered; or as seasoning, and of these oil and salt were
offered; or as healing, and of these they offered incense, which both
smells sweetly and binds easily together.
Now the bread foreshadowed the flesh of Christ; and the wine, His
blood, whereby we were redeemed; oil betokens the grace of Christ;
salt, His knowledge; incense, His prayer.
Reply to Objection 14: Honey was not offered in the sacrifices to God,
both because it was wont to be offered in the sacrifices to idols; and
in order to denote the absence of all carnal sweetness and pleasure
from those who intend to sacrifice to God. Leaven was not offered, to
denote the exclusion of corruption. Perhaps too, it was wont to be
offered in the sacrifices to idols.
Salt, however, was offered, because it wards off the corruption of
putrefaction: for sacrifices offered to God should be incorrupt.
Moreover, salt signifies the discretion of wisdom, or again,
mortification of the flesh.
Incense was offered to denote devotion of the heart, which is necessary
in the offerer; and again, to signify the odor of a good name: for
incense is composed of matter, both rich and fragrant. And since the
sacrifice "of jealousy" did not proceed from devotion, but rather from
suspicion, therefore incense was not offered therein (Num. 5:15).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether sufficient reason can be assigned for the ceremonies pertaining to
holy things?
Objection 1: It would seem that no sufficient reason can be assigned
for the ceremonies of the Old Law that pertain to holy things. For Paul
said (Acts 17:24): "God Who made the world and all things therein; He
being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made by hands. "
It was therefore unfitting that in the Old Law a tabernacle or temple
should be set up for the worship of God.
Objection 2: Further, the state of the Old Law was not changed except
by Christ. But the tabernacle denoted the state of the Old Law.
Therefore it should not have been changed by the building of a temple.
Objection 3: Further, the Divine Law, more than any other indeed,
should lead man to the worship of God. But an increase of divine
worship requires multiplication of altars and temples; as is evident in
regard to the New Law. Therefore it seems that also under the Old Law
there should have been not only one tabernacle or temple, but many.
Objection 4: Further, the tabernacle or temple was ordained to the
worship of God. But in God we should worship above all His unity and
simplicity. Therefore it seems unbecoming for the tabernacle or temple
to be divided by means of veils.
Objection 5: Further, the power of the First Mover, i. e. God, appears
first of all in the east, for it is in that quarter that the first
movement begins. But the tabernacle was set up for the worship of God.
Therefore it should have been built so as to point to the east rather
than the west.
Objection 6: Further, the Lord commanded (Ex. 20:4) that they should
"not make . . . a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything. " It was
therefore unfitting for graven images of the cherubim to be set up in
the tabernacle or temple. In like manner, the ark, the propitiatory,
the candlestick, the table, the two altars, seem to have been placed
there without reasonable cause.
Objection 7: Further, the Lord commanded (Ex. 20:24): "You shall make
an altar of earth unto Me": and again (Ex. 20:26): "Thou shalt not go
up by steps unto My altar. " It was therefore unfitting that
subsequently they should be commanded to make an altar of wood laid
over with gold or brass; and of such a height that it was impossible to
go up to it except by steps. For it is written (Ex. 27:1,2): "Thou
shalt make also an altar of setim wood, which shall be five cubits
long, and as many broad . . . and three cubits high . . . and thou
shalt cover it with brass": and (Ex. 30:1, 3): "Thou shalt make . . .
an altar to burn incense, of setim wood . . . and thou shalt overlay it
with the purest gold. "
Objection 8: Further, in God's works nothing should be superfluous; for
not even in the works of nature is anything superfluous to be found.
But one cover suffices for one tabernacle or house. Therefore it was
unbecoming to furnish the tabernacle with many coverings, viz.
curtains, curtains of goats' hair, rams' skins dyed red, and
violet-colored skins (Ex. 26).
Objection 9: Further, exterior consecration signifies interior
holiness, the subject of which is the soul. It was therefore unsuitable
for the tabernacle and its vessels to be consecrated, since they were
inanimate things.
Objection 10: Further, it is written (Ps. 33:2): "I will bless the Lord
at all times, His praise shall always be in my mouth. " But the solemn
festivals were instituted for the praise of God. Therefore it was not
fitting that certain days should be fixed for keeping solemn festivals;
so that it seems that there was no suitable cause for the ceremonies
relating to holy things.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Heb. 8:4) that those who "offer
gifts according to the law . . . serve unto the example and shadow of
heavenly things. As it was answered to Moses, when he was to finish the
tabernacle: See, says He, that thou make all things according to the
pattern which was shown thee on the mount. " But that is most
reasonable, which presents a likeness to heavenly things. Therefore the
ceremonies relating to holy things had a reasonable cause.
I answer that, The chief purpose of the whole external worship is that
man may give worship to God. Now man's tendency is to reverence less
those things which are common, and indistinct from other things;
whereas he admires and reveres those things which are distinct from
others in some point of excellence. Hence too it is customary among men
for kings and princes, who ought to be reverenced by their subjects, to
be clothed in more precious garments, and to possess vaster and more
beautiful abodes. And for this reason it behooved special times, a
special abode, special vessels, and special ministers to be appointed
for the divine worship, so that thereby the soul of man might be
brought to greater reverence for God.
In like manner the state of the Old Law, as observed above [2116](A[2];
Q[100] , A[12]; Q[101], A[2]), was instituted that it might foreshadow
the mystery of Christ. Now that which foreshadows something should be
determinate, so that it may present some likeness thereto.
Consequently, certain special points had to be observed in matters
pertaining to the worship of God.
Reply to Objection 1: The divine worship regards two things: namely,
God Who is worshipped; and men, who worship Him. Accordingly God, Who
is worshipped, is confined to no bodily place: wherefore there was no
need, on His part, for a tabernacle or temple to be set up. But men,
who worship Him, are corporeal beings: and for their sake there was
need for a special tabernacle or temple to be set up for the worship of
God, for two reasons. First, that through coming together with the
thought that the place was set aside for the worship of God, they might
approach thither with greater reverence. Secondly, that certain things
relating to the excellence of Christ's Divine or human nature might be
signified by the arrangement of various details in such temple or
tabernacle.
To this Solomon refers (3 Kings 8:27) when he says: "If heaven and the
heavens of heavens cannot contain Thee, how much less this house which
I have built" for Thee? And further on (3 Kings 8:29, 20) he adds:
"That Thy eyes may be open upon this house . . . of which Thou hast
said: My name shall be there; . . . that Thou mayest hearken to the
supplication of Thy servant and of Thy people Israel. " From this it is
evident that the house of the sanctuary was set up, not in order to
contain God, as abiding therein locally, but that God might be made
known there by means of things done and said there; and that those who
prayed there might, through reverence for the place, pray more
devoutly, so as to be heard more readily.
Reply to Objection 2: Before the coming of Christ, the state of the Old
Law was not changed as regards the fulfilment of the Law, which was
effected in Christ alone: but it was changed as regards the condition
of the people that were under the Law. Because, at first, the people
were in the desert, having no fixed abode: afterwards they were engaged
in various wars with the neighboring nations; and lastly, at the time
of David and Solomon, the state of that people was one of great peace.
And then for the first time the temple was built in the place which
Abraham, instructed by God, had chosen for the purpose of sacrifice.
For it is written (Gn. 22:2) that the Lord commanded Abraham to "offer"
his son "for a holocaust upon one of the mountains which I will show
thee": and it is related further on (Gn. 22:14) that "he calleth the
name of that place, The Lord seeth," as though, according to the Divine
prevision, that place were chosen for the worship of God. Hence it is
written (Dt. 12:5,6): "You shall come to the place which the Lord your
God shall choose . . . and you shall offer . . . your holocausts and
victims. "
Now it was not meet for that place to be pointed out by the building of
the temple before the aforesaid time; for three reasons assigned by
Rabbi Moses. First, lest the Gentiles might seize hold of that place.
Secondly, lest the Gentiles might destroy it. The third reason is lest
each tribe might wish that place to fall to their lot, and strifes and
quarrels be the result. Hence the temple was not built until they had a
king who would be able to quell such quarrels. Until that time a
portable tabernacle was employed for divine worship, no place being as
yet fixed for the worship of God.
