Now in this worship we may consider
the worship itself, the worshippers, and the instruments of worship.
the worship itself, the worshippers, and the instruments of worship.
Summa Theologica
"
But if we speak of justification properly so called, then we must
notice that it can be considered as in the habit or as in the act: so
that accordingly justification may be taken in two ways. First,
according as man is made just, by becoming possessed of the habit of
justice: secondly, according as he does works of justice, so that in
this sense justification is nothing else than the execution of justice.
Now justice, like the other virtues, may denote either the acquired or
the infused virtue, as is clear from what has been stated ([2099]Q[63],
A[4]). The acquired virtue is caused by works; but the infused virtue
is caused by God Himself through His grace. The latter is true justice,
of which we are speaking now, and in this respect of which a man is
said to be just before God, according to Rom. 4:2: "If Abraham were
justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. "
Hence this justice could not be caused by moral precepts, which are
about human actions: wherefore the moral precepts could not justify man
by causing justice.
If, on the other hand, by justification we understand the execution of
justice, thus all the precepts of the Law justified man, but in various
ways. Because the ceremonial precepts taken as a whole contained
something just in itself, in so far as they aimed at offering worship
to God; whereas taken individually they contained that which is just,
not in itself, but by being a determination of the Divine law. Hence it
is said of these precepts that they did not justify man save through
the devotion and obedience of those who complied with them. On the
other hand the moral and judicial precepts, either in general or also
in particular, contained that which is just in itself: but the moral
precepts contained that which is just in itself according to that
"general justice" which is "every virtue" according to Ethic. v, 1:
whereas the judicial precepts belonged to "special justice," which is
about contracts connected with the human mode of life, between one man
and another.
Reply to Objection 1: The Apostle takes justification for the execution
of justice.
Reply to Objection 2: The man who fulfilled the precepts of the Law is
said to live in them, because he did not incur the penalty of death,
which the Law inflicted on its transgressors: in this sense the Apostle
quotes this passage (Gal. 3:12).
Reply to Objection 3: The precepts of human law justify man by acquired
justice: it is not about this that we are inquiring now, but only about
that justice which is before God.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE CEREMONIAL PRECEPTS IN THEMSELVES (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider the ceremonial precepts: and first we must
consider them in themselves; secondly, their cause; thirdly, their
duration. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) The nature of the ceremonial precepts;
(2) Whether they are figurative?
(3) Whether there should have been many of them?
(4) Of their various kinds.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the nature of the ceremonial precepts consists in their pertaining
to the worship of God?
Objection 1: It would seem that the nature of the ceremonial precepts
does not consist in their pertaining to the worship of God. Because, in
the Old Law, the Jews were given certain precepts about abstinence from
food (Lev. 11); and about refraining from certain kinds of clothes,
e. g. (Lev. 19:19): "Thou shalt not wear a garment that is woven of two
sorts"; and again (Num. 15:38): "To make to themselves fringes in the
corners of their garments. " But these are not moral precepts; since
they do not remain in the New Law. Nor are they judicial precepts;
since they do not pertain to the pronouncing of judgment between man
and man. Therefore they are ceremonial precepts. Yet they seem in no
way to pertain to the worship of God. Therefore the nature of the
ceremonial precepts does not consist in their pertaining to Divine
worship.
Objection 2: Further, some state that the ceremonial precepts are those
which pertain to solemnities; as though they were so called from the
"cerei" [candles] which are lit up on those occasions. But many other
things besides solemnities pertain to the worship of God. Therefore it
does not seem that the ceremonial precepts are so called from their
pertaining to the Divine worship.
Objection 3: Further, some say that the ceremonial precepts are
patterns, i. e. rules, of salvation: because the Greek {chaire} is the
same as the Latin "salve. " But all the precepts of the Law are rules of
salvation, and not only those that pertain to the worship of God.
Therefore not only those precepts which pertain to Divine worship are
called ceremonial.
Objection 4: Further, Rabbi Moses says (Doct. Perplex. iii) that the
ceremonial precepts are those for which there is no evident reason. But
there is evident reason for many things pertaining to the worship of
God; such as the observance of the Sabbath, the feasts of the Passover
and of the Tabernacles, and many other things, the reason for which is
set down in the Law. Therefore the ceremonial precepts are not those
which pertain to the worship of God.
On the contrary, It is written (Ex. 18:19,20): "Be thou to the people
in those things that pertain to God . . . and . . . shew the people the
ceremonies and the manner of worshipping. "
I answer that, As stated above ([2100]Q[99], A[4]), the ceremonial
precepts are determinations of the moral precepts whereby man is
directed to God, just as the judicial precepts are determinations of
the moral precepts whereby he is directed to his neighbor. Now man is
directed to God by the worship due to Him. Wherefore those precepts are
properly called ceremonial, which pertain to the Divine worship. The
reason for their being so called was given above ([2101]Q[99], A[3]),
when we established the distinction between the ceremonial and the
other precepts.
Reply to Objection 1: The Divine worship includes not only sacrifices
and the like, which seem to be directed to God immediately, but also
those things whereby His worshippers are duly prepared to worship Him:
thus too in other matters, whatever is preparatory to the end comes
under the science whose object is the end. Accordingly those precepts
of the Law which regard the clothing and food of God's worshippers, and
other such matters, pertain to a certain preparation of the ministers,
with the view of fitting them for the Divine worship: just as those who
administer to a king make use of certain special observances.
Consequently such are contained under the ceremonial precepts.
Reply to Objection 2: The alleged explanation of the name does not seem
very probable: especially as the Law does not contain many instances of
the lighting of candles in solemnities; since, even the lamps of the
Candlestick were furnished with "oil of olives," as stated in Lev.
24:2. Nevertheless we may say that all things pertaining to the Divine
worship were more carefully observed on solemn festivals: so that all
ceremonial precepts may be included under the observance of
solemnities.
Reply to Objection 3: Neither does this explanation of the name appear
to be very much to the point, since the word "ceremony" is not Greek
but Latin. We may say, however, that, since man's salvation is from
God, those precepts above all seem to be rules of salvation, which
direct man to God: and accordingly those which refer to Divine worship
are called ceremonial precepts.
Reply to Objection 4: This explanation of the ceremonial precepts has a
certain amount of probability: not that they are called ceremonial
precisely because there is no evident reason for them; this is a kind
of consequence. For, since the precepts referring to the Divine worship
must needs be figurative, as we shall state further on [2102](A[2]),
the consequence is that the reason for them is not so very evident.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the ceremonial precepts are figurative?
Objection 1: It would seem that the ceremonial precepts are not
figurative. For it is the duty of every teacher to express himself in
such a way as to be easily understood, as Augustine states (De Doctr.
Christ. iv, 4,10) and this seems very necessary in the framing of a
law: because precepts of law are proposed to the populace; for which
reason a law should be manifest, as Isidore declares (Etym. v, 21). If
therefore the precepts of the Law were given as figures of something,
it seems unbecoming that Moses should have delivered these precepts
without explaining what they signified.
Objection 2: Further, whatever is done for the worship of God, should
be entirely free from unfittingness. But the performance of actions in
representation of others, seems to savor of the theatre or of the
drama: because formerly the actions performed in theatres were done to
represent the actions of others. Therefore it seems that such things
should not be done for the worship of God. But the ceremonial precepts
are ordained to the Divine worship, as stated above [2103](A[1]).
Therefore they should not be figurative.
Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (Enchiridion iii, iv) that "God is
worshipped chiefly by faith, hope, and charity. " But the precepts of
faith, hope, and charity are not figurative. Therefore the ceremonial
precepts should not be figurative.
Objection 4: Further, Our Lord said (Jn. 4:24): "God is a spirit, and
they that adore Him, must adore Him in spirit and in truth. " But a
figure is not the very truth: in fact one is condivided with the other.
Therefore the ceremonial precepts, which refer to the Divine worship,
should not be figurative.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Col. 2:16,17): "Let no man . . .
judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of
the new moon, or of the sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to
come. "
I answer that, As stated above [2104](A[1]; Q[99], AA[3],4), the
ceremonial precepts are those which refer to the worship of God. Now
the Divine worship is twofold: internal, and external. For since man is
composed of soul and body, each of these should be applied to the
worship of God; the soul by an interior worship; the body by an outward
worship: hence it is written (Ps. 83:3): "My heart and my flesh have
rejoiced in the living God. " And as the body is ordained to God through
the soul, so the outward worship is ordained to the internal worship.
Now interior worship consists in the soul being united to God by the
intellect and affections. Wherefore according to the various ways in
which the intellect and affections of the man who worships God are
rightly united to God, his external actions are applied in various ways
to the Divine worship.
For in the state of future bliss, the human intellect will gaze on the
Divine Truth in Itself. Wherefore the external worship will not consist
in anything figurative, but solely in the praise of God, proceeding
from the inward knowledge and affection, according to Is. 51:3: "Joy
and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving and the voice of
praise. "
But in the present state of life, we are unable to gaze on the Divine
Truth in Itself, and we need the ray of Divine light to shine upon us
under the form of certain sensible figures, as Dionysius states (Coel.
Hier. i); in various ways, however, according to the various states of
human knowledge. For under the Old Law, neither was the Divine Truth
manifest in Itself, nor was the way leading to that manifestation as
yet opened out, as the Apostle declares (Heb. 9:8). Hence the external
worship of the Old Law needed to be figurative not only of the future
truth to be manifested in our heavenly country, but also of Christ, Who
is the way leading to that heavenly manifestation. But under the New
Law this way is already revealed: and therefore it needs no longer to
be foreshadowed as something future, but to be brought to our minds as
something past or present: and the truth of the glory to come, which is
not yet revealed, alone needs to be foreshadowed. This is what the
Apostle says (Heb. 11:1): "The Law has [Vulg. : 'having'] a shadow of
the good things to come, not the very image of the things": for a
shadow is less than an image; so that the image belongs to the New Law,
but the shadow to the Old.
Reply to Objection 1: The things of God are not to be revealed to man
except in proportion to his capacity: else he would be in danger of
downfall, were he to despise what he cannot grasp. Hence it was more
beneficial that the Divine mysteries should be revealed to uncultured
people under a veil of figures, that thus they might know them at least
implicitly by using those figures to the honor of God.
Reply to Objection 2: Just as human reason fails to grasp poetical
expressions on account of their being lacking in truth, so does it fail
to grasp Divine things perfectly, on account of the sublimity of the
truth they contain: and therefore in both cases there is need of signs
by means of sensible figures.
Reply to Objection 3: Augustine is speaking there of internal worship;
to which, however, external worship should be ordained, as stated
above.
The same answer applies to the Fourth Objection: because men were
taught by Him to practice more perfectly the spiritual worship of God.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there should have been man ceremonial precepts?
Objection 1: It would seem that there should not have been many
ceremonial precepts. For those things which conduce to an end should be
proportionate to that end. But the ceremonial precepts, as stated above
([2105]AA[1],2), are ordained to the worship of God, and to the
foreshadowing of Christ. Now "there is but one God, of Whom are all
things . . . and one Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom are all things" (1 Cor.
8:6). Therefore there should not have been many ceremonial precepts.
Objection 2: Further, the great number of the ceremonial precepts was
an occasion of transgression, according to the words of Peter (Acts
15:10): "Why tempt you God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the
disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? "
Now the transgression of the Divine precepts is an obstacle to man's
salvation. Since, therefore, every law should conduce to man's
salvation, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 3), it seems that the ceremonial
precepts should not have been given in great number.
Objection 3: Further, the ceremonial precepts referred to the outward
and bodily worship of God, as stated above [2106](A[2]). But the Law
should have lessened this bodily worship: since it directed men to
Christ, Who taught them to worship God "in spirit and in truth," as
stated in Jn. 4:23. Therefore there should not have been many
ceremonial precepts.
On the contrary, (Osee 8:12): "I shall write to them [Vulg. : 'him'] My
manifold laws"; and (Job 11:6): "That He might show thee the secrets of
His wisdom, and that His Law is manifold. "
I answer that, As stated above ([2107]Q[96], A[1]), every law is given
to a people. Now a people contains two kinds of men: some, prone to
evil, who have to be coerced by the precepts of the law, as stated
above ([2108]Q[95], A[1]); some, inclined to good, either from nature
or from custom, or rather from grace; and the like have to be taught
and improved by means of the precepts of the law. Accordingly, with
regard to both kinds of the law. Accordingly, with regard to both kinds
of men it was expedient that the Old Law should contain many ceremonial
precepts. For in that people there were many prone to idolatry;
wherefore it was necessary to recall them by means of ceremonial
precepts from the worship of idols to the worship of God. And since men
served idols in many ways, it was necessary on the other hand to devise
many means of repressing every single one: and again, to lay many
obligations on such like men, in order that being burdened, as it were,
by their duties to the Divine worship, they might have no time for the
service of idols. As to those who were inclined to good, it was again
necessary that there should be many ceremonial precepts; both because
thus their mind turned to God in many ways, and more continually; and
because the mystery of Christ, which was foreshadowed by these
ceremonial precepts, brought many boons to the world, and afforded men
many considerations, which needed to be signified by various
ceremonies.
Reply to Objection 1: When that which conduces to an end is sufficient
to conduce thereto, then one such thing suffices for one end: thus one
remedy, if it be efficacious, suffices sometimes to restore men to
health, and then the remedy needs not to be repeated. But when that
which conduces to an end is weak and imperfect, it needs to be
multiplied: thus many remedies are given to a sick man, when one is not
enough to heal him. Now the ceremonies of the Old Law were weak and
imperfect, both for representing the mystery of Christ, on account of
its surpassing excellence; and for subjugating men's minds to God.
Hence the Apostle says (Heb. 7:18,19): "There is a setting aside of the
former commandment because of the weakness and unprofitableness
thereof, for the law brought nothing to perfection. " Consequently these
ceremonies needed to be in great number.
Reply to Objection 2: A wise lawgiver should suffer lesser
transgressions, that the greater may be avoided. And therefore, in
order to avoid the sin of idolatry, and the pride which would arise in
the hearts of the Jews, were they to fulfil all the precepts of the
Law, the fact that they would in consequence find many occasions of
disobedience did not prevent God from giving them many ceremonial
precepts.
Reply to Objection 3: The Old Law lessened bodily worship in many ways.
Thus it forbade sacrifices to be offered in every place and by any
person. Many such like things did it enact for the lessening of bodily
worship; as Rabbi Moses, the Egyptian testifies (Doct. Perplex. iii).
Nevertheless it behooved not to attenuate the bodily worship of God so
much as to allow men to fall away into the worship of idols.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the ceremonies of the Old Law are suitably divided into sacrifices,
sacred things, sacraments, and observances?
Objection 1: It would seem that the ceremonies of the Old Law are
unsuitably divided into "sacrifices, sacred things, sacraments, and
observances. " For the ceremonies of the Old Law foreshadowed Christ.
But this was done only by the sacrifices, which foreshadowed the
sacrifice in which Christ "delivered Himself an oblation and a
sacrifice to God" (Eph. 5:2). Therefore none but the sacrifices were
ceremonies.
Objection 2: Further, the Old Law was ordained to the New. But in the
New Law the sacrifice is the Sacrament of the Altar. Therefore in the
Old Law there should be no distinction between "sacrifices" and
"sacraments. "
Objection 3: Further, a "sacred thing" is something dedicated to God:
in which sense the tabernacle and its vessels were said to be
consecrated. But all the ceremonial precepts were ordained to the
worship of God, as stated above [2109](A[1]). Therefore all ceremonies
were sacred things. Therefore "sacred things" should not be taken as a
part of the ceremonies.
Objection 4: Further, "observances" are so called from having to be
observed. But all the precepts of the Law had to be observed: for it is
written (Dt. 8:11): "Observe [Douay: 'Take heed'] and beware lest at
any time thou forget the Lord thy God, and neglect His commandments and
judgments and ceremonies. " Therefore the "observances" should not be
considered as a part of the ceremonies.
Objection 5: Further, the solemn festivals are reckoned as part of the
ceremonial: since they were a shadow of things to come (Col. 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.
But if we speak of justification properly so called, then we must
notice that it can be considered as in the habit or as in the act: so
that accordingly justification may be taken in two ways. First,
according as man is made just, by becoming possessed of the habit of
justice: secondly, according as he does works of justice, so that in
this sense justification is nothing else than the execution of justice.
Now justice, like the other virtues, may denote either the acquired or
the infused virtue, as is clear from what has been stated ([2099]Q[63],
A[4]). The acquired virtue is caused by works; but the infused virtue
is caused by God Himself through His grace. The latter is true justice,
of which we are speaking now, and in this respect of which a man is
said to be just before God, according to Rom. 4:2: "If Abraham were
justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. "
Hence this justice could not be caused by moral precepts, which are
about human actions: wherefore the moral precepts could not justify man
by causing justice.
If, on the other hand, by justification we understand the execution of
justice, thus all the precepts of the Law justified man, but in various
ways. Because the ceremonial precepts taken as a whole contained
something just in itself, in so far as they aimed at offering worship
to God; whereas taken individually they contained that which is just,
not in itself, but by being a determination of the Divine law. Hence it
is said of these precepts that they did not justify man save through
the devotion and obedience of those who complied with them. On the
other hand the moral and judicial precepts, either in general or also
in particular, contained that which is just in itself: but the moral
precepts contained that which is just in itself according to that
"general justice" which is "every virtue" according to Ethic. v, 1:
whereas the judicial precepts belonged to "special justice," which is
about contracts connected with the human mode of life, between one man
and another.
Reply to Objection 1: The Apostle takes justification for the execution
of justice.
Reply to Objection 2: The man who fulfilled the precepts of the Law is
said to live in them, because he did not incur the penalty of death,
which the Law inflicted on its transgressors: in this sense the Apostle
quotes this passage (Gal. 3:12).
Reply to Objection 3: The precepts of human law justify man by acquired
justice: it is not about this that we are inquiring now, but only about
that justice which is before God.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE CEREMONIAL PRECEPTS IN THEMSELVES (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider the ceremonial precepts: and first we must
consider them in themselves; secondly, their cause; thirdly, their
duration. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) The nature of the ceremonial precepts;
(2) Whether they are figurative?
(3) Whether there should have been many of them?
(4) Of their various kinds.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the nature of the ceremonial precepts consists in their pertaining
to the worship of God?
Objection 1: It would seem that the nature of the ceremonial precepts
does not consist in their pertaining to the worship of God. Because, in
the Old Law, the Jews were given certain precepts about abstinence from
food (Lev. 11); and about refraining from certain kinds of clothes,
e. g. (Lev. 19:19): "Thou shalt not wear a garment that is woven of two
sorts"; and again (Num. 15:38): "To make to themselves fringes in the
corners of their garments. " But these are not moral precepts; since
they do not remain in the New Law. Nor are they judicial precepts;
since they do not pertain to the pronouncing of judgment between man
and man. Therefore they are ceremonial precepts. Yet they seem in no
way to pertain to the worship of God. Therefore the nature of the
ceremonial precepts does not consist in their pertaining to Divine
worship.
Objection 2: Further, some state that the ceremonial precepts are those
which pertain to solemnities; as though they were so called from the
"cerei" [candles] which are lit up on those occasions. But many other
things besides solemnities pertain to the worship of God. Therefore it
does not seem that the ceremonial precepts are so called from their
pertaining to the Divine worship.
Objection 3: Further, some say that the ceremonial precepts are
patterns, i. e. rules, of salvation: because the Greek {chaire} is the
same as the Latin "salve. " But all the precepts of the Law are rules of
salvation, and not only those that pertain to the worship of God.
Therefore not only those precepts which pertain to Divine worship are
called ceremonial.
Objection 4: Further, Rabbi Moses says (Doct. Perplex. iii) that the
ceremonial precepts are those for which there is no evident reason. But
there is evident reason for many things pertaining to the worship of
God; such as the observance of the Sabbath, the feasts of the Passover
and of the Tabernacles, and many other things, the reason for which is
set down in the Law. Therefore the ceremonial precepts are not those
which pertain to the worship of God.
On the contrary, It is written (Ex. 18:19,20): "Be thou to the people
in those things that pertain to God . . . and . . . shew the people the
ceremonies and the manner of worshipping. "
I answer that, As stated above ([2100]Q[99], A[4]), the ceremonial
precepts are determinations of the moral precepts whereby man is
directed to God, just as the judicial precepts are determinations of
the moral precepts whereby he is directed to his neighbor. Now man is
directed to God by the worship due to Him. Wherefore those precepts are
properly called ceremonial, which pertain to the Divine worship. The
reason for their being so called was given above ([2101]Q[99], A[3]),
when we established the distinction between the ceremonial and the
other precepts.
Reply to Objection 1: The Divine worship includes not only sacrifices
and the like, which seem to be directed to God immediately, but also
those things whereby His worshippers are duly prepared to worship Him:
thus too in other matters, whatever is preparatory to the end comes
under the science whose object is the end. Accordingly those precepts
of the Law which regard the clothing and food of God's worshippers, and
other such matters, pertain to a certain preparation of the ministers,
with the view of fitting them for the Divine worship: just as those who
administer to a king make use of certain special observances.
Consequently such are contained under the ceremonial precepts.
Reply to Objection 2: The alleged explanation of the name does not seem
very probable: especially as the Law does not contain many instances of
the lighting of candles in solemnities; since, even the lamps of the
Candlestick were furnished with "oil of olives," as stated in Lev.
24:2. Nevertheless we may say that all things pertaining to the Divine
worship were more carefully observed on solemn festivals: so that all
ceremonial precepts may be included under the observance of
solemnities.
Reply to Objection 3: Neither does this explanation of the name appear
to be very much to the point, since the word "ceremony" is not Greek
but Latin. We may say, however, that, since man's salvation is from
God, those precepts above all seem to be rules of salvation, which
direct man to God: and accordingly those which refer to Divine worship
are called ceremonial precepts.
Reply to Objection 4: This explanation of the ceremonial precepts has a
certain amount of probability: not that they are called ceremonial
precisely because there is no evident reason for them; this is a kind
of consequence. For, since the precepts referring to the Divine worship
must needs be figurative, as we shall state further on [2102](A[2]),
the consequence is that the reason for them is not so very evident.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the ceremonial precepts are figurative?
Objection 1: It would seem that the ceremonial precepts are not
figurative. For it is the duty of every teacher to express himself in
such a way as to be easily understood, as Augustine states (De Doctr.
Christ. iv, 4,10) and this seems very necessary in the framing of a
law: because precepts of law are proposed to the populace; for which
reason a law should be manifest, as Isidore declares (Etym. v, 21). If
therefore the precepts of the Law were given as figures of something,
it seems unbecoming that Moses should have delivered these precepts
without explaining what they signified.
Objection 2: Further, whatever is done for the worship of God, should
be entirely free from unfittingness. But the performance of actions in
representation of others, seems to savor of the theatre or of the
drama: because formerly the actions performed in theatres were done to
represent the actions of others. Therefore it seems that such things
should not be done for the worship of God. But the ceremonial precepts
are ordained to the Divine worship, as stated above [2103](A[1]).
Therefore they should not be figurative.
Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (Enchiridion iii, iv) that "God is
worshipped chiefly by faith, hope, and charity. " But the precepts of
faith, hope, and charity are not figurative. Therefore the ceremonial
precepts should not be figurative.
Objection 4: Further, Our Lord said (Jn. 4:24): "God is a spirit, and
they that adore Him, must adore Him in spirit and in truth. " But a
figure is not the very truth: in fact one is condivided with the other.
Therefore the ceremonial precepts, which refer to the Divine worship,
should not be figurative.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Col. 2:16,17): "Let no man . . .
judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of
the new moon, or of the sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to
come. "
I answer that, As stated above [2104](A[1]; Q[99], AA[3],4), the
ceremonial precepts are those which refer to the worship of God. Now
the Divine worship is twofold: internal, and external. For since man is
composed of soul and body, each of these should be applied to the
worship of God; the soul by an interior worship; the body by an outward
worship: hence it is written (Ps. 83:3): "My heart and my flesh have
rejoiced in the living God. " And as the body is ordained to God through
the soul, so the outward worship is ordained to the internal worship.
Now interior worship consists in the soul being united to God by the
intellect and affections. Wherefore according to the various ways in
which the intellect and affections of the man who worships God are
rightly united to God, his external actions are applied in various ways
to the Divine worship.
For in the state of future bliss, the human intellect will gaze on the
Divine Truth in Itself. Wherefore the external worship will not consist
in anything figurative, but solely in the praise of God, proceeding
from the inward knowledge and affection, according to Is. 51:3: "Joy
and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving and the voice of
praise. "
But in the present state of life, we are unable to gaze on the Divine
Truth in Itself, and we need the ray of Divine light to shine upon us
under the form of certain sensible figures, as Dionysius states (Coel.
Hier. i); in various ways, however, according to the various states of
human knowledge. For under the Old Law, neither was the Divine Truth
manifest in Itself, nor was the way leading to that manifestation as
yet opened out, as the Apostle declares (Heb. 9:8). Hence the external
worship of the Old Law needed to be figurative not only of the future
truth to be manifested in our heavenly country, but also of Christ, Who
is the way leading to that heavenly manifestation. But under the New
Law this way is already revealed: and therefore it needs no longer to
be foreshadowed as something future, but to be brought to our minds as
something past or present: and the truth of the glory to come, which is
not yet revealed, alone needs to be foreshadowed. This is what the
Apostle says (Heb. 11:1): "The Law has [Vulg. : 'having'] a shadow of
the good things to come, not the very image of the things": for a
shadow is less than an image; so that the image belongs to the New Law,
but the shadow to the Old.
Reply to Objection 1: The things of God are not to be revealed to man
except in proportion to his capacity: else he would be in danger of
downfall, were he to despise what he cannot grasp. Hence it was more
beneficial that the Divine mysteries should be revealed to uncultured
people under a veil of figures, that thus they might know them at least
implicitly by using those figures to the honor of God.
Reply to Objection 2: Just as human reason fails to grasp poetical
expressions on account of their being lacking in truth, so does it fail
to grasp Divine things perfectly, on account of the sublimity of the
truth they contain: and therefore in both cases there is need of signs
by means of sensible figures.
Reply to Objection 3: Augustine is speaking there of internal worship;
to which, however, external worship should be ordained, as stated
above.
The same answer applies to the Fourth Objection: because men were
taught by Him to practice more perfectly the spiritual worship of God.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there should have been man ceremonial precepts?
Objection 1: It would seem that there should not have been many
ceremonial precepts. For those things which conduce to an end should be
proportionate to that end. But the ceremonial precepts, as stated above
([2105]AA[1],2), are ordained to the worship of God, and to the
foreshadowing of Christ. Now "there is but one God, of Whom are all
things . . . and one Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom are all things" (1 Cor.
8:6). Therefore there should not have been many ceremonial precepts.
Objection 2: Further, the great number of the ceremonial precepts was
an occasion of transgression, according to the words of Peter (Acts
15:10): "Why tempt you God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the
disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? "
Now the transgression of the Divine precepts is an obstacle to man's
salvation. Since, therefore, every law should conduce to man's
salvation, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 3), it seems that the ceremonial
precepts should not have been given in great number.
Objection 3: Further, the ceremonial precepts referred to the outward
and bodily worship of God, as stated above [2106](A[2]). But the Law
should have lessened this bodily worship: since it directed men to
Christ, Who taught them to worship God "in spirit and in truth," as
stated in Jn. 4:23. Therefore there should not have been many
ceremonial precepts.
On the contrary, (Osee 8:12): "I shall write to them [Vulg. : 'him'] My
manifold laws"; and (Job 11:6): "That He might show thee the secrets of
His wisdom, and that His Law is manifold. "
I answer that, As stated above ([2107]Q[96], A[1]), every law is given
to a people. Now a people contains two kinds of men: some, prone to
evil, who have to be coerced by the precepts of the law, as stated
above ([2108]Q[95], A[1]); some, inclined to good, either from nature
or from custom, or rather from grace; and the like have to be taught
and improved by means of the precepts of the law. Accordingly, with
regard to both kinds of the law. Accordingly, with regard to both kinds
of men it was expedient that the Old Law should contain many ceremonial
precepts. For in that people there were many prone to idolatry;
wherefore it was necessary to recall them by means of ceremonial
precepts from the worship of idols to the worship of God. And since men
served idols in many ways, it was necessary on the other hand to devise
many means of repressing every single one: and again, to lay many
obligations on such like men, in order that being burdened, as it were,
by their duties to the Divine worship, they might have no time for the
service of idols. As to those who were inclined to good, it was again
necessary that there should be many ceremonial precepts; both because
thus their mind turned to God in many ways, and more continually; and
because the mystery of Christ, which was foreshadowed by these
ceremonial precepts, brought many boons to the world, and afforded men
many considerations, which needed to be signified by various
ceremonies.
Reply to Objection 1: When that which conduces to an end is sufficient
to conduce thereto, then one such thing suffices for one end: thus one
remedy, if it be efficacious, suffices sometimes to restore men to
health, and then the remedy needs not to be repeated. But when that
which conduces to an end is weak and imperfect, it needs to be
multiplied: thus many remedies are given to a sick man, when one is not
enough to heal him. Now the ceremonies of the Old Law were weak and
imperfect, both for representing the mystery of Christ, on account of
its surpassing excellence; and for subjugating men's minds to God.
Hence the Apostle says (Heb. 7:18,19): "There is a setting aside of the
former commandment because of the weakness and unprofitableness
thereof, for the law brought nothing to perfection. " Consequently these
ceremonies needed to be in great number.
Reply to Objection 2: A wise lawgiver should suffer lesser
transgressions, that the greater may be avoided. And therefore, in
order to avoid the sin of idolatry, and the pride which would arise in
the hearts of the Jews, were they to fulfil all the precepts of the
Law, the fact that they would in consequence find many occasions of
disobedience did not prevent God from giving them many ceremonial
precepts.
Reply to Objection 3: The Old Law lessened bodily worship in many ways.
Thus it forbade sacrifices to be offered in every place and by any
person. Many such like things did it enact for the lessening of bodily
worship; as Rabbi Moses, the Egyptian testifies (Doct. Perplex. iii).
Nevertheless it behooved not to attenuate the bodily worship of God so
much as to allow men to fall away into the worship of idols.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the ceremonies of the Old Law are suitably divided into sacrifices,
sacred things, sacraments, and observances?
Objection 1: It would seem that the ceremonies of the Old Law are
unsuitably divided into "sacrifices, sacred things, sacraments, and
observances. " For the ceremonies of the Old Law foreshadowed Christ.
But this was done only by the sacrifices, which foreshadowed the
sacrifice in which Christ "delivered Himself an oblation and a
sacrifice to God" (Eph. 5:2). Therefore none but the sacrifices were
ceremonies.
Objection 2: Further, the Old Law was ordained to the New. But in the
New Law the sacrifice is the Sacrament of the Altar. Therefore in the
Old Law there should be no distinction between "sacrifices" and
"sacraments. "
Objection 3: Further, a "sacred thing" is something dedicated to God:
in which sense the tabernacle and its vessels were said to be
consecrated. But all the ceremonial precepts were ordained to the
worship of God, as stated above [2109](A[1]). Therefore all ceremonies
were sacred things. Therefore "sacred things" should not be taken as a
part of the ceremonies.
Objection 4: Further, "observances" are so called from having to be
observed. But all the precepts of the Law had to be observed: for it is
written (Dt. 8:11): "Observe [Douay: 'Take heed'] and beware lest at
any time thou forget the Lord thy God, and neglect His commandments and
judgments and ceremonies. " Therefore the "observances" should not be
considered as a part of the ceremonies.
Objection 5: Further, the solemn festivals are reckoned as part of the
ceremonial: since they were a shadow of things to come (Col. 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.
