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.
Praeterea, in sacrificium divinum non offerebantur nisi de tribus generibus animalium quadrupedum, scilicet de genere bovum, ovium et caprarum; et de avibus, communiter quidem turtur et columba; specialiter autem in emundatione leprosi fiebat sacrificium de passeribus. Multa autem alia animalia sunt eis nobiliora. Cum igitur omne quod est optimum Deo sit exhibendum, videtur quod non solum de istis rebus fuerint Deo sacrificia offerenda.
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.
Praeterea, sicut homo a Deo habet dominium volatilium et bestiarum, ita etiam piscium. Inconvenienter igitur pisces a divino sacrificio excludebantur.
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.
Praeterea, indifferenter offerri mandantur turtures et columbae. Sicut igitur mandantur offerri pulli columbarum, ita etiam pulli turturum.
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.
Praeterea, Deus est auctor vitae non solum hominum, sed etiam animalium; ut patet per id quod dicitur Gen. I. Mors autem opponitur vitae. Non ergo debuerunt Deo offerri animalia occisa, sed magis animalia viventia. Praecipue quia etiam apostolus monet, Rom. XII, ut exhibeamus nostra corpora hostiam viventem, sanctam, Deo placentem.
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 (Rm. 12:1), to present our bodies "a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God."
Praeterea, si animalia Deo in sacrificium non offerebantur nisi occisa, nulla videtur esse differentia qualiter occidantur. Inconvenienter igitur determinatur modus immolationis, praecipue in avibus, ut patet Levit. I.
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.).
Praeterea, omnis defectus animalis via est ad corruptionem et mortem. Si igitur animalia occisa Deo offerebantur, inconveniens fuit prohibere oblationem animalis imperfecti, puta claudi aut caeci, aut aliter maculosi.
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.
Praeterea, illi qui offerunt hostias Deo, debent de his participare; secundum illud apostoli, I Cor. X, nonne qui edunt hostias, participes sunt altaris? Inconvenienter igitur quaedam partes hostiarum offerentibus subtrahebantur, scilicet sanguis et adeps, et pectusculum et armus dexter.
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.
Praeterea, sicut holocausta offerebantur in honorem Dei, ita etiam hostiae pacificae et hostiae pro peccato. Sed nullum animal feminini sexus offerebatur Deo in holocaustum, fiebant tamen holocausta tam de quadrupedibus quam de avibus. Ergo inconvenienter in hostiis pacificis et pro peccato offerebantur animalia feminini sexus; et tamen in hostiis pacificis non offerebantur aves.
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.
Praeterea, omnes hostiae pacificae unius generis esse videntur. Non ergo debuit poni ista differentia, quod quorundam pacificorum carnes non possent vesci in crastino, quorundam autem possent, ut mandatur Levit. VII.
Objection 1:: 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.
Praeterea, omnia peccata in hoc conveniunt quod a Deo avertunt. Ergo pro omnibus peccatis, in Dei reconciliationem, unum genus sacrificii debuit offerri.
Objection 1:: 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.
Praeterea, omnia animalia quae offerebantur in sacrificium, uno modo offerebantur, scilicet occisa. Non videtur ergo conveniens quod de terrae nascentibus diversimode fiebat oblatio, nunc enim offerebantur spicae, nunc simila, nunc panis, quandoque quidem coctus in clibano, quandoque in sartagine, quandoque in craticula.
Objection 1:: 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.
Praeterea, omnia quae in usum nostrum veniunt, a Deo recognoscere debemus. Inconvenienter ergo praeter animalia, solum haec Deo offerebantur, panis, vinum, oleum, thus et sal.
Objection 1:: 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.
Praeterea, sacrificia corporalia exprimunt interius sacrificium cordis, quo homo spiritum suum offert Deo. Sed in interiori sacrificio plus est de dulcedine, quam repraesentat mel, quam de mordacitate, quam repraesentat sal, dicitur enim Eccli. XXIV, spiritus meus super mel dulcis. Ergo inconvenienter prohibebatur in sacrificio apponi mel et fermentum, quod etiam facit panem sapidum; et praecipiebatur ibi apponi sal, quod est mordicativum, et thus, quod habet saporem amarum. Videtur ergo quod ea quae pertinent ad caeremonias sacrificiorum, non habeant rationabilem causam.
Objection 1:: 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.
Sed contra est quod dicitur Levit. I, oblata omnia adolebit sacerdos super altare in holocaustum et odorem suavissimum domino. Sed sicut dicitur Sap. VII, neminem diligit Deus nisi qui cum sapientia inhabitat, ex quo potest accipi quod quidquid est Deo acceptum, est cum sapientia. Ergo illae caeremoniae sacrificiorum cum sapientia erant, velut habentes rationabiles caus.
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.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, caeremoniae veteris legis duplicem causam habebant, unam scilicet litteralem, secundum quod ordinabantur ad cultum Dei; aliam vero figuralem, sive mysticam, secundum quod ordinabantur ad figurandum Christum. Et ex utraque parte potest convenienter assignari causa caeremoniarum quae ad sacrificia pertinebant.
Secundum enim quod sacrificia ordinabantur ad cultum Dei, causa sacrificiorum dupliciter accipi potest. Uno modo, secundum quod per sacrificia repraesentabatur ordinatio mentis in Deum, ad quam excitabatur sacrificium offerens. Ad rectam autem ordinationem mentis in Deum pertinet quod omnia quae homo habet, recognoscat a Deo tanquam a primo principio, et ordinet in Deum tanquam in ultimum finem. Et hoc repraesentabatur in oblationibus et sacrificiis, secundum quod homo ex rebus suis, quasi in recognitionem quod haberet ea a Deo, in honorem Dei ea offerebat; secundum quod dixit David, I Paral. XXIX, tua sunt omnia; et quae de manu tua accepimus, dedimus tibi. Et ideo in oblatione sacrificiorum protestabatur homo quod Deus esset primum principium creationis rerum et ultimus finis, ad quem essent omnia referenda. Et quia pertinet ad rectam ordinationem mentis in Deum ut mens humana non recognoscat alium primum auctorem rerum nisi solum Deum, neque in aliquo alio finem suum constituat; propter hoc prohibebatur in lege offerre sacrificium alicui alteri nisi Deo, secundum illud Exod. XXII, qui immolat diis, occidetur, praeter domino soli. Et ideo de causa caeremoniarum circa sacrificia potest assignari ratio alio modo, ex hoc quod per huiusmodi homines retrahebantur a sacrificiis idolorum. Unde etiam praecepta de sacrificiis non fuerunt data populo Iudaeorum nisi postquam declinavit ad idololatriam, adorando vitulum conflatilem, quasi huiusmodi sacrificia sint instituta ut populus ad sacrificandum promptus, huiusmodi sacrificia magis Deo quam idolis offerret. Unde dicitur Ierem. VII, non sum locutus cum patribus vestris, et non praecepi eis, in die qua eduxi eos de terra Aegypti, de verbo holocautomatum et victimarum.
Inter omnia autem dona quae Deus humano generi iam per peccatum lapso dedit, praecipuum est quod dedit filium suum, unde dicitur Ioan. III, sic Deus dilexit mundum ut filium suum unigenitum daret, ut omnis qui credit in ipsum non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam. Et ideo potissimum sacrificium est quo ipse Christus seipsum obtulit Deo in odorem suavitatis, ut dicitur ad Ephes. V. Et propter hoc omnia alia sacrificia offerebantur in veteri lege ut hoc unum singulare et praecipuum sacrificium figuraretur, tanquam perfectum per imperfecta. Unde apostolus dicit, ad Heb. X, quod sacerdos veteris legis easdem saepe offerebat hostias, quae nunquam possunt auferre peccata, Christus autem pro peccatis obtulit unam in sempiternum. Et quia ex figurato sumitur ratio figurae, ideo rationes sacrificiorum figuralium veteris legis sunt sumendae ex vero sacrificio Christi.
I answer that, As stated above (Article [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.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Deus non volebat huiusmodi sacrificia sibi offerri propter ipsas res quae offerebantur, quasi eis indigeret, unde dicitur Isaiae I, holocausta arietum, et adipem pinguium, et sanguinem vitulorum et hircorum et agnorum, nolui. Sed volebat ea sibi offerri, ut supra dictum est, tum ad excludendam idololatriam; tum ad significandum debitum ordinem mentis humanae in Deum; tum etiam ad figurandum mysterium redemptionis humanae factae per Christum.
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.
Ad secundum dicendum quod quantum ad omnia praedicta, conveniens ratio fuit quare ista animalia offerebantur Deo in sacrificium, et non alia. Primo quidem, ad excludendum idololatriam. Quia omnia alia animalia offerebant idololatrae diis suis, vel eis ad maleficia utebantur, ista autem animalia apud Aegyptios, cum quibus conversati erant, abominabilia erant ad occidendum, unde ea non offerebant in sacrificium diis suis; unde dicitur Exod. VIII, abominationes Aegyptiorum immolabimus domino Deo nostro. Oves enim colebant; hircos venerabantur, quia in eorum figura Daemones apparebant; bobus autem utebantur ad agriculturam, quam inter res sacras habebant.
Secundo, hoc conveniens erat ad praedictam ordinationem mentis in Deum. Et hoc dupliciter. Primo quidem, quia huiusmodi animalia maxime sunt per quae sustentatur humana vita, et cum hoc mundissima sunt, et mundissimum habent nutrimentum. Alia vero animalia vel sunt silvestria, et non sunt communiter hominum usui deputata, vel, si sunt domestica, immundum habent nutrimentum, ut porcus et gallina; solum autem id quod est purum, Deo est attribuendum. Huiusmodi autem aves specialiter offerebantur, quia habentur in copia in terra promissionis. Secundo, quia per immolationem huiusmodi animalium puritas mentis designatur. Quia, ut dicitur in Glossa Levit. I, vitulum offerimus, cum carnis superbiam vincimus; agnum, cum irrationales motus corrigimus; haedum, cum lasciviam superamus; turturem, dum castitatem servamus; panes azymos, cum in azymis sinceritatis epulamur. In columba vero manifestum est quod significatur caritas et simplicitas mentis.
Tertio vero, conveniens fuit haec animalia offerri in figuram Christi. Quia, ut in eadem Glossa dicitur, Christus in vitulo offertur, propter virtutem crucis; in agno, propter innocentiam; in ariete, propter principatum; in hirco, propter similitudinem carnis peccati. In turture et columba duarum naturarum coniunctio monstrabatur, vel in turture castitas, in columba caritas significatur. In similagine aspersio credentium per aquam Baptismi figurabatur.
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."
Ad tertium dicendum quod pisces, quia in aquis vivunt, magis sunt alieni ab homine quam alia animalia, quae vivunt in aere, sicut et homo. Et iterum pisces, ex aqua extracti, statim moriuntur, unde non poterant in templo offerri, sicut alia animalia.
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.
Ad quartum dicendum quod in turturibus meliores sunt maiores quam pulli; in columbis autem e converso. Et ideo, ut Rabbi Moyses dicit, mandantur offerri turtures et pulli columbarum, quia omne quod est optimum, Deo est attribuendum.
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.
Ad quintum dicendum quod animalia in sacrificium oblata occidebantur, quia veniunt in usum hominis occisa, secundum quod a Deo dantur homini ad esum. Et ideo etiam igni cremabantur, quia per ignem decocta fiunt apta humano usui. Similiter etiam per occisionem animalium significatur destructio peccatorum. Et quod homines erant digni occisione pro peccatis suis, ac si illa animalia loco eorum occiderentur, ad significandum expiationem peccatorum. Per occisionem etiam huiusmodi animalium significabatur occisio Christi.
Reply to Objection 5: The animals which were offered in sacrifice were slain, because it is by being killed that they become useful to man, forasmuch as God gave them to man for food. Wherefore also they were burnt with fire: because it is by being cooked that they are made fit for human consumption. Moreover the slaying of the animals signified the destruction of sins: and also that man deserved death on account of his sins; as though those animals were slain in man's stead, in order to betoken the expiation of sins. Again the slaying of these animals signified the slaying of Christ.
Ad sextum dicendum quod specialis modus occidendi animalia immolata determinabatur in lege ad excludendum alios modos, quibus idololatrae animalia idolis immolabant. Vel etiam, ut Rabbi Moyses dicit, lex elegit genus occisionis quo animalia minus affligebantur occisa. Per quod excludebatur etiam immisericordia offerentium, et deterioratio animalium occisorum.
Reply to Objection 6: The Law fixed the special manner of slaying the sacrificial animals in order to exclude other ways of killing, whereby idolaters sacrificed animals to idols. Or again, as Rabbi Moses says (Doct. Perplex. iii), "the Law chose that manner of slaying which was least painful to the slain animal." This excluded cruelty on the part of the offerers, and any mangling of the animals slain.
Ad septimum dicendum quod, quia animalia maculosa solent haberi contemptui etiam apud homines, ideo prohibitum est ne Deo in sacrificium offerrentur, propter quod etiam prohibitum erat ne mercedem prostibuli, aut pretium canis, in domum Dei offerrent. Et eadem etiam ratione non offerebant animalia ante septimum diem, quia talia animalia erant quasi abortiva, nondum plene consistentia, propter teneritudinem.
Reply to Objection 7: It is because unclean animals are wont to be held in contempt among men, that it was forbidden to offer them in sacrifice to God: and for this reason too they were forbidden (Dt. 23:18) to offer "the hire of a strumpet or the price of a dog in the house of . . . God." For the same reason they did not offer animals before the seventh day, because such were abortive as it were, the flesh being not yet firm on account of its exceeding softness.
Ad octavum dicendum quod triplex erat sacrificiorum genus. Quoddam erat quod totum comburebatur, et hoc dicebatur holocaustum, quasi totum incensum. Huiusmodi enim sacrificium offerebatur Deo specialiter ad reverentiam maiestatis ipsius, et amorem bonitatis eius, et conveniebat perfectionis statui in impletione consiliorum. Et ideo totum comburebatur, ut sicut totum animal, resolutum in vaporem, sursum ascendebat, ita etiam significaretur totum hominem, et omnia quae ipsius sunt, Dei dominio esse subiecta, et ei esse offerenda.
Aliud autem erat sacrificium pro peccato, quod offerebatur Deo ex necessitate remissionis peccati, et conveniebat statui poenitentium in satisfactione peccatorum. Quod dividebatur in duas partes, nam una pars eius comburebatur, alia vero cedebat in usum sacerdotum; ad significandum quod expiatio peccatorum fit a Deo per ministerium sacerdotum. Nisi quando offerebatur sacrificium pro peccato totius populi, vel specialiter pro peccato sacerdotis, tunc enim totum comburebatur. Non enim debebant in usum sacerdotum venire ea quae pro peccato eorum offerebantur, ut nihil peccati in eis remaneret. Et quia hoc non esset satisfactio pro peccato, si enim cederet in usum eorum pro quorum peccatis offerebatur, idem esse videretur ac si non offerrent.
Tertium vero sacrificium vocabatur hostia pacifica, quae offerebatur Deo vel pro gratiarum actione, vel pro salute et prosperitate offerentium, ex debito beneficii vel accepti vel accipiendi, et convenit statui proficientium in impletione mandatorum. Et ista dividebantur in tres partes, nam una pars incendebatur ad honorem Dei, alia pars cedebat in usum sacerdotum, tertia vero pars in usum offerentium; ad significandum quod salus hominis procedit a Deo, dirigentibus ministris Dei, et cooperantibus ipsis hominibus qui salvantur.
Hoc autem generaliter observabatur, quod sanguis et adeps non veniebant neque in usum sacerdotum, neque in usum offerentium, sed sanguis effundebatur ad crepidinem altaris, in honorem Dei; adeps vero adurebatur in igne. Cuius ratio una quidem fuit ad excludendam idololatriam. Idololatrae enim bibebant de sanguine victimarum, et comedebant adipes; secundum illud Deut. XXXII, de quorum victimis comedebant adipes, et bibebant vinum libaminum. Secunda ratio est ad informationem humanae vitae. Prohibebatur enim eis usus sanguinis, ad hoc quod horrerent humani sanguinis effusionem, unde dicitur Gen. IX, carnem cum sanguine non comedetis, sanguinem enim animarum vestrarum requiram. Esus vero adipum prohibebatur eis ad vitandam lasciviam, unde dicitur Ezech. XXXIV, quod crassum erat, occidebatis. Tertia ratio est propter reverentiam divinam. Quia sanguis est maxime necessarius ad vitam, ratione cuius dicitur anima esse in sanguine, adeps autem abundantiam nutrimenti demonstrat. Et ideo ut ostenderetur quod a Deo nobis est et vita et omnis bonorum sufficientia, ad honorem Dei effundebatur sanguis, et adurebatur adeps. Quarta ratio est quia per hoc figurabatur effusio sanguinis Christi, et pinguedo caritatis eius, per quam se obtulit Deo pro nobis.
De hostiis autem pacificis in usum sacerdotis cedebat pectusculum et armus dexter, ad excludendum quandam divinationis speciem quae vocatur spatulamantia, quia scilicet in spatulis animalium immolatorum divinabant, et similiter in osse pectoris. Et ideo ista offerentibus subtrahebantur. Per hoc etiam significabatur quod sacerdoti erat necessaria sapientia cordis ad instruendum populum, quod significabatur per pectus, quod est tegumentum cordis; et etiam fortitudo ad sustentandum defectus, quae significatur per armum dextrum.
Reply to Objection 8: There were three kinds of sacrifices. There was one in which the victim was entirely consumed by fire: this was called "a holocaust, i.e. all burnt." For this kind of sacrifice was offered to God specially to show reverence to His majesty, and love of His goodness: and typified the state of perfection as regards the fulfilment of the counsels. Wherefore the whole was burnt up: so that as the whole animal by being dissolved into vapor soared aloft, so it might denote that the whole man, and whatever belongs to him, are subject to the authority of God, and should be offered to Him.
Another sacrifice was the "sin-offering," which was offered to God on account of man's need for the forgiveness of sin: and this typifies the state of penitents in satisfying for sins. It was divided into two parts: for one part was burnt; while the other was granted to the use of the priests to signify that remission of sins is granted by God through the ministry of His priests. When, however, this sacrifice was offered for the sins of the whole people, or specially for the sin of the priest, the whole victim was burnt up. For it was not fitting that the priests should have the use of that which was offered for their own sins, to signify that nothing sinful should remain in them. Moreover, this would not be satisfaction for sin: for if the offering were granted to the use of those for whose sins it was offered, it would seem to be the same as if it had not been offered.
The third kind of sacrifice was called the "peace-offering," which was offered to God, either in thanksgiving, or for the welfare and prosperity of the offerers, in acknowledgment of benefits already received or yet to be received: and this typifies the state of those who are proficient in the observance of the commandments. These sacrifices were divided into three parts: for one part was burnt in honor of God; another part was allotted to the use of the priests; and the third part to the use of the offerers; in order to signify that man's salvation is from God, by the direction of God's ministers, and through the cooperation of those who are saved.
But it was the universal rule that the blood and fat were not allotted to the use either of the priests or of the offerers: the blood being poured out at the foot of the altar, in honor of God, while the fat was burnt upon the altar (Lev. 9:9,10). The reason for this was, first, in order to prevent idolatry: because idolaters used to drink the blood and eat the fat of the victims, according to Dt. 32:38: "Of whose victims they eat the fat, and drank the wine of their drink-offerings." Secondly, in order to form them to a right way of living. For they were forbidden the use of the blood that they might abhor the shedding of human blood; wherefore it is written (Gn. 9:4,5): "Flesh with blood you shall not eat: for I will require the blood of your lives": and they were forbidden to eat the fat, in order to withdraw them from lasciviousness; hence it is written (Ezech. 34:3): "You have killed that which was fat." Thirdly, on account of the reverence due to God: because blood is most necessary for life, for which reason "life" is said to be "in the blood" (Lev. 17:11,14): while fat is a sign of abundant nourishment. Wherefore, in order to show that to God we owe both life and a sufficiency of all good things, the blood was poured out, and the fat burnt up in His honor. Fourthly, in order to foreshadow the shedding of Christ's blood, and the abundance of His charity, whereby He offered Himself to God for us.
In the peace-offerings, the breast-bone and the right shoulder were allotted to the use of the priest, in order to prevent a certain kind of divination which is known as "spatulamantia," so called because it was customary in divining to use the shoulder-blade [spatula], and the breast-bone of the animals offered in sacrifice; wherefore these things were taken away from the offerers. This is also denoted the priest's need of wisdom in the heart, to instruct the people---this was signified by the breast-bone, which covers the heart; and his need of fortitude, in order to bear with human frailty---and this was signified by the right shoulder.
Ad nonum dicendum quod, quia holocaustum erat perfectissimum inter sacrificia, ideo non offerebatur in holocaustum nisi masculus, nam femina est animal imperfectum. Oblatio autem turturum et columbarum erat propter paupertatem offerentium, qui maiora animalia offerre non poterant. Et quia hostiae pacificae gratis offerebantur, et nullus eas offerre cogebatur nisi spontaneus; ideo huiusmodi aves non offerebantur inter hostias pacificas, sed inter holocausta et hostias pro peccato, quas quandoque oportebat offerre. Aves etiam huiusmodi, propter altitudinem volatus, congruunt perfectioni holocaustorum, et etiam hostiis pro peccato, quia habent gemitum pro cantu.
Reply to Objection 9: Because the holocaust was the most perfect kind of sacrifice, therefore none but a male was offered for a holocaust: because the female is an imperfect animal. The offering of turtledoves and doves was on account of the poverty of the offerers, who were unable to offer bigger animals. And since peace-victims were offered freely, and no one was bound to offer them against his will, hence these birds were offered not among the peace-victims, but among the holocausts and victims for sin, which man was obliged to offer at times. Moreover these birds, on account of their lofty flight, while befitting the perfection of the holocausts: and were suitable for sin-offerings because their song is doleful.
Ad decimum dicendum quod inter omnia sacrificia holocaustum erat praecipuum, quia totum comburebatur in honorem Dei, et nihil ex eo comedebatur. Secundum vero locum in sanctitate tenebat hostia pro peccato, quae comedebatur solum in atrio a sacerdotibus, et in ipsa die sacrificii. Tertium vero gradum tenebant hostiae pacificae pro gratiarum actione, quae comedebantur ipso die, sed ubique in Ierusalem. Quartum vero locum tenebant hostiae pacificae ex voto, quarum carnes poterant etiam in crastino comedi. Et est ratio huius ordinis quia maxime obligatur homo Deo propter eius maiestatem, secundo, propter offensam commissam; tertio, propter beneficia iam suscepta; quarto, propter beneficia sperata.
Reply to Objection 1:: The holocaust was the chief of all the sacrifices: because all were burnt in honor of God, and nothing of it was eaten. The second place in holiness, belongs to the sacrifice for sins, which was eaten in the court only, and on the very day of the sacrifice (Lev. 7:6,15). The third place must be given to the peace-offerings of thanksgiving, which were eaten on the same day, but anywhere in Jerusalem. Fourth in order were the "ex-voto" peace-offerings, the flesh of which could be eaten even on the morrow. The reason for this order is that man is bound to God, chiefly on account of His majesty; secondly, on account of the sins he has committed; thirdly, because of the benefits he has already received from Him; fourthly, by reason of the benefits he hopes to receive from Him.
Ad undecimum dicendum quod peccata aggravantur ex statu peccantis, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo alia hostia mandatur offerri pro peccato sacerdotis et principis, vel alterius privatae personae. Est autem attendendum, ut Rabbi Moyses dicit, quod quanto gravius erat peccatum, tanto vilior species animalis offerebatur pro eo. Unde capra, quod est vilissimum animal, offerebatur pro idololatria, quod est gravissimum peccatum; pro ignorantia vero sacerdotis offerebatur vitulus; pro negligentia autem principis, hircus.
Reply to Objection 1:: Sins are more grievous by reason of the state of the sinner, as stated above (Question [73], Article [10]): wherefore different victims are commanded to be offered for the sin of a priest, or of a prince, or of some other private individual. "But," as Rabbi Moses says (Doct. Perplex. iii), "we must take note that the more grievous the sin, the lower the species of animals offered for it. Wherefore the goat, which is a very base animal, was offered for idolatry; while a calf was offered for a priest's ignorance, and a ram for the negligence of a prince."
Ad duodecimum dicendum quod lex in sacrificiis providere voluit paupertati offerentium, ut qui non posset habere animal quadrupes, saltem offerret avem; quam qui habere non posset, saltem offerret panem; et si hunc habere non posset, saltem offerret farinam vel spicas.
Causa vero figuralis est quia panis significat Christum, qui est panis vivus, ut dicitur Ioan. VI. Qui quidem erat sicut in spica, pro statu legis naturae, in fide patrum; erat autem sicut simila in doctrina legis prophetarum; erat autem sicut panis formatus post humanitatem assumptam; coctus igne, idest formatus spiritu sancto in clibano uteri virginalis; qui etiam fuit coctus in sartagine, per labores quos in mundo sustinebat; in cruce vero quasi in craticula adustus.
Reply to Objection 1:: In the matter of sacrifices the Law had in view the poverty of the offerers; so that those who could not have a four-footed animal at their disposal, might at least offer a bird; and that he who could not have a bird might at least offer bread; and that if a man had not even bread he might offer flour or ears of corn.
The figurative cause is that the bread signifies Christ Who is the "living bread" (Jn. 6:41,51). He was indeed an ear of corn, as it were, during the state of the law of nature, in the faith of the patriarchs; He was like flour in the doctrine of the Law of the prophets; and He was like perfect bread after He had taken human nature; baked in the fire, i.e. formed by the Holy Ghost in the oven of the virginal womb; baked again in a pan by the toils which He suffered in the world; and consumed by fire on the cross as on a gridiron.
Ad decimumtertium dicendum quod ea quae in usum hominis veniunt de terrae nascentibus, vel sunt in cibum, et de eis offerebatur panis. Vel sunt in potum, et de his offerebatur vinum. Vel sunt in condimentum, et de his offerebatur oleum et sal. Vel sunt in medicamentum, et de his offerebatur thus, quod est aromaticum et consolidativum.
Per panem autem figuratur caro Christi; per vinum autem sanguis eius, per quem redempti sumus; oleum figurat gratiam Christi; sal scientiam; thus orationem
Reply to Objection 1:: The products of the soil are useful to man, either as food, and of these bread was offered; or as drink, and of these wine was offered; or as seasoning, and of these oil and salt were offered; or as healing, and of these they offered incense, which both smells sweetly and binds easily together.
Now the bread foreshadowed the flesh of Christ; and the wine, His blood, whereby we were redeemed; oil betokens the grace of Christ; salt, His knowledge; incense, His prayer.
Ad decimumquartum dicendum quod mel non offerebatur in sacrificiis Dei, tum quia consueverat offerri in sacrificiis idolorum. Tum etiam ad excludendam omnem carnalem dulcedinem et voluptatem ab his qui Deo sacrificare intendunt. Fermentum vero non offerebatur, ad excludendam corruptionem. Et forte etiam in sacrificiis idolorum solitum erat offerri.
Sal autem offerebatur, quia impedit corruptionem putredinis, sacrificia autem Dei debent esse incorrupta. Et etiam quia in sale significatur discretio sapientiae; vel etiam mortificatio carnis.
Thus autem offerebatur ad designandam devotionem mentis, quae est necessaria offerentibus; et etiam ad designandum odorem bonae famae, nam thus et pingue est, et odoriferum. Et quia sacrificium zelotypiae non procedebat ex devotione, sed magis ex suspicione, ideo in eo non offerebatur thus.
Reply to Objection 1:: Honey was not offered in the sacrifices to God, both because it was wont to be offered in the sacrifices to idols; and in order to denote the absence of all carnal sweetness and pleasure from those who intend to sacrifice to God. Leaven was not offered, to denote the exclusion of corruption. Perhaps too, it was wont to be offered in the sacrifices to idols.
Salt, however, was offered, because it wards off the corruption of putrefaction: for sacrifices offered to God should be incorrupt. Moreover, salt signifies the discretion of wisdom, or again, mortification of the flesh.
Incense was offered to denote devotion of the heart, which is necessary in the offerer; and again, to signify the odor of a good name: for incense is composed of matter, both rich and fragrant. And since the sacrifice "of jealousy" did not proceed from devotion, but rather from suspicion, therefore incense was not offered therein (Num. 5:15).