I think I have a wrong translation of this in the 1993 edition of English Popish Ceremonies. Anyone want to take a stab at it? Any help is appreciated. Context follows:

Thus we see that they offer the ceremonies as worship to God: yet put the case they did not, the school says, that a thing belongs to the worship of God, "vel quo ad offerendum, vel quo ad assumendum." Aquinas, 2a 2ae quest. 95, art 2.
This is not a quotation for Aquinas, but does match a index entry I found in a more modern edition. "7. Aliquid pertinet ad cultum Dei dupliciter, scilicet ut offerendum, vel assumendum: 2-2, q. xcv, 2, c." Could Gillespie have been looking at an index or some schooman's summation?
At the link: Index.
The Aquinas reads as follows with what I think is in view underlined:
I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]; Questions [92],94), superstition denotes undue divine worship. Now a thing pertains to the worship of God in two ways: in one way, it is something offered to God; as a sacrifice, an oblation, or something of the kind: in another way, it is something divine that is assumed, as stated above with regard to an oath (Question [89], Article [4], ad 2). Wherefore superstition includes not only idolatrous sacrifices offered to demons, but also recourse to the help of the demons for the purpose of doing or knowing something. But all divination results from the demons' operation, either because the demons are expressly invoked that the future may be made known, or because the demons thrust themselves into futile searchings of the future, in order to entangle men's minds with vain conceits. Of this kind of vanity it is written (Ps. 39:5): "Who hath not regard to vanities and lying follies." Now it is vain to seek knowledge of the future, when one tries to get it from a source whence it cannot be foreknown. Therefore it is manifest that divination is a species of superstition.