No More Learning

Hence thanksgiving for other benefits precedes intercession: but one
and the same benefit is first sought, and finally, when it has been
received, we give thanks for it. Intercession is preceded by prayer
whereby we approach Him of Whom we ask: and prayer is preceded by
supplication, whereby through the consideration of God's goodness we
dare approach Him.
__________________________________________________________________

OF ADORATION (THREE ARTICLES)

In due sequence we must consider the external acts of latria, and in
the first place, adoration whereby one uses one's body to reverence
God; secondly, those acts whereby some external thing is offered to
God; thirdly, those acts whereby something belonging to God is assumed.

Under the first head there are three points of inquiry:

(1) Whether adoration is an act of latria?

(2) Whether adoration denotes an internal or an external act?

(3) Whether adoration requires a definite place?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether adoration is an act of latria or religion?

Objection 1: It would seem that adoration is not an act of latria or
religion. The worship of religion is due to God alone. But adoration is
not due to God alone: since we read (Gn. 18:2) that Abraham adored the
angels; and (3 Kings 1:23) that the prophet Nathan, when he was come in
to king David, "worshiped him bowing down to the ground. " Therefore
adoration is not an act of religion.

Objection 2: Further, the worship of religion is due to God as the
object of beatitude, according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei x, 3): whereas
adoration is due to Him by reason of His majesty, since a gloss on Ps.
28:2, "Adore ye the Lord in His holy court," says: "We pass from these
courts into the court where we adore His majesty. " Therefore adoration
is not an act of latria.

Objection 3: Further, the worship of one same religion is due to the
three Persons. But we do not adore the three Persons with one
adoration, for we genuflect at each separate invocation of Them [*At
the adoration of the Cross, on Good Friday]. Therefore adoration is nol
an act of latria.

On the contrary, are the words quoted Mat. 4:10: "The Lord thy God
shalt thou adore and Him only shalt thou serve. "

I answer that, Adoration is directed to the reverence of the person
adored. Now it is evident from what we have said ([3031]Q[81], AA[2],4)
that it is proper to religion to show reverence to God. Hence the
adoration whereby we adore God is an act of religion.

Reply to Objection 1: Reverence is due to God on account of His
excellence, which is communicated to certain creatures not in equal
measure, but according to a measure of proportion; and so the reverence
which we pay to God, and which belongs to latria, differs from the
reverence which we pay to certain excellent creatures; this belongs to
dulia, and we shall speak of it further on ([3032]Q[103]). And since
external actions are signs of internal reverence, certain external
tokens significative of reverence are offered to creatures of
excellence, and among these tokens the chief is adoration: yet there is
one thing which is offered to God alone, and that is sacrifice. Hence
Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x, 4): "Many tokens of Divine worship are
employed in doing honor to men, either through excessive humility, or
through pernicious flattery; yet so that those to whom these honors are
given are recognized as being men to whom we owe esteem and reverence
and even adoration if they be far above us. But who ever thought it his
duty to sacrifice to any other than one whom he either knew or deemed
or pretended to be a God? " Accordingly it was with the reverence due to
an excellent creature that Nathan adored David; while it was the
reverence due to God with which Mardochai refused to adore Aman fearing
"lest he should transfer the honor of his God to a man" (Esther 13:14).

Again with the reverence due to an excellent creature Abraham adored
the angels, as did also Josue (Jos. 5:15): though we may understand
them to have adored, with the adoration of latria, God Who appeared and
spoke to them in the guise of an angel. It was with the reverence due
to God that John was forbidden to adore the angel (Apoc. 22:9), both to
indicate the dignity which he had acquired through Christ, whereby man
is made equal to an angel: wherefore the same text goes on: "I am thy
fellow-servant and of thy brethren"; as also to exclude any occasion of
idolatry, wherefore the text continues: "Adore God. "

Reply to Objection 2: Every Divine excellency is included in His
majesty: to which it pertains that we should be made happy in Him as in
the sovereign good.

Reply to Objection 3: Since there is one excellence of the three Divine
Persons, one honor and reverence is due to them and consequently one
adoration. It is to represent this that where it is related (Gn. 18:2)
that three men appeared to Abraham, we are told that he addressed one,
saying: "Lord, if I have found favor in thy sight," etc. The triple
genuflection represents the Trinity of Persons, not a difference of
adoration.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether adoration denotes an action of the body?

Objection 1: It would seem that adoration does not denote an act of the
body. It is written (Jn. 4:23): "The true adorers shall adore the
Father in spirit and in truth. " Now what is done in spirit has nothing
to do with an act of the body. Therefore adoration does not denote an
act of the body.

Objection 2: Further, the word adoration is taken from "oratio"
[prayer]. But prayer consists chiefly in an interior act, according to
1 Cor. 14:15, "I will pray with the spirit, I will pray also with the
understanding. " Therefore adoration denotes chiefly a spiritual act.

Objection 3: Further, acts of the body pertain to sensible knowledge:
whereas we approach God not by bodily but by spiritual sense. Therefore
adoration does not denote an act of the body.

On the contrary, A gloss on Ex. 20:5, "Thou shalt not adore them, nor
serve them," says: "Thou shalt neither worship them in mind, nor adore
them outwardly. "

I answer that, As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 12), since we are
composed of a twofold nature, intellectual and sensible, we offer God a
twofold adoration; namely, a spiritual adoration, consisting in the
internal devotion of the mind; and a bodily adoration, which consists
in an exterior humbling of the body. And since in all acts of latria
that which is without is referred to that which is within as being of
greater import, it follows that exterior adoration is offered on
account of interior adoration, in other words we exhibit signs of
humility in our bodies in order to incite our affections to submit to
God, since it is connatural to us to proceed from the sensible to the
intelligible.

Reply to Objection 1: Even bodily adoration is done in spirit, in so
far as it proceeds from and is directed to spiritual devotion.

Reply to Objection 2: Just as prayer is primarily in the mind, and
secondarily expressed in words, as stated above ([3033]Q[83], A[12]),
so too adoration consists chiefly in an interior reverence of God, but
secondarily in certain bodily signs of humility; thus when we genuflect
we signify our weakness in comparison with God, and when we prostrate
ourselves we profess that we are nothing of ourselves.

Reply to Objection 3: Though we cannot reach God with the senses, our
mind is urged by sensible signs to approach God.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether adoration requires a definite place?

Objection 1: It would seem that adoration does not require a definite
place. It is written (Jn. 4:21): "The hour cometh, when you shall
neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, adore the Father"; and the
same reason seems to apply to other places. Therefore a definite place
is not necessary for adoration.

Objection 2: Further, exterior adoration is directed to interior
adoration. But interior adoration is shown to God as existing
everywhere. Therefore exterior adoration does not require a definite
place.

Objection 3: Further, the same God is adored in the New as in the Old
Testament. Now in the Old Testament they adored towards the west,
because the door of the Tabernacle looked to the east (Ex. 26:18
seqq. ). Therefore for the same reason we ought now to adore towards the
west, if any definite place be requisite for adoration.

On the contrary, It is written (Is. 56:7): "My house shall be called
the house of prayer," which words are also quoted (Jn. 2:16).

I answer that, As stated above [3034](A[2]), the chief part of
adoration is the internal devotion of the mind, while the secondary
part is something external pertaining to bodily signs. Now the mind
internally apprehends God as not comprised in a place; while bodily
signs must of necessity be in some definite place and position. Hence a
definite place is required for adoration, not chiefly, as though it
were essential thereto, but by reason of a certain fittingness, like
other bodily signs.

Reply to Objection 1: By these words our Lord foretold the cessation of
adoration, both according to the rite of the Jews who adored in
Jerusalem, and according to the rite of the Samaritans who adored on
Mount Garizim. For both these rites ceased with the advent of the
spiritual truth of the Gospel, according to which "a sacrifice is
offered to God in every place," as stated in Malach. 1:11.

Reply to Objection 2: A definite place is chosen for adoration, not on
account of God Who is adored, as though He were enclosed in a place,
but on account of the adorers; and this for three reasons. First,
because the place is consecrated, so that those who pray there conceive
a greater devotion and are more likely to be heard, as may be seen in
the prayer of Solomon (3 Kings 8). Secondly, on account of the sacred
mysteries and other signs of holiness contained therein. Thirdly, on
account of the concourse of many adorers, by reason of which their
prayer is more likely to be heard, according to Mat. 18:20, "Where
there are two or three gathered together in My name, there am I in the
midst of them. "

Reply to Objection 3: There is a certain fittingness in adoring towards
the east. First, because the Divine majesty is indicated in the
movement of the heavens which is from the east. Secondly, because
Paradise was situated in the east according to the Septuagint version
of Gn. 2:8, and so we signify our desire to return to Paradise.
Thirdly, on account of Christ Who is "the light of the world" [*Jn.
8:12; 9:5], and is called "the Orient" (Zech. 6:12). Who mounteth above
the heaven of heavens to the east (Ps. 67:34), and is expected to come
from the east, according to Mat. 24:27, "As lightning cometh out of the
east, and appeareth even into the west; so shall also the coming of the
Son of Man be. "
__________________________________________________________________

OF SACRIFICE (FOUR ARTICLES)

In due sequence we must consider those acts whereby external things are
offered to God. These give rise to a twofold consideration: (1) Of
things given to God by the faithful; (2) Of vows, whereby something is
promised to Him.

Under the first head we shall consider sacrifices, oblations,
first-fruits, and tithes. About sacrifices there are four points of
inquiry:

(1) Whether offering a sacrifice to God is of the law of nature?

(2) Whether sacrifice should be offered to God alone?

(3) Whether the offering of a sacrifice is a special act of virtue?

(4) Whether all are bound to offer sacrifice?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether offering a sacrifice to God is of the law of nature?

Objection 1: It would seem that offering a sacrifice to God is not of
the natural law. Things that are of the natural law are common among
all men. Yet this is not the case with sacrifices: for we read of some,
e. g. Melchisedech (Gn. 14:18), offering bread and wine in sacrifice,
and of certain animals being offered by some, and others by others.
Therefore the offering of sacrifices is not of the natural law.

Objection 2: Further, things that are of the natural law were observed
by all just men. Yet we do not read that Isaac offered sacrifice; nor
that Adam did so, of whom nevertheless it is written (Wis. 10:2) that
wisdom "brought him out of his sin. " Therefore the offering of
sacrifice is not of the natural law.

Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x, 5,19) that
sacrifices are offered in signification of something. Now words which
are chief among signs, as he again says (De Doctr. Christ. ii, 3),
"signify, not by nature but by convention," according to the
Philosopher (Peri Herm. i, 2). Therefore sacrifices are not of the
natural law.

On the contrary, At all times and among all nations there has always
been the offering of sacrifices. Now that which is observed by all is
seemingly natural. Therefore the offering of sacrifices is of the
natural law.

I answer that, Natural reason tells man that he is subject to a higher
being, on account of the defects which he perceives in himself, and in
which he needs help and direction from someone above him: and whatever
this superior being may be, it is known to all under the name of God.
Now just as in natural things the lower are naturally subject to the
higher, so too it is a dictate of natural reason in accordance with
man's natural inclination that he should tender submission and honor,
according to his mode, to that which is above man. Now the mode
befitting to man is that he should employ sensible signs in order to
signify anything, because he derives his knowledge from sensibles.
Hence it is a dictate of natural reason that man should use certain
sensibles, by offering them to God in sign of the subjection and honor
due to Him, like those who make certain offerings to their lord in
recognition of his authority. Now this is what we mean by a sacrifice,
and consequently the offering of sacrifice is of the natural law.

Reply to Objection 1: As stated above ([3035]FS, Q[95], A[2]), certain
things belong generically to the natural law, while their determination
belongs to the positive law; thus the natural law requires that
evildoers should be punished; but that this or that punishment should
be inflicted on them is a matter determined by God or by man. In like
manner the offering of sacrifice belongs generically to the natural
law, and consequently all are agreed on this point, but the
determination of sacrifices is established by God or by man, and this
is the reason for their difference.

Reply to Objection 2: Adam, Isaac and other just men offered sacrifice
to God in a manner befitting the times in which they lived, according
to Gregory, who says (Moral. iv, 3) that in olden times original sin
was remitted through the offering of sacrifices. Nor does Scripture
mention all the sacrifices of the just, but only those that have
something special connected with them. Perhaps the reason why we read
of no sacrifice being offered by Adam may be that, as the origin of sin
is ascribed to him, the origin of sanctification ought not to be
represented as typified in him. Isaac was a type of Christ, being
himself offered in sacrifice; and so there was no need that he should
be represented as offering a sacrifice.

Reply to Objection 3: It is natural to man to express his ideas by
signs, but the determination of those signs depends on man's pleasure.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether sacrifice should be offered to God alone?

Objection 1: It would seem that sacrifice should not be offered to the
most high God alone. Since sacrifice ought to be offered to God, it
would seem that it ought to be offered to all such as are partakers of
the Godhead. Now holy men are made "partakers of the Divine nature,"
according to 2 Pet. 1:4; wherefore of them is it written (Ps. 81:6): "I
have said, You are gods": and angels too are called "sons of God,"
according to Job 1:6. Thus sacrifice should be offered to all these.

Objection 2: Further, the greater a person is the greater the honor due
to him from man. Now the angels and saints are far greater than any
earthly princes: and yet the subjects of the latter pay them much
greater honor, by prostrating before them, and offering them gifts,
than is implied by offering an animal or any other thing in sacrifice.
Much more therefore may one offer sacrifice to the angels and saints.

Objection 3: Further, temples and altars are raised for the offering of
sacrifices. Yet temples and altars are raised to angels and saints.
Therefore sacrifices also may be offered to them.

On the contrary, It is written (Ex. 22:20): "He that sacrificeth to
gods shall be put to death, save only to the Lord. "

I answer that, As stated above [3036](A[1]), a sacrifice is offered in
order that something may be represented. Now the sacrifice that is
offered outwardly represents the inward spiritual sacrifice, whereby
the soul offers itself to God according to Ps. 50:19, "A sacrifice to
God is an afflicted spirit," since, as stated above (Q[81], A[7];
Q[84], A[2]), the outward acts of religion are directed to the inward
acts. Again the soul offers itself in sacrifice to God as its beginning
by creation, and its end by beatification: and according to the true
faith God alone is the creator of our souls, as stated in the [3037]FP,
Q[90], A[3]; FS, Q[118], A[2], while in Him alone the beatitude of our
soul consists, as stated above ([3038]FS, Q[1], A[8]; [3039]FS, Q[2],
A[8]; [3040]FS, Q[3], AA[1],7,8). Wherefore just as to God alone ought
we to offer spiritual sacrifice, so too ought we to offer outward
sacrifices to Him alone: even so "in our prayers and praises we proffer
significant words to Him to Whom in our hearts we offer the things
which we designate thereby," as Augustine states (De Civ. Dei x, 19).
Moreover we find that in every country the people are wont to show the
sovereign ruler some special sign of honor, and that if this be shown
to anyone else, it is a crime of high-treason. Therefore, in the Divine
law, the death punishment is assigned to those who offer Divine honor
to another than God.

Reply to Objection 1: The name of the Godhead is communicated to
certain ones, not equally with God, but by participation; hence neither
is equal honor due to them.

Reply to Objection 2: The offering of a sacrifice is measured not by
the value of the animal killed, but by its signification, for it is
done in honor of the sovereign Ruler of the whole universe. Wherefore,
as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x, 19), "the demons rejoice, not in the
stench of corpses, but in receiving divine honors. "

Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei viii, 19), "we do
not raise temples and priesthoods to the martyrs, because not they but
their God is our God. Wherefore the priest says not: I offer sacrifice
to thee, Peter or Paul. But we give thanks to God for their triumphs,
and urge ourselves to imitate them. "
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the offering of sacrifice is a special act of virtue?

Objection 1: It would seem that the offering of sacrifice is not a
special act of virtue. Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x, 6): "A true
sacrifice is any work done that we may cleave to God in holy
fellowship. " But not every good work is a special act of some definite
virtue. Therefore the offering of sacrifice is not a special act of a
definite virtue.

Objection 2: Further, the mortification of the body by fasting belongs
to abstinence, by continence belongs to chastity, by martyrdom belongs
to fortitude. Now all these things seem to be comprised in the offering
of sacrifice, according to Rom. 12:1, "Present your bodies a living
sacrifice. " Again the Apostle says (Heb. 13:16): "Do not forget to do
good and to impart, for by such sacrifices God's favor is obtained. "
Now it belongs to charity, mercy and liberality to do good and to
impart. Therefore the offering of sacrifice is not a special act of a
definite virtue.

Objection 3: Further, a sacrifice is apparently anything offered to
God. Now many things are offered to God, such as devotion, prayer,
tithes, first-fruits, oblations, and holocausts. Therefore sacrifice
does not appear to be a special act of a definite virtue.

On the contrary, The law contains special precepts about sacrifices, as
appears from the beginning of Leviticus.

I answer that, As stated above ([3041]FS, Q[18], AA[6],7), where an act
of one virtue is directed to the end of another virtue it partakes
somewhat of its species; thus when a man thieves in order to commit
fornication, his theft assumes, in a sense, the deformity of
fornication, so that even though it were not a sin otherwise, it would
be a sin from the very fact that it was directed to fornication.
Accordingly, sacrifice is a special act deserving of praise in that it
is done out of reverence for God; and for this reason it belongs to a
definite virtue, viz. religion. But it happens that the acts of the
other virtues are directed to the reverence of God, as when a man gives
alms of his own things for God's sake, or when a man subjects his own
body to some affliction out of reverence for God; and in this way the
acts also of other virtues may be called sacrifices. On the other hand
there are acts that are not deserving of praise save through being done
out of reverence for God: such acts are properly called sacrifices, and
belong to the virtue of religion.

Reply to Objection 1: The very fact that we wish to cling to God in a
spiritual fellowship pertains to reverence for God: and consequently
the act of any virtue assumes the character of a sacrifice through
being done in order that we may cling to God in holy fellowship.

Reply to Objection 2: Man's good is threefold. There is first his
soul's good which is offered to God in a certain inward sacrifice by
devotion, prayer and other like interior acts: and this is the
principal sacrifice. The second is his body's good, which is, so to
speak, offered to God in martyrdom, and abstinence or continency. The
third is the good which consists of external things: and of these we
offer a sacrifice to God, directly when we offer our possession to God
immediately, and indirectly when we share them with our neighbor for
God's sake.

Reply to Objection 3: A "sacrifice," properly speaking, requires that
something be done to the thing which is offered to God, for instance
animals were slain and burnt, the bread is broken, eaten, blessed. The
very word signifies this, since "sacrifice" is so called because a man
does something sacred [facit sacrum]. On the other hand an "oblation"
is properly the offering of something to God even if nothing be done
thereto, thus we speak of offering money or bread at the altar, and yet
nothing is done to them. Hence every sacrifice is an oblation, but not
conversely.
"First-fruits" are oblations, because they were offered to
God, according to Dt. 26, but they are not a sacrifice, because nothing
sacred was done to them. "Tithes," however, are neither a sacrifice nor
an oblation, properly speaking, because they are not offered
immediately to God, but to the ministers of Divine worship.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether all are bound to offer sacrifices?

Objection 1: It would seem that all are not bound to offer sacrifices.
The Apostle says (Rom. 3:19): "What things soever the Law speaketh, it
speaketh to them that are in the Law. " Now the law of sacrifices was
not given to all, but only to the Hebrew people. Therefore all are not
bound to offer sacrifices.

Objection 2: Further, sacrifices are offered to God in order to signify
something. But not everyone is capable of understanding these
significations. Therefore not all are bound to offer sacrifices.

Objection 3: Further, priests [*'Sacerdotes': Those who give or
administer sacred things (sacra dantes): cf. 1 Cor. 4:1] are so called
because they offer sacrifice to God. But all are not priests. Therefore
not all are bound to offer sacrifices.

On the contrary, The offering of sacrifices of is of the natural law,
as stated above [3042](A[1]). Now all are bound to do that which is of
the natural law. Therefore all are bound to offer sacrifice to God.

I answer that, Sacrifice is twofold, as stated above [3043](A[2]). The
first and principal is the inward sacrifice, which all are bound to
offer, since all are obliged to offer to God a devout mind. The other
is the outward sacrifice, and this again is twofold. There is a
sacrifice which is deserving of praise merely through being offered to
God in protestation of our subjection to God: and the obligation of
offering this sacrifice was not the same for those under the New or the
Old Law, as for those who were not under the Law. For those who are
under the Law are bound to offer certain definite sacrifices according
to the precepts of the Law, whereas those who were not under the Law
were bound to perform certain outward actions in God's honor, as became
those among whom they dwelt, but not definitely to this or that action.
The other outward sacrifice is when the outward actions of the other
virtues are performed out of reverence for God; some of which are a
matter of precept; and to these all are bound, while others are works
of supererogation, and to these all are not bound.

Reply to Objection 1: All were not bound to offer those particular
sacrifices which were prescribed in the Law: but they were bound to
some sacrifices inward or outward, as stated above.

Reply to Objection 2: Though all do not know explicitly the power of
the sacrifices, they know it implicitly, even as they have implicit
faith, as stated above (Q[2], AA 6,7).

Reply to Objection 3: The priests offer those sacrifices which are
specially directed to the Divine worship, not only for themselves but
also for others. But there are other sacrifices, which anyone can offer
to God for himself as explained above ([3044]AA[2],3).
__________________________________________________________________

OF OBLATIONS AND FIRST-FRUITS (FOUR ARTICLES)

We must next consider oblations and first-fruits. Under this head there
are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether any oblations are necessary as a matter of precept?

(2) To whom are oblations due?

(3) of what things they should be made?

(4) In particular, as to first-fruits, whether men are bound to offer
them?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether men are under a necessity of precept to make oblations?

Objection 1: It would seem that men are not bound by precept to make
oblations. Men are not bound, at the time of the Gospel, to observe the
ceremonial precepts of the Old Law, as stated above ([3045]FS, Q[103],
AA[3] ,4). Now the offering of oblations is one of the ceremonial
precepts of the Old Law, since it is written (Ex. 23:14): "Three times
every year you shall celebrate feasts with Me," and further on (Ex.
23:15): "Thou shalt not appear empty before Me. " Therefore men are not
now under a necessity of precept to make oblations.

Objection 2: Further, before they are made, oblations depend on man's
will, as appears from our Lord's saying (Mat. 5:23), "If . . . thou
offer thy gift at the altar," as though this were left to the choice of
the offerer: and when once oblations have been made, there is no way of
offering them again. Therefore in no way is a man under a necessity of
precept to make oblations.

Objection 3: Further, if anyone is bound to give a certain thing to the
Church, and fails to give it, he can be compelled to do so by being
deprived of the Church's sacraments. But it would seem unlawful to
refuse the sacraments of the Church to those who refuse to make
oblations according to a decree of the sixth council [*Can. Trullan,
xxiii], quoted I, qu. i, can. Nullus: "Let none who dispense Holy
Communion exact anything of the recipient, and if they exact anything
let them be deposed. " Therefore it is not necessary that men should
make oblations.

On the contrary, Gregory says [*Gregory VII; Concil. Roman. v, can.
xii]: "Let every Christian take care that he offer something to God at
the celebration of Mass. "

I answer that, As stated above ([3046]Q[85], A[3], ad 3), the term
"oblation" is common to all things offered for the Divine worship, so
that if a thing be offered to be destroyed in worship of God, as though
it were being made into something holy, it is both an oblation and a
sacrifice. Wherefore it is written (Ex. 29:18): "Thou shalt offer the
whole ram for a burnt-offering upon the altar; it is an oblation to the
Lord, a most sweet savor of the victim of the Lord"; and (Lev. 2:1):
"When anyone shall offer an oblation of sacrifice to the Lord, his
offering shall be of fine flour. " If, on the other hand, it be offered
with a view to its remaining entire and being deputed to the worship of
God or to the use of His ministers, it will be an oblation and not a
sacrifice. Accordingly it is essential to oblations of this kind that
they be offered voluntarily, according to Ex. 25:2, of "every man that
offereth of his own accord you shall take them. " Nevertheless it may
happen in four ways that one is bound to make oblations. First, on
account of a previous agreement: as when a person is granted a portion
of Church land, that he may make certain oblations at fixed times,
although this has the character of rent. Secondly, by reason of a
previous assignment or promise; as when a man offers a gift among the
living, or by will bequeaths to the Church something whether movable or
immovable to be delivered at some future time. Thirdly, on account of
the need of the Church, for instance if her ministers were without
means of support. Fourthly, on account of custom; for the faithful are
bound at certain solemn feasts to make certain customary oblations. In
the last two cases, however, the oblation remains voluntary, as
regards, to wit, the quantity or kind of the thing offered.

Reply to Objection 1: Under the New Law men are not bound to make
oblations on account of legal solemnities, as stated in Exodus, but on
account of certain other reasons, as stated above.

Reply to Objection 2: Some are bound to make oblations, both before
making them, as in the first, third, and. fourth cases, and after they
have made them by assignment or promise: for they are bound to offer in
reality that which has been already offered to the Church by way of
assignment.

Reply to Objection 3: Those who do not make the oblations they are
bound to make may be punished by being deprived of the sacraments, not
by the priest himself to whom the oblations should be made, lest he
seem to exact, something for bestowing the sacraments, but by someone
superior to him.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether oblations are due to priests alone?

Objection 1: It would seem that oblations are not due to priests alone.
For chief among oblations would seem to be those that are deputed to
the sacrifices of victims. Now whatever is given to the poor is called
a "victim in Scripture according to Heb. 13:16, "Do not forget to do
good and to impart, for by such victims [Douay: 'sacrifices'] God's
favor is obtained. Much more therefore are oblations due to the poor.

Objection 2: Further, in many parishes monks have a share in the
oblations. Now "the case of clerics is distinct from the case of
monks," as Jerome states [*Ep. xiv, ad Heliod. ]. Therefore oblations
art not due to priests alone.

Objection 3: Further, lay people with the consent of the Church buy
oblations such as loaves and so forth, and they do so for no other
reason than that they may make use thereof themselves. Therefore
oblations may have reference to the laity.

On the contrary, A canon of Pope Damasus [*Damasus I] quoted X, qu. i
[*Can. Hanc consuetudinem], says: "None but the priests whom day by day
we see serving the Lord may eat and drink of the oblations which are
offered within the precincts of the Holy Church: because in the Old
Testament the Lord forbade the children of Israel to eat the sacred
loaves, with the exception of Aaron and his sons" (Lev. 24:8,9).

I answer that, The priest is appointed mediator and stands, so to
speak, "between" the people and God, as we read of Moses (Dt. 5:5),
wherefore it belongs to him to set forth the Divine teachings and
sacraments before the people; and besides to offer to the Lord things
appertaining to the people, their prayers, for instance, their
sacrifices and oblations. Thus the Apostle says (Heb. 5:1): "Every high
priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that
appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins. "
Hence the oblations which the people offer to God concern the priests,
not only as regards their turning them to their own use, but also as
regards the faithful dispensation thereof, by spending them partly on
things appertaining to the Divine worship, partly on things touching
their own livelihood (since they that serve the altar partake with the
altar, according to 1 Cor. 9:13), and partly for the good of the poor,
who, as far as possible, should be supported from the possessions of
the Church: for our Lord had a purse for the use of the poor, as Jerome
observes on Mat. 17:26, "That we may not scandalize them. "

Reply to Objection 1: Whatever is given to the poor is not a sacrifice
properly speaking; yet it is called a sacrifice in so far as it is
given to them for God's sake. In like manner, and for the same reason,
it can be called an oblation, though not properly speaking, since it is
not given immediately to God. Oblations properly so called fall to the
use of the poor, not by the dispensation of the offerers, but by the
dispensation of the priests.

Reply to Objection 2: Monks or other religious may receive oblations
under three counts. First, as poor, either by the dispensation of the
priests, or by ordination of the Church; secondly, through being
ministers of the altar, and then they can accept oblations that are
freely offered; thirdly, if the parishes belong to them, and they can
accept oblations, having a right to them as rectors of the Church.

Reply to Objection 3: Oblations when once they are consecrated, such as
sacred vessels and vestments, cannot be granted to the use of the
laity: and this is the meaning of the words of Pope Damasus. But those
which are unconsecrated may be allowed to the use of layfolk by
permission of the priests, whether by way of gift or by way of sale.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether a man may make oblations of whatever he lawfully possesses?

Objection 1: It would seem that a man may not make oblations of
whatever he lawfully possesses. According to human law [*Dig. xii, v,
de Condict. ob. turp. vel iniust. caus. 4] "the whore's is a shameful
trade in what she does but not in what she takes," and consequently
what she takes she possesses lawfully. Yet it is not lawful for her to
make an oblation with her gains, according to Dt. 23:18, "Thou shalt
not offer the hire of a strumpet . . . in the house of the Lord thy
God. " Therefore it is not lawful to make an oblation of whatever one
possesses lawfully.

Objection 2: Further, in the same passage it is forbidden to offer "the
price of a dog" in the house of God. But it is evident that a man
possesses lawfully the price of a dog he has lawfully sold. Therefore
it is not lawful to make an oblation of whatever we possess lawfully.

Objection 3: Further, it is written (Malachi 1:8): "If you offer the
lame and the sick, is it not evil? " Yet an animal though lame or sick
is a lawful possession. Therefore it would seem that not of every
lawful possession may one make an oblation.

On the contrary, It is written (Prov. 3:9): "Honor the Lord with thy
substance. " Now whatever a man possesses lawfully belongs to his
substance. Therefore he may make oblations of whatever he possesses
lawfully.

I answer that, As Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. Serm. cxiii), "shouldst
thou plunder one weaker than thyself and give some of the spoil to the
judge, if he should pronounce in thy favor, such is the force of
justice that even thou wouldst not be pleased with him: and if this
should not please thee, neither does it please thy God. " Hence it is
written (Ecclus. 34:21): "The offering of him that sacrificeth of a
thing wrongfully gotten is stained. " Therefore it is evident that an
oblation must not be made of things unjustly acquired or possessed. In
the Old Law, however, wherein the figure was predominant, certain
things were reckoned unclean on account of their signification, and it
was forbidden to offer them. But in the New Law all God's creatures are
looked upon as clean, as stated in Titus 1:15: and consequently
anything that is lawfully possessed, considered in itself, may be
offered in oblation. But it may happen accidentally that one may not
make an oblation of what one possesses lawfully; for instance if it be
detrimental to another person, as in the case of a son who offers to
God the means of supporting his father (which our Lord condemns, Mat.
15:5), or if it give rise to scandal or contempt, or the like.

Reply to Objection 1: In the Old Law it was forbidden to make an
offering of the hire of a strumpet on account of its uncleanness, and
in the New Law, on account of scandal, lest the Church seem to favor
sin if she accept oblations from the profits of sin.

Reply to Objection 2: According to the Law, a dog was deemed an unclean
animal. Yet other unclean animals were redeemed and their price could
be offered, according to Lev. 27:27, "If it be an unclean animal, he
that offereth it shall redeem it. " But a dog was neither offered nor
redeemed, both because idolaters used dogs in sacrifices to their
idols, and because they signify robbery, the proceeds of which cannot
be offered in oblation. However, this prohibition ceased under the New
Law.

Reply to Objection 3: The oblation of a blind or lame animal was
declared unlawful for three reasons. First, on account of the purpose
for which it was offered, wherefore it is written (Malach. 1:8): "If
you offer the blind in sacrifice, is it not evil? " and it behooved
sacrifices to be without blemish. Secondly, on account of contempt,
wherefore the same text goes on (Malach. 1:12): "You have profaned" My
name, "in that you say: The table of the Lord is defiled and that which
is laid thereupon is contemptible. " Thirdly, on account of a previous
vow, whereby a man has bound himself to offer without blemish whatever
he has vowed: hence the same text says further on (Malach. 1:14):
"Cursed is the deceitful man that hath in his flock a male, and making
a vow offereth in sacrifice that which is feeble to the Lord. " The same
reasons avail still in the New Law, but when they do not apply the
unlawfulness ceases.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether men are bound to pay first-fruits?

Objection 1: It would seem that men are not bound to pay first-fruits.
After giving the law of the first-born the text continues (Ex. 13:9):
"It shall be as a sign in thy hand," so that, apparently, it is a
ceremonial precept. But ceremonial precepts are not to be observed in
the New Law. Neither therefore ought first-fruits to be paid.

Objection 2: Further, first-fruits were offered to the Lord for a
special favor conferred on that people, wherefore it is written (Dt.
26:2,3): "Thou shalt take the first of all thy fruits . . . and thou
shalt go to the priest that shall be in those days, and say to him: I
profess this day before the Lord thy God, that I am come into the land,
for which He swore to our fathers, that He would give it us. " Therefore
other nations are not bound to pay first-fruits.

Objection 3: That which one is bound to do should be something
definite. But neither in the New Law nor in the Old do we find mention
of a definite amount of first-fruits. Therefore one is not bound of
necessity to pay them.

On the contrary, It is laid down (16, qu. vii, can. Decimas): "We
confirm the right of priests to tithes and first-fruits, and everybody
must pay them. "

I answer that, First-fruits are a kind of oblation, because they are
offered to God with a certain profession (Dt. 26); where the same
passage continues: "The priest taking the basket containing the
first-fruits from the hand of him that bringeth the first-fruits, shall
set it before the altar of the Lord thy God," and further on (Dt.
26:10) he is commanded to say: "Therefore now I offer the first-fruits
of the land, which the Lord hath given me. " Now the first-fruits were
offered for a special reason, namely, in recognition of the divine
favor, as though man acknowledged that he had received the fruits of
the earth from God, and that he ought to offer something to God in
return, according to 1 Paral 29:14, "We have given Thee what we
received of Thy hand. " And since what we offer God ought to be
something special, hence it is that man was commanded to offer God his
first-fruits, as being a special part of the fruits of the earth: and
since a priest is "ordained for the people "in the things that
appertain to God" (Heb. 5:1), the first-fruits offered by the people
were granted to the priest's use. " Wherefore it is written (Num. 18:8):
"The Lord said to Aaron: Behold I have given thee the charge of My
first-fruits. " Now it is a point of natural law that man should make an
offering in God's honor out of the things he has received from God, but
that the offering should be made to any particular person, or out of
his first-fruits, or in such or such a quantity, was indeed determined
in the Old Law by divine command; but in the New Law it is fixed by the
declaration of the Church, in virtue of which men are bound to pay
first-fruits according to the custom of their country and the needs of
the Church's ministers.

Reply to Objection 1: The ceremonial observances were properly speaking
signs of the future, and consequently they ceased when the foreshadowed
truth was actually present. But the offering of first-fruits was for a
sign of a past favor, whence arises the duty of acknowledgment in
accordance with the dictate of natural reason. Hence taken in a general
sense this obligation remains.

Reply to Objection 2: First-fruits were offered in the Old Law, not
only on account of the favor of the promised land given by God, but
also on account of the favor of the fruits of the earth, which were
given by God. Hence it is written (Dt. 26:10): "I offer the
first-fruits of the land which the Lord hath given me," which second
motive is common among all people. We may also reply that just as God
granted the land of promise to the Jews by a special favor, so by a
general favor He bestowed the lordship of the earth on the whole of
mankind, according to Ps. 113:24, "The earth He has given to the
children of men. "

Reply to Objection 3: As Jerome says [*Comment. in Ezech. 45:13,14; cf.
Cap. Decimam, de Decim. Primit. et Oblat. ]: "According to the tradition
of the ancients the custom arose for those who had most to give the
priests a fortieth part, and those who had least, one sixtieth, in lieu
of first-fruits. " Hence it would seem that first-fruits should vary
between these limits according to the custom of one's country.