 Question 83, Part 2 of Summa Theologica Secunda Secundae, triates on the cardinal virtues, the virtue of justice. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Secunda Secundae, triates on the cardinal virtues, the virtue of justice. By St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 83 of Prayer in 17 Articles, Part 2, Articles 7-12, 7th Article, whether we ought to pray for others. Objection 1, it would seem that we ought not to pray for others. In praying, we ought to conform to the pattern given by our Lord. Now in the Lord's Prayer we make petitions for ourselves, not for others. Thus we say, give us this day our daily bread, etc., therefore we should not pray for others. Objection 2 further, Prayer is offered that it may be heard. Now one of the conditions required for prayer that it may be heard is that one pray for oneself. Therefore Augustine, in commenting on John 16-23, if you ask the Father anything in my name he will give it to you, says, Everyone is heard when he prays for himself, not when he prays for all, therefore he does not simply say, he will give it, but he will give it to you. Therefore it would seem that we ought not to pray for others, but only for ourselves. Objection 3 further, We are forbidden to pray for others if they are wicked, according to Jeremiah 7-16. Therefore do not then pray for this people, and do not withstand me, for I will not hear thee. On the other hand we are not bound to pray for the good, since they are heard when they pray for themselves. Therefore it would seem that we ought not to pray for others. On the contrary, it is written in James 5-16, Pray for one another, that you may be saved. I answer that, as stated above in Article 6. When we pray we ought to ask for what we ought to desire. Now we ought to desire good things, not only for ourselves, but also for others. For this is essential to the love which we owe to our neighbor, as stated above in Question 25, Articles 1 and 12, Question 27, Article 2, and in Question 31, Article 1. Therefore charity requires us to pray for others. Hence, Chrysostom says, in his homily number 14 on the Gospel of Matthew, Necessity binds us to pray for ourselves, Fraternal charity urges us to pray for others, and the prayer that fraternal charity proffers is sweeter to God than that which is the outcome of necessity. Reply to Objection 1, as Cyprian says in On the Lord's Prayer, We say our Father and not my Father, Give us and not give me, because the Master of unity did not wish us to pray privately, that is, for ourselves alone, for he wished each one to pray for all, even as he himself bore all in one. Reply to Objection 2, It is a condition of prayer that one pray for oneself, not as though it were necessary in order that prayer be meritorious, but as being necessary in order that prayer may not fail in its effects of impetration. For it sometimes happens that we pray for another with piety and perseverance, and ask for things relating to his salvation, and yet it is not granted on account of some obstacle on the part of the person we are praying for, for according to Jeremiah 15.1, If Moses and Samuel stand before me, my soul is not towards this people, and yet the prayer will be meritorious for the person who prays thus out of charity, according to Psalm 34 verse 13, My prayer shall be turned into my bosom, that is, though it profit them not, I am not deprived of my reward, as the glass expounds it. Reply to Objection 3, We ought to pray even for sinners that they may be converted, and for the just that they may persevere and advance in holiness. Yet those who pray are heard not for all sinners, but for some, since they are heard for the predestined, but not for those who are foreknown to death. Even as the correction whereby we correct the brethren has an effect in the predestined, but not in the reprobate, according to Ecclesiastes 7.14, no man can correct whom God hath despised. Hence it is written in 1 John 5.16, He that knoweth his brother to sin, a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and his life shall be given him, who sineth not to death. Now just as the benefit of correction must not be refused to any man so long as he lives here below, because we cannot distinguish the predestined from the reprobate, as Augustine says in On Admonition in Grace 15. So too no man should be denied the help of prayer. We ought also to pray for the just for three reasons. First, because the prayers of a multitude are more easily heard, wherefore a gloss on Romans 15.30, Help me in your prayers, says. The apostle rightly tells the lesser brethren to pray for him, for many lesser ones, if they be united together in one mind, become great, and it is impossible for the prayers of a multitude not to obtain that which is possible to be obtained by prayer. Secondly, that many may thank God for the graces conferred on the just, which graces conduce to the prophet of many according to the apostle in 2 Corinthians 111. Thirdly, that the more perfect may not wax proud, seeing that they find that they need the prayers of the less perfect. Eighth article Whether we ought to pray for our enemies Objection one You would seem that we ought not to pray for our enemies, according to Romans 15.4 What things so ever were written were written for our learning. Now holy writ contains many imprecations against enemies. Thus it is written in Psalm 611, Let all my enemies be ashamed and be troubled, let them be ashamed and be troubled very speedily. Therefore, we too should pray against rather than for our enemies. Objection two further To be revenged on one's enemies is harmful to them. But holy men seek vengeance of their enemies, according to Apocalypse 610, How long dost thou not revenge our blood on them that dwell on earth? Wherefore they rejoice in being revenged on their enemies, according to Psalm 5711, The just shall rejoice when he shall see the revenge. Therefore we should not pray for our enemies, but against them. Objection three further Man's deed should not be contrary to his prayer. Now sometimes men lawfully attack their enemies, else all wars would be unlawful, which is opposed to what we have said above in Question 40 Article 1. Therefore we should not pray for our enemies. On the contrary, it is written in Matthew 5.44 Pray for them that persecute and culminate you. I answer that to pray for another is an act of charity, as stated above in Article 7. Wherefore we are bound to pray for our enemies in the same manner as we are bound to love them. Now it was explained above in the triities on charity, Question 25 Articles 8 and 9, How we are bound to love our enemies, namely that we must love in them their nature, not their sin, and that to love our enemies in general is a matter of precept. While to love them in the individual is not a matter of precept, except in the preparedness of the mind, so that a man must be prepared to love his enemy even in the individual and to help him in a case of necessity, or if his enemy should beg his forgiveness. But to love one's enemies absolutely in the individual, and to assist them, is an act of perfection. In like manner, it is a matter of obligation that we should not exclude our enemies from the general prayers which we offer up for others. But it is a matter of perfection and not of obligation to pray for them individually, except in certain special cases. Reply to Objection 1 The imprecations contained in Holy Rit may be understood in four ways. First, according to the custom of the prophets, to foretell the future under the veil of an imprecation, as Augustine states in his commentary on the Sermon of the Mount 121. Secondly, in the sense that certain temporal evils are sometimes inflicted by God on the wicked for their correction. Thirdly, because they are understood to be pronounced, not against the men themselves, but against the kingdom of sin, with the purpose to wit, of destroying sin by the correction of men. Fourthly, by way of conformity of our will to the Divine Justice, with regard to the damnation of those who are obstinate in sin. Reply to Objection 2 As Augustine states in the same book, in his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount 122, The martyr's vengeance is the overthrow of the kingdom of sin, because they suffer so much while it reigned. Or as he says again in his questions on the Old and New Testament 68, Their prayer for vengeance is expressed not in words but in their minds, even as the blood of Abel cried from the earth. They rejoice in vengeance not for its own sake, but for the sake of Divine Justice. Reply to Objection 3 It is lawful to attack one's enemies that they may be restrained from sin, and this is for their own good and for the good of others. Consequently, it is even lawful in praying to ask that temporal evils be inflicted on our enemies in order that they may mend their ways. Thus prayer and deed will not be contrary to one another. 9th Article Whether the seven petitions of the Lord's Prayer are fittingly assigned Objection 1 It would seem that the seven petitions of the Lord's Prayer are not fittingly assigned. It is useless to ask that to be hallowed, which is already holy. But the name of God is always holy according to Luke 149. Holy is His name. Again, His kingdom is everlasting according to Psalm 144-13. Thy kingdom is a kingdom of all ages. Again, God's will is always fulfilled according to Isaiah 46 verse 10. All my will shall be done. Therefore it is useless to ask for the name of God to be hallowed, for His kingdom to come, and for His will to be done. Objection 2 Further One must withdraw from evil before attaining good. Therefore it seems unfitting for the petitions relating to the attainment of good to be set forth before those relating to the removal of evil. Objection 3 Further One asks for a thing that it may be given to one. Now the chief gift of God is the Holy Ghost, and those gifts that we receive through Him. Therefore the petitions seem to be unfittingly assigned, since they do not correspond to the gifts of the Holy Ghost. Objection 4 Further, according to Luke, only five petitions are mentioned in the Lord's Prayer, as appears from the 11th chapter. Therefore it was so perfluous for Matthew to mention seven. Objection 5 Further, it seems useless to seek to win the benevolence of one who forestalls us by His benevolence. Now God forestalls us by His benevolence, since He first hath loved us, according to 1 John 419. Therefore it is useless to preface the petitions with the words Father who art in heaven, which seem to indicate a desire to win God's benevolence. On the contrary, the authority of Christ who composed this prayer suffices. I answer that the Lord's Prayer is most perfect, because as Augustine says in his letter to Proba, if we pray rightly and fittingly, we can say nothing else, but what is contained in this prayer of our Lord. For since prayer interprets our desires as it were before God, then alone is it right to ask for something in our prayers when it is right that we should desire it. Now in the Lord's Prayer, not only do we ask for all that we may rightly desire, but also in the order wherein we ought to desire them, so that this prayer not only teaches us to ask, but also directs all our affections. Thus it is evident that the first thing to be the object of our desire is the end, and afterwards whatever is directed to the end. Now our end is God towards whom our affections tend in two ways. First, by our willing the glory of God. Secondly, by willing to enjoy His glory. The first belongs to the love whereby we love God in Himself, while the second belongs to the love whereby we love ourselves in God. Wherefore the first petition is expressed thus, how would be thy name? And the second thus, thy kingdom come, by which we ask to come to the glory of His kingdom. To this same end, a thing directs us in two ways. In one way by its very nature, in another way accidentally. Of its very nature the good which is useful for an end directs us to that end. Now a thing is useful in two ways to that end which is beatitude. In one way, directly and principally, according to the merit whereby we may merit beatitude by obeying God, and in this respect we ask, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. In another way instrumentally, and as it were helping us to merit, and in this respect we say, give us this day our daily bread. Whether we understand this of the sacramental bread, the daily use of which is profitable to man, and in which all the other sacraments are contained, or of the bread of the body, so that it denotes all sufficiency of food, as Augustine says in his letter to Proba. Since the Eucharist is the chief sacrament, and bread is the chief food. Thus in the Gospel of Matthew we read, super substantial, that is, principal as Jerome expounds it. We are directed to beatitude accidentally by the removal of obstacles. Now there are three obstacles to our attainment of beatitude. First there is sin, which directly excludes a man from the kingdom, according to 1 Corinthians 6 verses 9 and 10. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, etc. shall possess the kingdom of God. And to this refer the words, forgive us our trespasses. Secondly, there is temptation which hinders us from keeping God's will. And to this we refer when we say, and lead us not into temptation, whereby we do not ask not to be tempted, but not to be conquered by temptation, which is to be led into temptation. Thirdly, there is the present penal state which is a kind of obstacle to a sufficiency of life, and to this we refer in the words, deliver us from evil. Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says when we say, hallowed be thy name, we do not mean that God's name is not holy, but when we ask that men may treat it as a holy thing, and this pertains to the diffusion of God's glory among men. When we say, thy kingdom come, we do not imply that God is not reigning now, but we excite in ourselves the desire for that kingdom, that it may come to us, and that we may reign therein. The words, thy will be done, rightly signify, may thy commandments be obeyed on earth as in heaven, that is, by men as well as by angels. Hence, these three petitions will be perfectly fulfilled in the life to come, while the other four, according to Augustine, belong to the needs of the present life. Reply to Objection 2. Since prayer is the interpreter of desire, the order of the petitions corresponds with the order, not of execution, but of desire or intention, where the end precedes the things that are directed to the end, and attainment of good precedes removal of evil. Reply to Objection 3. Augustine, in his commentary on the Sermon of the Mount to 11, adapts the seven petitions to the gifts and beatitudes. He says, If it is fear of God whereby blessed are the poor in spirit, let us ask that God's name be hallowed among men with a chaste fear. If it is piety whereby blessed are the meek, let us ask that his kingdom may come so that we may become meek and no longer resist him. If it is knowledge whereby blessed are they that mourn, let us pray that his will be done, for thus we shall mourn no more. If it is fortitude whereby blessed are they that hunger, let us pray that our daily bread be given to us. If it is counsel whereby blessed are the merciful, let us forgive the trespasses of others that our own may be forgiven. If it is understanding whereby blessed are the pure in heart, let us pray lest we have a double heart by seeking after worldly things which are the occasion of our temptations. If it is wisdom whereby blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God, let us pray to be delivered from evil, for if we be delivered, we shall by that very fact become the free children of God. Reply to Objection 4 According to Augustine in his N. Caridian 116, Luke included not seven but five petitions in the Lord's Prayer, for by omitting it he shows that the third petition is a kind of repetition of the two that precede, and thus helps us to understand it better. Because to wit, the will of God tends chiefly to this, that we come to the knowledge of his holiness and to reign together with him. Again, the last petition mentioned by Matthew, Deliver Us from Evil, is omitted by Luke, so that each one may know himself to be delivered from evil if he not be led into temptation. Reply to Objection 5 Prayer is offered up to God, not that we may bend him, but that we may excite in ourselves the confidence to ask, which confidence is excited in us chiefly by the consideration of his charity in our regard, whereby he wills our good. Wherefore we say, our Father, and of his excellence whereby he is able to fulfill it, wherefore we say, who art in heaven? 10th Article Whether Prayer is Proper to the Rational Creature Objection 1 It would seem that prayer is not proper to the Rational Creature. Asking and receiving apparently belong to the same subject, but receiving is becoming also to uncreated persons, notably the Son and Holy Ghost. Therefore it is competent to them to pray. For the Son said in John 14.16, I will ask my Father, and the Apostle says of the Holy Ghost in Romans 8.26, The Spirit asketh for us. Objection 2 Angels are above Rational Creatures, since they are intellectual substances. Now prayer is becoming to the Angels, wherefore we read in Psalm 96 verse 7, Adore him all you his Angels. Therefore prayer is not proper to the Rational Creature. Objection 3 Further The same subject is fitted to pray as is fitted to call upon God, since this consists chiefly in prayer. But dumb animals are fitted to call upon God, according to Psalm 146 verse 9, who giveth to beasts their food, and to the young ravens that call upon him. Therefore prayer is not proper to the Rational Creatures. On the contrary, prayer is an act of reason, as stated above in Article 1. But the Rational Creature is so called from his reason. Therefore prayer is proper to the Rational Creature. I answer that as stated above in Article 1. Prayer is an act of reason, and consists in beseeching a superior. Just as command is an act of reason, whereby an inferior is directed to something. Accordingly, prayer is properly competent to one to whom it is competent to have reason, and a superior whom he may beseech. Now nothing is above the divine persons, and dumb animals are devoid of reason. Therefore prayer is unbecoming both the divine persons and dumb animals, and it is proper to the Rational Creature. Reply to Objection 1. Receiving belongs to the divine persons in respect of their nature, whereas prayer belongs to one who receives through grace. The Son is said to ask or pray in respect of his assumed, that is his human nature, and not in respect of his Godhead. And the Holy Ghost is said to ask, because he makes us ask. Reply to Objection 2. As stated in the first part, Question 79, Article 8. Intellect and reason are not distinct powers in us, but they differ as the perfect from the imperfect. Hence intellectual creatures which are the angels are distinct from Rational Creatures, and sometimes are included under them. In this sense, prayer is said to be proper to the Rational Creature. Reply to Objection 3. The young ravens are said to call upon God, on account of the natural desire whereby all things, each in its own way, desire to attain the divine goodness. Thus two dumb animals are said to obey God, on account of the natural instinct whereby they are moved by God. 11. Whether the saints in heaven pray for us. Objection 1. It would seem that the saints in heaven do not pray for us. A man's action is more meritorious for himself than for others. But the saints in heaven do not merit for themselves, neither do they pray for themselves, since they are already established in the term. 12. Neither therefore do they pray for us. Objection 2 further. The saints conform their will to God perfectly, so that they will only what God wills. Now what God wills is always fulfilled. Therefore it would be useless for the saints to pray for us. Objection 3 further. Just as the saints in heaven are above, so are those in purgatory, for they can no longer sin. Now those in purgatory do not pray for us. On the contrary we pray for them. Therefore neither do the saints in heaven pray for us. Objection 4 further. If the saints in heaven pray for us, the prayers of the higher saints would be more efficacious. And so we ought not to implore the help of the lower saints' prayers, but only of those of the higher saints. Objection 5 further. The soul of Peter is not Peter. If therefore the souls of the saints pray for us, so long as they are separated from their bodies, we ought not to call upon Saint Peter, but on his soul, to pray for us. Yet the church does the contrary. The saints therefore do not pray for us, at least before the resurrection. On the contrary, it is written in 2 Maccabees 1514. This is he that prayeth much for the people, and for all the holy city, Jeremiah's the prophet of God. I answer that, as Jerome says, the error of Vigilanceus consisted in saying that while we live, we can pray for one another, but that after we are dead, none of our prayers for others can be heard, seeing that not even the martyrs' prayers are granted when they pray for their blood to be avenged. But this is absolutely false, because since prayers offered for others proceed from charity, as stated above in Articles 7 and 8, the greater the charity of the saints in heaven, the more they pray for wayfarers, since the latter can be helped by prayers, and the more closely that they are united to God, the more are their prayers efficacious. For the divine order is such that lower beings receive an overflow from the excellence of the higher, even as the air receives the brightness of the sun. Wherefore it is said of Christ in Hebrews 725, going to God by his own power to make intercession for us. Hence Jerome says against Vigilanceus, if the apostles and martyrs while yet in the body, and having to be solicitous for themselves, can pray for others, how much more now that they have the crown of victory and triumph. Reply to Objection 1 The saints in heaven, since they are blessed, have no lack of bliss, save that of the body's glory, and for this they pray. But they pray for us who lack the ultimate perfection of bliss, and their prayers are efficacious in impetrating through their previous merits and through God's acceptance. Reply to Objection 2 The saints impetrate whatever God wishes to take place through their prayers, and they pray for that which they deem will be granted through their prayers according to God's will. Reply to Objection 3 Those who are in purgatory, though they are above us on account of their impeccability, yet they are below us as to the pains which they suffer. And in this respect, they are not in a condition to pray, but rather in a condition that requires us to pray for them. Reply to Objection 4 It is God's will that inferior beings should be helped by all those that are above them, wherefore we ought to pray not only to the higher, but also to the lower saints. Else we should have to implore the mercy of God alone. Nevertheless, it happens some time that prayers addressed to a saint of a lower degree are more efficacious, either because he is implored with greater devotion, or because God wishes to make known his sanctity. Reply to Objection 5 It is because the saints, while living, merited to pray for us, that we invoke them under the names by which they were known in this life, and by which they are better known to us. They are better known to us. And also in order to indicate our belief and the resurrection, according to the saying of Exodus 3-6, I am the God of Abraham, etc. 12th Article Whether Prayer Should Be Vocal Objection 1 It would seem that prayer ought not to be vocal, as stated above in Article 4. Prayer is addressed chiefly to God. Now God knows the language of the heart. Therefore it is useless to employ vocal prayer. Objection 2 Further Prayer should lift man's mind to God, as stated above in Article 1, Second Reply. But words like other sensible objects prevent man from ascending to God by contemplation. Therefore we should not use words in our prayers. Objection 3 Further Prayer should be offered to God in secret, according to Matthew 6-6. But thou, when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy father in secret. But prayer loses its secrecy by being expressed vocally. Therefore prayer should not be vocal. On the contrary, it is written in Psalm 141, verse 2, I cried to the Lord with my voice. With my voice I made supplication to the Lord. I answer that prayer is twofold, common and individual. Common prayer is that which is offered to God by the ministers of the church, representing the body of the faithful. Wherefore such like prayer should come to the knowledge of the whole people for whom it is offered. And this would not be possible unless it were vocal prayer. Therefore it is reasonably ordained that the ministers of the church should say these prayers even in a loud voice, so that they may come to the knowledge of all. On the other hand, individual prayer is that which is offered by any single person, whether he pray for himself or for others. And it is not essential to such a prayer as this that it be vocal. And yet the voice is employed in such like prayers for three reasons. First, in order to excite interior devotion, whereby the mind of the person praying is raised to God, because by means of external signs, whether of words or of deeds, the human mind is moved as regards apprehension, and consequently also as regards the affections. Hence Augustine says in his letter to Proba that, by means of words and other signs, we arouse ourselves more effectively to an increase of holy desires. Hence then alone we should use words and such like signs, when they help to excite the mind internally. But if they distract or in any way impede the mind, we should abstain from them. And this happens chiefly to those whose mind is sufficiently prepared for devotion without having recourse to these signs. Wherefore the psalmist in Psalm 26 verse 8 said, My heart hath said to thee, My face hath sought thee. And we read of Anna in 1 Kings 113 that, She spoke in her heart. Secondly, the voice is used in praying as though to pay a debt, so that man may serve God with all that he has from God. That is to say not only with his mind, but also with his body. And this applies to prayer considered especially as satisfactory. Hence it is written in Hosea 14-3, Take away all iniquity and receive the good, and we will render the calves of our lips. Thirdly, we have recourse to vocal prayer through a certain overflow from the soul into the body, through excess of feeling according to Psalm 15-9. My heart hath been glad and my tongue hath rejoiced. Reply to Objection 1. Vocal prayer is employed, not in order to tell God something he does not know, but in order to lift up the mind of the person praying or of other persons to God. Reply to Objection 2. Words about other matters distract the mind and hinder the devotion of those who pray. But words signifying some object of devotion lift up the mind, especially one that is less devout. Reply to Objection 3. As Chrysostom says, Our Lord forbids one to pray in presence of others in order that one may be seen by others. Hence when you pray, do nothing strange to draw man's attention, either by shouting so as to be heard by others, or by openly striking the heart, or extending the hands so as to be seen by many, and yet, according to Augustine, in his commentary on the Sermon of the Mount 2-3, it is not wrong to be seen by men, but to do this or that in order to be seen by men. End of Question 83, Part 2. Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC. Question 83, Part 3 of Summa Theologica Secunda Secunde. Treaties on the Cardinal Virtues. The Virtue of Justice. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Secunda Secunde. Treaties on the Cardinal Virtues. The Virtue of Justice. By St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 83 of Prayer in 17 Articles. Part 3, Articles 13-17. Thirteenth Article. Whether attention is a necessary condition of prayer. Objection one. You would seem that attention is a necessary condition of prayer. It is written in John 4.24. God is a spirit, and they that adore him must adore him in spirit and in truth. But prayer is not in spirit, unless it be attentive. Therefore, attention is a necessary condition of prayer. Objection two, further. Prayer is the ascent of the mind to God, according to Damascene in On the True Faith 3.24. But the mind does not ascent to God, if the prayer is in attentive. Therefore, attention is a necessary condition of prayer. Objection three, further. It is a necessary condition of prayer, that it should be altogether sinless. Now if a man allows his mind to wander while praying, he is not free of sin, for he seems to make light of God, even as if he were to speak to another man without attending to what he was saying. Hence, Basil says that the divine assistance is to be implored, not lightly, nor with the mind wandering hither and thither, because he that prays thus, not only will not obtain what he asks, nay, rather, will he provoke God to anger. Therefore, it would seem a necessary condition of prayer, that it should be attentive. On the contrary, even holy men sometimes suffer from a wandering of the mind when they pray, according to Psalm 39 verse 13. My heart hath forsaken me. I answer that this question applies chiefly to vocal prayer. Accordingly, we must observe that a thing is necessary in two ways. First, a thing is necessary because thereby the end is better obtained, and thus attention is absolutely necessary for prayer. Secondly, a thing is said to be necessary when without it, something cannot obtain its effect. Now the effect of prayer is threefold. The first is an effect which is common to all acts quickened by charity, and this is merit. In order to realize this effect, it is not necessary that prayer should be attentive throughout, because the force of the original intention, with which one sets about praying, renders the whole prayer meritorious, as is the case with other meritorious acts. The second effect of prayer is proper there too, and consists in impetration. And again, the original intention to which God looks chiefly suffices to obtain this effect. But if the original intention is lacking, prayer lacks both merit and impetration, because, as Gregory says, God hears not the prayer of those who pay no attention to their prayer. The third effect of prayer is that which it produces at once. This is the spiritual refreshment of the mind, and for this effect attention is a necessary condition. Wherefore it is written in 1 Corinthians 1414, If I pray in a tongue, my understanding is without fruit. It must be observed, however, that there are three kinds of attention that can be brought to vocal prayer. One which attends to the words, lest we say them wrong, another which attends to the sense of the words, and a third which attends to the end of prayer, namely, God, and to the thing we are praying for. The last kind of attention is most necessary, and even idiots are capable of it. Moreover, this attention, whereby the mind is fixed on God, is sometimes so strong that the mind forgets all other things, as Hugh of St. Victor states. Reply to Objection 1. To pray in spirit and in truth is to set about praying through the instigation of the spirit, even though afterwards the mind wander through weakness. Reply to Objection 2. The human mind is unable to remain aloft for long on account of the weakness of nature, because human weakness weighs down the soul to the level of inferior things. And hence it is that when, while praying, the mind ascends to God by contemplation, of a sudden it wanders off through weakness. Reply to Objection 3. Purposely to allow one's mind to wander in prayer is sinful and hinders the prayer from having fruit. It is against this that Augustine says in his rule, when you pray God with psalms and hymns, let your mind attend to that which your lips pronounce, but to wander in mind unintentionally does not deprive prayer of its fruit. Hence Basil says in his constitutions, if you are so truly weakened by sin that you are unable to pray attentively, strive as much as you can to curb yourself and God will pardon you, seeing that you are unable to stand in His presence in a becoming manner, not through negligence, but through frailty. 14. Whether prayer should last a long time. Objection 1. It would seem that prayer should not be continual. It is written in Matthew 6.7. When you are praying, speak not much. 15. Now one who prays a long time needs to speak much, especially if his be a vocal prayer. Therefore prayer should not last a long time. Objection 2 further. Prayer expresses the desire. Now a desire is all the holier according as it is centred on one thing, according to Psalm 26.4. 15. One thing I have asked of the Lord, this will I seek after. Therefore the shorter prayer is, the more is it acceptable to God. Objection 3 further. It seems to be wrong to transgress the limits fixed by God, especially in matters concerning divine worship, according to Exodus 19.21. 15. Charge the people, lest they should have a mind to pass the limits to see the Lord, and a very great multitude of them should perish. But God has fixed for us the limits of prayer by instituting the Lord's prayer in Matthew 6. Therefore it is not right to prolong our prayer beyond its limits. On the contrary, it would seem that we ought to pray continually, for our Lord said in Luke 18.1, we ought always to pray and not to faint. And it is written in 1 Thessalonians 5.17, Pray without ceasing. I answer that we may speak about prayer in two ways. First, by considering it in itself. Secondly, considering it in its cause. The cause of prayer is the desire of charity, from which prayer ought to arise. And this desire ought to be in us continually, either actually or virtually. For the virtue of this desire remains in whatever we do out of charity. And we ought to do all things to the glory of God, according to 1 Corinthians 10.31. From this point of view, prayer ought to be continual, wherefore Augustine says in his letter to Proba, faith, hope, and charity are by themselves a prayer of continual longing. But prayer, considered in itself, cannot be continual, because we have to be busy about other works. And, as Augustine says again in his letter to Proba, we pray to God with our lips at certain intervals and seasons, in order to admonish ourselves by means of such like signs, to take note of the amount of our progress in that desire, and to arouse ourselves more eagerly to an increase thereof. Now the quantity of a thing should be commensurate with its end. For instance, the quantity of the dose should be commensurate with health. And so it is becoming that prayer should last long enough to arouse the fervour of the interior desire. And when it exceeds this measure, so that it cannot be continued any longer without causing weariness, it should be discontinued. Wherefore, Augustine says again, it is said that the brethren in Egypt make frequent but very short prayers, rapid ejaculations as it were, lest that vigilant and erect attention, which is so necessary in prayer slacken and languish through the strain being prolonged. By so doing, they make it sufficiently clear not only that this attention must not be forced if we are unable to keep it up, but also that if we are able to continue, it should not be broken off too soon. And just as we must judge of this in private prayers by considering the attention of the person praying, so too in public prayers, we must judge of it by considering the devotion of the people. Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says in his letter to Proba, To pray with many words is not the same as to pray long. To speak long is one thing, to be devout long is another. For it is written that our Lord passed the whole night in prayer, and that he prayed the longer in order to set us an example. Further on, he says, When praying, say little, yet pray much so long as your attention is fervent. For to say much in prayer is to discuss your need into many words, whereas to pray much is to knock at the door of him we pray, by the continuous and devout clamour of the heart. Indeed, this business is frequently done with groans rather than with words, with tears rather than with speech. Reply to Objection 2. Length of prayer consists not in praying for many things, but in the affections persisting in the desire of one thing. Reply to Objection 3. Our Lord instituted this prayer, not that we might use no other words when we pray, but that in our prayers we might have none but these things in view, no matter how we express them or think of them. Reply to Objection 4. One may pray continually, either through having a continual desire as stated above, or through praying at certain fixed times, though interruptedly, or by reason of the affect, whether in the person who prays, because he remains more devout even after praying, or in some other person, as when by his kindness a man insights another to pray for him, even after he himself has ceased praying. 15th Article Whether Prayer is Meritorious Objection 1. It would seem that prayer is not meritorious. All merit proceeds from grace. But prayer precedes grace, since even grace is obtained by means of prayer, according to Luke 11.13. How much more will your Father from heaven give the good spirit to them that ask him? Therefore, prayer is not a meritorious act. Objection 2 further. If prayer merits anything, this would seem to be chiefly that which is besought in prayer. Yet it does not always merit this, because even the saints prayers are frequently not heard. Thus Paul was not heard when he besought the sting of the flesh to be removed from him. Therefore, prayer is not a meritorious act. Objection 3 further. Prayer is based chiefly on faith, according to James 1.6. But let him ask in faith nothing wavering. Now faith is not sufficient for merit, as instanced in those who have lifeless faith. Therefore, prayer is not a meritorious act. On the contrary, a gloss on the words of Psalm 3413, My prayer shall be turned into my bosom, explains them as meaning. If my prayer does not profit them, yet shall not I be deprived of my reward. Now reward is not due save to merit. Therefore, prayer is meritorious. I answer that as stated above in article 13. Prayer, besides causing spiritual consolation at the time of praying, has a twofold efficacy in respect of a future effect, namely efficacy in meriting and efficacy in impetrating. Now prayer, like any virtuous act, is efficacious in meriting, because it proceeds from charity as its root, the proper object of which is the eternal good that we merit to enjoy. Yet prayer proceeds from charity through the medium of religion, of which prayer is an act, as stated above in article 3, and with the concurrence of other virtues requisite for the goodness of prayer, notably humility and faith. For the offering of prayer itself to God belongs to religion, while the desire for the thing that we pray to be accomplished belongs to charity. Faith is necessary in reference to God to whom we pray, that is, we need to believe that we can obtain from Him what we seek. Humility is necessary on the part of the person praying, because he recognizes his neediness. Devotion too is necessary, but this belongs to religion, for it is its first act and a necessary condition of all its secondary acts, as stated above in question 82, articles 1 and 2. As to its efficacy in impetrating, prayer derives this from the grace of God to whom we pray and who instigates us to pray. Wherefore Augustine says in a homily, he would not urge us to ask unless he were willing to give. And Chrysosom says, He never refuses to grant our prayers since in His loving-kindness He urged us not to faint in praying. Reply to Objection 1. Neither prayer nor any other virtuous act is meritorious without sanctifying grace. And yet even that prayer which impetrates sanctifying grace proceeds from some grace, as from a gratuitous gift, since the very act of praying is a gift of God, as Augustine states, in On Perseverance 23. Reply to Objection 2. Sometimes the merit of prayer regards chiefly something distinct from the object of one's petition. For the chief object of merit is beatitude, whereas the direct object of the petition of prayer extends sometimes to certain other things, as stated above in articles 6 and 7. Accordingly, if this other thing that we ask for ourselves be not useful for our beatitude, we do not merit it, and sometimes by asking for and desiring such things, we lose merit. For instance, if we ask of God the accomplishment of some sin, which would be an impious prayer. And sometimes it is not necessary for our salvation, nor yet manifestly contrary there too. And then, although He who prays may merit eternal life by praying, yet He does not merit to obtain what He asks for. Hence Augustine says, He who faithfully prays God for the necessaries of this life is both mercifully heard and mercifully not heard. For the physician knows better than the sick man what is good for the disease. For this reason too, Paul was not heard when he prayed for the removal of the sting in his flesh, because this was not expedient. If however we pray for something that is useful for our beatitude, through being conducive to salvation, we merit it not only by praying, but also by doing other good deeds. Therefore, without any doubt we receive what we ask for, yet when we ought to receive it. Since certain things are not denied us, but are deferred that they may be granted at a suitable time, according to Augustine. And again, this may be hindered if we persevere not in asking for it. Wherefore, Basil says, The reason why sometimes Thou hast asked and not received is because Thou hast asked amiss, either inconsistently or lightly, or because Thou hast asked for what was not good for thee, or because Thou hast ceased asking. Since, however, a man cannot condimally merit eternal life for another, as stated above in the Parse Prima Secundae, question 114, article 6. It follows that sometimes one cannot condimally merit for another thing that pertain to eternal life. For this reason, we are not always heard when we pray for others, as stated above in article 7, 2nd and 3rd replies. Hence it is that four conditions are laid down, namely, to ask for ourselves things necessary for salvation piously and perseveringly. When all these four concur, we always obtain what we ask for. Reply to Objection 3. Prayer depends chiefly on faith, not for its efficacy in meriting, because it thus depends chiefly on charity. But for its efficacy in impetrating, because it is through faith that man comes to know of God's omnipotence and mercy, which are the source whence prayer impetrates what it asks for. 16th article Whether sinners impetrate anything from God by their prayers Objection 1. You would seem that sinners impetrate nothing from God by their prayers. It is written in John 9.31. We know that God doth not hear sinners. And this agrees with the saying of Proverbs 28.9. He that turneth away his ears from hearing the law, his prayer shall be an abomination. Now an abominable prayer impetrates nothing from God. Therefore sinners impetrate nothing from God. Objection 2. Further The just impetrate from God what they merit, as stated above in article 15 second reply. But sinners cannot merit anything, since they lack grace and charity, which is the power of godliness, according to a gloss on 2 Timothy 3.5. Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. And so their prayer is impious. And yet piety is required in order that prayer may be impetrative, as stated above in article 15 second reply. Therefore sinners impetrate nothing by their prayers. Objection 3. Further Chrysostom says in a homily, The Father is unwilling to hear the prayer which the Son has not inspired. Now in the prayer inspired by Christ we say, Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them the trespass against us. And sinners do not fulfill this. Therefore either they lie in saying this, and so are unworthy to be heard, or if they do not say it, they are not heard, because they do not observe the form of prayer instituted by Christ. On the contrary, Augustine says in his commentary on the Gospel of John, If God were not to hear sinners, the publican would have vainly said, Lord, be merciful to me a sinner. And Chrysostom says in a homily, Everyone that asketh shall receive, that is to say, whether he be righteous or sinful, I answer that, In the sinner, two things are to be considered, His nature which God loves, and the sin which he hates. Accordingly, when a sinner prays for something as sinner, that is, in accordance with a sinful desire, God hears him not through mercy, but sometimes through vengeance, when he allows the sinner to fall yet deeper into sin. For God refuses in mercy what he grants in anger, as Augustine declares. On the other hand, God hears the sinner's prayer, if it proceed from a good natural desire, not out of justice, because the sinner does not merit to be heard, but out of pure mercy. Provided, however, he fulfill the four conditions given above, namely, that he beseech for himself things necessary for salvation, piously and perseveringly. Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine states in his commentary on the Gospel of John, these words were spoken by the blind man before being anointed, that is, perfectly enlightened, and consequently lack authority. And yet there is truth in the saying if it refers to a sinner as such, in which sense also the sinner's prayer is said to be an abomination. Reply to Objection 2. There can be no godliness in the sinner's prayer, as though his prayer were quickened by a habit of virtue. And yet his prayer may be godly insofar as he asks for something pertaining to godliness. Even so, a man who has not the habit of justice is able to will something just, as stated above in question 59 article 2. And though his prayer is not meritorious, it can be impetrative, because merit depends on justice, whereas impetration rests on grace. Reply to Objection 3. As stated above in article 7, first reply, the Lord's prayer is pronounced in the common person of the whole church, and so if anyone say the Lord's prayer while unwilling to forgive his neighbour's trespasses, he lies not, although his words do not apply to him personally, for they are true as referred to the person of the church, from which he is excluded by merit, and consequently he is deprived of the fruit of his prayer. Sometimes, however, a sinner is prepared to forgive those who have trespassed against him, wherefore his prayers are heard, according to Ecclesiasticus 28 verse 2. Whether the parts of prayer are feedingly described as supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings, Objection 1. It would seem that the parts of prayer are unfittingly described as supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings. Supplication would seem to be a kind of adoration, yet according to Origen, in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, says, A man who wishes to live according to the Gospel need not adjure another, for if it be unlawful to swear, it is also unlawful to adjure. Therefore supplication is unfittingly reckoned a part of prayer. Objection 2 further, according to Damocene in On the True Faith 3.24, To pray is to ask becoming things of God. Therefore it is unfitting to distinguish prayers from intercessions. Objection 3 further, thanksgivings regard the past, while the others regard the future. But the past precedes the future. Therefore thanksgivings are unfittingly placed after the others. On the contrary, suffices the authority of the Apostle in 1 Timothy 2.1. I answer that three conditions are requisite for prayer. First, that the person who prays should approach God whom he prays. This is signified in the word prayer, because prayer is the raising up of one's mind to God. The second is that there should be a petition, and this is signified in the word intercession. In this case sometimes one asks for something definite, and then some say it is intercession, or we may ask for something indefinitely, for instance to be helped by God, or we may simply indicate a fact, as in John 11.3. The third condition is the reason for impetrating what we ask for, and this either on the part of God, or on the part of the person who asks. The reason of impetration on the part of God is his sanctity, on account of which we ask to be heard, according to Daniel 9 verses 17 and 18. For thy own sake incline, O God, thy ear, and to this pertains supplication, obsecratio, which means a pleading through sacred things, as when we say, through thy nativity deliver us, O Lord. The reason for impetration on the part of the person who asks is thanksgiving, since through giving thanks for benefits received, we merit to receive yet greater benefits, as we say in the collect. Hence a gloss on 1 Timothy 2.1 says that, in the mass the consecration is preceded by supplication, in which certain sacred things are called to mind, that prayers are in the consecration itself, in which especially the mind should be raised up to God, and that intercessions are in the petitions that follow and thanksgiving at the end. We may notice these four things in several of the church's collects. Thus in the collect of Trinity Sunday the words Almighty Eternal God belong to the offering up of prayer to God, the words who hast given to thy servants, etc., belonging to thanksgiving, the words grant we beseech thee, belonging to intercession, and the words at the end, through our Lord, etc., belong to supplication. In the conferences of the Fathers, Book 9, Chapter 11 and following we read, supplication is bewailing one's sins, prayer is vowing something to God, intercession is praying for others, thanksgiving is offered by the mind to God in ineffable ecstasy. The first explanation, however, is the better. Reply to Objection 1. Supplication is an adoration not for the purpose of compelling, for this is forbidden, but in order to implore mercy. Reply to Objection 2. Prayer, in the general sense, includes all the things mentioned here, but when distinguished from the others it denotes properly the Ascent to God. Reply to Objection 3. Among things that are diverse, the past precedes the future, but the one and same thing is future before it is past. 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. End of Question 83, read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC. Question 84 of Summa Theologica Secunda Secunde. Triaties on the Cardinal of Virtues. The Virtue of Justice. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Secunda Secunde. Triaties on the Cardinal of Virtues. The Virtue of Justice. By St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 84 of Adoration in 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. First, whether adoration is an act of Latria. Second, whether adoration denotes an internal or an external act. Third, whether adoration requires a definite place. First article. Whether adoration is an act of Latria or religion. Objection one. It would seem that adoration is not an act of Latria or religion. Adoration. The worship of religion is due to God alone. But adoration is not due to God alone, since we read in Genesis 18-2 that Abraham adored the angels. And in 3 Kings 123 that the prophet Nathan, when he was come in to King David, worshipped him bowing down to the ground. Therefore, adoration is not an act of religion. Objection two further. The worship of religion is due to God as the object of beatitude, according to Augustine in On the City of God 10-3. Whereas adoration is due to him by reason of his majesty, since a gloss on Psalm 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 three 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. Translators note, this refers to the adoration of the cross on Good Friday. Therefore, adoration is not an act of Latria. On the contrary are the words quoted in Matthew 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 in question 81 articles 2 and 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 one. 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 Duvia, and we shall speak of it further on in question 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 in On the City of God 10.4 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 Mardukai refused to adore Amen, fearing lest he should transfer the honor of his God to a man, as is recounted in Esther 13.14. Again, with the reverence due to an excellent creature, Abraham adored the angels, as did also Joshua in Joshua 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 in Apocalypse 22 verse 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, in Genesis 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. Second article, 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 in John 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 orazio, prayer. But prayer consists chiefly in an interior act. According to 1 Corinthians 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 Exodus 20 verse 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 in On the True Faith 4.12. 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 latteria 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 conatural to us to proceed from the sensible to the intelligible. Reply to Objection 1. Even bodily adoration is done in spirit, insofar 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 in Question 83 Article 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. Third Article. Whether adoration requires a definite place. Objection 1. It would seem that adoration does not require a definite place. It is written in John 4, verse 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, as is found in Exodus 26, 18 and following. 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 in Isaiah 56, 7. My house shall be called the House of Prayer. Which words are also quoted in John 2, verse 16. I answer that as stated above in article 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 there too, 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 right of the Jews who adored in Jerusalem and according to the right of the Samaritans who adored on Mount Gerasim. For both these rights 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 Malachi 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 in 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 Matthew 1820. 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 Genesis 2.8, and so we signify our desire to return to Paradise. Thirdly, on account of Christ who is the light of the world, as mentioned in John 8 verse 12, as well as in John 9 verse 5, and is called the Orient, according to Zechariah 612. Or again, in Psalm 67 verse 34, who mounted above the heaven of heavens to the East, and is expected to come from the East, according to Matthew 2427, as lightning cometh out of the East, and appeareth even to the West, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be. End of Question 84. Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC. Question 85 of Summa Theologica Secunda Secunde. Triaties on the Cardinal Virtues. The Virtue of Justice. This is the LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Secunda Secunde. Triaties on the Cardinal Virtues. The Virtue of Justice. By St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 85 of Sacrifice in Four Articles. In due sequence, we must consider those acts whereby external things are offered to God. These give rise to a twofold consideration. One of things given to God by the faithful. Two of vows whereby something is promised to him. Under the first head, we shall consider sacrifices, oblations, firstfruits, and tithes. About sacrifices, there are four points of inquiry. First, whether offering a sacrifice to God is of the law of nature. Second, whether sacrifice should be offered to God alone. Third, whether the offering of a sacrifice is a special act of virtue. Fourth, whether all are bound to offer sacrifice. First article, whether offering a sacrifice to God is of the law of nature. Objection one, 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, for example Melchizedek in Genesis 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 two, 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, in wisdom tend to, that wisdom brought him out of his sin. Therefore, the offering of sacrifices is not of the natural law. Objection three, further, Augustine says in On the City of God 10, 5 and 19, that sacrifices are offered in signification of something. Now words are chief among signs, as he again says in On Christian Doctrine 2.3. Signify not by nature, but by convention, according to the philosopher. 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 in the verse Prima Secunde, Question 95, Article 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 in his commentary on Job 4-3, 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. Second Article Whether sacrifice should be offered to God alone Objection 1. He would seem that sacrifice should not be offered to the Most High God alone. Since sacrifice ought to be offered to God, he 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 Peter 1.4. Wherefore of them it is written in Psalm 81 verse 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 in Exodus 22 verse 20, He that sacrifices to gods shall be put to death, save only to the Lord. I answer that as stated above in Article 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 Psalm 50 verse 19. A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit. Since as stated above in Question 81 Article 7, Question 84 Article 2, the outward acts of religion are directed to the inward acts. Again, the soul offers itself to sacrifice in 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 first part, Question 90 Article 3, as well as in Question 118 Article 2. While in Him alone, the beatitude of our soul consists, as stated also above in the part's premise of Kunday, Question 1, Article 8, Question 2, Article 8, Question 3, Articles 1, 7, and 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 in On the City of God 1019. Moreover, we find that in every country the people are want 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. Therefore, as Augustine says in On the City of God 1019, the demons rejoice not in the stench of corpses, but in receiving divine honors. Reply to Objection 3. As Augustine says in On the City of God 819, 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 the Peter or Paul, but we give thanks to God for their triumphs, and urge ourselves to imitate them. Third Article 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 in On the City of God 106, 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. The mortification of the body by fasting belongs to abstinence. By continents belongs to chastity. By martyrdom belongs to fortitude. Now all these things seem to be comprised in the offering of sacrifice according to Romans 12.1. Present your bodies a living sacrifice. Again the Apostle says in Hebrews 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 in the Paris Prima Secundae, question 18, article 6 and 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 of deserving praise in that it is done out of reverence for God, and for this reason it belongs to a definite virtue, notably 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 principle 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 there too. 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. Firstfruits are oblations because they were offered to God according to Deuteronomy 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. Fourth article. Whether all are bound to offer sacrifices. Objection 1. It would seem that all are not bound to offer sacrifices. The apostle says in Romans 319, What things so ever 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. Translators note. Sacerdotes, those who give or administer sacred things. Sacradantes, confer first Corinthians 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 is of the natural law as stated above in article 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 in article 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 super-arrogation, 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 offer 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 in Question 2, Articles 6 and 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 in Articles 2 and 3.