QUESTIONS 85-87 QUESTION OF SACRIFICE (FOUR ARTICLES)

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

Under the first head we shall consider sacrifices, oblations, first-fruits, and tithes. About sacrifices there are four points of inquiry: (1) Whether offering a sacrifice to God is of the law of nature? (2) Whether sacrifice should be offered to God alone? (3) Whether the offering of a sacrifice is a special act of virtue? (4) Whether all are bound to offer sacrifice?

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(1) Whether offering a sacrifice to God is of the law of nature?

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(1)- O(1) —

It would seem that offering a sacrifice to God is not of the natural law. Things that are of the natural law are common among all men. Yet this is not the case with sacrifices: for we read of some, e.g. Melchisedech ( 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.

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(1)- O(2) —

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

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(1)- O(3) —

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

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(1) —

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.

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(1) —

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.

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(1)- RO(1) —

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

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(1)- RO(2) —

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

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(1)- RO(3) —

It is natural to man to express his ideas by signs, but the determination of those signs depends on man’s pleasure.

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(2) Whether sacrifice should be offered to God alone?

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(2)- O(1) —

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

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(2)- O(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.

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(2)- O(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.

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(2) —

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

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(2) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(1) ), a sacrifice is offered in order that something may be represented. Now the sacrifice that is offered outwardly represents the inward spiritual sacrifice, whereby the soul offers itself to God according to Psalm 50:19, “A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit,” since, as stated above ( Q(81) , A(7) ; Q(84) , A(2) ), the outward acts of religion are directed to the inward acts. Again the soul offers itself in sacrifice to God as its beginning by creation, and its end by beatification: and according to the true faith God alone is the creator of our souls, as stated in the P(1), Q(90) , A(3) ; P(2a), Q(118), A(2), while in Him alone the beatitude of our soul consists, as stated above ( P(2a), Q(1) , A(8) ; P(2a), Q(2) , A(8) ; P(2a), Q(3) , AA(1),7,8 ). Wherefore just as to God alone ought we to offer spiritual sacrifice, so too ought we to offer outward sacrifices to Him alone: even so “in our prayers and praises we proffer significant words to Him to Whom in our hearts we offer the things which we designate thereby,” as Augustine states (De Civ. Dei x, 19).

Moreover we find that in every country the people are wont to show the sovereign ruler some special sign of honor, and that if this be shown to anyone else, it is a crime of high-treason. Therefore, in the Divine law, the death punishment is assigned to those who offer Divine honor to another than God.

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(2)- RO(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.

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(2)- RO(2) —

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

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(2)- RO(3) —

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

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(3) Whether the offering of sacrifice is a special act of virtue?

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(3)- O(1) —

It would seem that the offering of sacrifice is not a special act of virtue. Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x, 6): “A true sacrifice is any work done that we may cleave to God in holy fellowship.”

But not every good work is a special act of some definite virtue. Therefore the offering of sacrifice is not a special act of a definite virtue.

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, the mortification of the body by fasting belongs to abstinence, by continence belongs to chastity, by martyrdom belongs to fortitude. Now all these things seem to be comprised in the offering of sacrifice, according to Romans 12:1, “Present your bodies a living sacrifice.” Again the Apostle says ( 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.

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(3)- O(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.

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(3) —

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

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(3) —

I answer that, As stated above ( P(2a), Q(18) , AA(6),7 ), where an act of one virtue is directed to the end of another virtue it partakes somewhat of its species; thus when a man thieves in order to commit fornication, his theft assumes, in a sense, the deformity of fornication, so that even though it were not a sin otherwise, it would be a sin from the very fact that it was directed to fornication. Accordingly, sacrifice is a special act deserving of praise in that it is done out of reverence for God; and for this reason it belongs to a definite virtue, viz. religion. But it happens that the acts of the other virtues are directed to the reverence of God, as when a man gives alms of his own things for God’s sake, or when a man subjects his own body to some affliction out of reverence for God; and in this way the acts also of other virtues may be called sacrifices. On the other hand there are acts that are not deserving of praise save through being done out of reverence for God: such acts are properly called sacrifices, and belong to the virtue of religion.

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(3)- RO(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.

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(3)- RO(2) —

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

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(3)- RO(3) —

A “sacrifice,” properly speaking, requires that something be done to the thing which is offered to God, for instance animals were slain and burnt, the bread is broken, eaten, blessed. The very word signifies this, since “sacrifice” is so called because a man does something sacred [facit sacrum]. On the other hand an “oblation” is properly the offering of something to God even if nothing be done thereto, thus we speak of offering money or bread at the altar, and yet nothing is done to them. Hence every sacrifice is an oblation, but not conversely. “First-fruits” are oblations, because they were offered to God, according to 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.

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(4) Whether all are bound to offer sacrifices?

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(4)- O(1) —

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

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(4)- O(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.

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, priests [*’Sacerdotes’: Those who give or administer sacred things (sacra dantes): cf. 1 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.

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(4) —

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

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(4) —

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

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(4)- RO(1) —

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

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(4)- RO(2) —

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

P(2b)- Q(85)- A(4)- RO(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 ( AA(2),3 ).

QUESTION OF OBLATIONS AND FIRST-FRUITS (FOUR ARTICLES)

We must next consider oblations and first-fruits. Under this head there are four points of inquiry: (1) Whether any oblations are necessary as a matter of precept? (2) To whom are oblations due? (3) of what things they should be made? (4) In particular, as to first-fruits, whether men are bound to offer them?

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(1) Whether men are under a necessity of precept to make oblations?

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(1)- O(1) —

It would seem that men are not bound by precept to make oblations. Men are not bound, at the time of the Gospel, to observe the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law, as stated above ( P(2a), Q(103), AA(3),4 ). Now the offering of oblations is one of the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law, since it is written ( Exodus 23:14): “Three times every year you shall celebrate feasts with Me,” and further on ( Exodus 23:15): “Thou shalt not appear empty before Me.” Therefore men are not now under a necessity of precept to make oblations.

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(1)- O(2) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, if anyone is bound to give a certain thing to the Church, and fails to give it, he can be compelled to do so by being deprived of the Church’s sacraments. But it would seem unlawful to refuse the sacraments of the Church to those who refuse to make oblations according to a decree of the sixth council [*Can. Trullan, xxiii], quoted I, qu. i, can. Nullus: “Let none who dispense Holy Communion exact anything of the recipient, and if they exact anything let them be deposed.”

Therefore it is not necessary that men should make oblations.

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(1) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(1) —

I answer that, As stated above ( Q(85) , A(3), ad 3), the term “oblation” is common to all things offered for the Divine worship, so that if a thing be offered to be destroyed in worship of God, as though it were being made into something holy, it is both an oblation and a sacrifice. Wherefore it is written ( Exodus 29:18): “Thou shalt offer the whole ram for a burnt-offering upon the altar; it is an oblation to the Lord, a most sweet savor of the victim of the Lord”; and ( Leviticus 2:1): “When anyone shall offer an oblation of sacrifice to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour.”

If, on the other hand, it be offered with a view to its remaining entire and being deputed to the worship of God or to the use of His ministers, it will be an oblation and not a sacrifice. Accordingly it is essential to oblations of this kind that they be offered voluntarily, according to Exodus 25:2, of “every man that offereth of his own accord you shall take them.”

Nevertheless it may happen in four ways that one is bound to make oblations. First, on account of a previous agreement: as when a person is granted a portion of Church land, that he may make certain oblations at fixed times, although this has the character of rent. Secondly, by reason of a previous assignment or promise; as when a man offers a gift among the living, or by will bequeaths to the Church something whether movable or immovable to be delivered at some future time. Thirdly, on account of the need of the Church, for instance if her ministers were without means of support. Fourthly, on account of custom; for the faithful are bound at certain solemn feasts to make certain customary oblations. In the last two cases, however, the oblation remains voluntary, as regards, to wit, the quantity or kind of the thing offered.

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(1)- RO(1) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(1)- RO(2) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(1)- RO(3) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(2) Whether oblations are due to priests alone?

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(2)- O(1) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(2)- O(2) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(2)- O(3) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(2) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(2) —

I answer that, The priest is appointed mediator and stands, so to speak, “between” the people and God, as we read of Moses ( Deuteronomy 5:5), wherefore it belongs to him to set forth the Divine teachings and sacraments before the people; and besides to offer to the Lord things appertaining to the people, their prayers, for instance, their sacrifices and oblations. Thus the Apostle says ( Hebrews 5:1): “Every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins.”

Hence the oblations which the people offer to God concern the priests, not only as regards their turning them to their own use, but also as regards the faithful dispensation thereof, by spending them partly on things appertaining to the Divine worship, partly on things touching their own livelihood (since they that serve the altar partake with the altar, according to 1 Corinthians 9:13), and partly for the good of the poor, who, as far as possible, should be supported from the possessions of the Church: for our Lord had a purse for the use of the poor, as Jerome observes on Matthew 17:26, “That we may not scandalize them.”

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(2)- RO(1) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(2)- RO(2) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(2)- RO(3) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(3) Whether a man may make oblations of whatever he lawfully possesses?

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(3)- O(1) —

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

Therefore it is not lawful to make an oblation of whatever one possesses lawfully.

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(3)- O(2) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(3)- O(3) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(3) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(3) —

I answer that, As Augustine says (De Verb. Dom.

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(3)- RO(1) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(3)- RO(2) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(3)- RO(3) —

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

The same reasons avail still in the New Law, but when they do not apply the unlawfulness ceases.

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(4) Whether men are bound to pay first-fruits?

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(4)- O(1) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, first-fruits were offered to the Lord for a special favor conferred on that people, wherefore it is written ( Deuteronomy 26:2,3): “Thou shalt take the first of all thy fruits... and thou shalt go to the priest that shall be in those days, and say to him: I profess this day before the Lord thy God, that I am come into the land, for which He swore to our fathers, that He would give it us.”

Therefore other nations are not bound to pay first-fruits.

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(4)- O(3) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(4) —

On the contrary, It is laid down (16, qu. vii, can.

Decimas): “We confirm the right of priests to tithes and first-fruits, and everybody must pay them.”

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(4) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(4)- RO(1) —

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

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(4)- RO(2) —

First-fruits were offered in the Old Law, not only on account of the favor of the promised land given by God, but also on account of the favor of the fruits of the earth, which were given by God. Hence it is written ( Deuteronomy 26:10): “I offer the first-fruits of the land which the Lord hath given me,” which second motive is common among all people. We may also reply that just as God granted the land of promise to the Jews by a special favor, so by a general favor He bestowed the lordship of the earth on the whole of mankind, according to <19B302> Psalm 113:24, “The earth He has given to the children of men.”

P(2b)- Q(86)- A(4)- RO(3) —

As Jerome says [*Comment. in Ezekiel 45:13,14; cf. Cap. Decimam, de Decim. Primit. et Oblat.]: “According to the tradition of the ancients the custom arose for those who had most to give the priests a fortieth part, and those who had least, one sixtieth, in lieu of first-fruits.” Hence it would seem that first-fruits should vary between these limits according to the custom of one’s country. And it was reasonable that the amount of first-fruits should not be fixed by law, since, as stated above, first-fruits are offered by way of oblation, a condition of which is that it should be voluntary.

QUESTION OF TITHES (FOUR ARTICLES)

Next we must consider tithes, under which head there are four points of inquiry: (1) Whether men are bound by precept to pay tithes? (2) Of what things ought tithes to be paid? (3) To whom ought they to be paid? (4) Who ought to pay tithes?

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(1) Whether men are bound to pay tithes under a necessity of precept?

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(1)- O(1) —

It would seem that men are not bound by precept to pay tithes. The commandment to pay tithes is contained in the Old Law ( Leviticus 27:30), “All tithes of the land, whether of corn or of the fruits of trees, are the Lord’s,” and further on ( Leviticus 27:32): “Of all the tithes of oxen and sheep and goats, that pass under the shepherd’s rod, every tenth that cometh shall be sanctified to the Lord.”

This cannot be reckoned among the moral precepts, because natural reason does not dictate that one ought to give a tenth part, rather than a ninth or eleventh. Therefore it is either a judicial or a ceremonial precept. Now, as stated above ( P(2a), Q(103), A(3) ; P(2a), Q(104), A(3) ), during the time of grace men are hound neither to the ceremonial nor to the judicial precepts of the Old Law. Therefore men are not bound now to pay tithes.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, during the time of grace men are bound only to those things which were commanded by Christ through the Apostles, according to Matthew 28:20, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”; and Paul says ( Acts 20:27): “I have not spared to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” Now neither in the teaching of Christ nor in that of the apostles is there any mention of the paying of tithes: for the saying of our Lord about tithes ( Matthew 23:23), “These things you ought to have done” seems to refer to the past time of legal observance: thus Hilary says (Super Matth. can. xxiv): “The tithing of herbs, which was useful in foreshadowing the future, was not to be omitted.” Therefore during the time of grace men are not bound to pay tithes.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, during the time of grace, men are not more bound to the legal observances than before the Law. But before the Law tithes were given, by reason not of a precept but of a vow. For we read ( Genesis 28:20,22) that Jacob “made a vow” saying: “If God shall be with me, and shall keep me in the way by which I walk... of all the things that Thou shalt give to me, I will offer tithes to Thee.” Neither, therefore, during the time of grace are men bound to pay tithes.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(1)- O(4) —

Further, in the Old Law men were bound to pay three kinds of tithe. For it is written ( Numbers 18:23,24): “The sons of Levi... shall... be content with the oblation of tithes, which I have separated for their uses and necessities.”

Again, there were other tithes of which we read ( Deuteronomy 14:22,23): “Every year thou shalt set aside the tithes of all thy fruits, that the earth bringeth forth year by year; and thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God in the place which He shall choose.”

And there were yet other tithes, of which it is written ( Deuteronomy 14:28): “The third year thou shalt separate another tithe of all things that grow to thee at that time, and shalt lay it up within thy gates. And the Levite that hath no other part nor possession with thee, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are within thy gates, shall... eat and be filled.”

Now during the time of grace men are not bound to pay the second and third tithes. Neither therefore are they bound to pay the first.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(1)- O(5) —

Further, a debt that is due without any time being fixed for its payment, must be paid at once under pain of sin.

Accordingly if during the time of grace men are bound, under necessity of precept, to pay tithes in those countries where tithes are not paid, they would all be in a state of mortal sin, and so would also be the ministers of the Church for dissembling. But this seems unreasonable. Therefore during the time of grace men are not bound under necessity of precept to pay tithes.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(1) —

On the contrary, Augustine [*Append. Serm. cclxxcii], whose words are quoted 16, qu. i [*Can. Decimae], says: “It is a duty to pay tithes, and whoever refuses to pay them takes what belongs to another.”

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(1) —

I answer that, In the Old Law tithes were paid for the sustenance of the ministers of God. Hence it is written ( Malachi 3:10): “Bring all the tithes into My [Vulg.: ‘the’] store-house that there may be meat in My house.”

Hence the precept about the paying of tithes was partly moral and instilled in the natural reason; and partly judicial, deriving its force from its divine institution. Because natural reason dictates that the people should administer the necessaries of life to those who minister the divine worship for the welfare of the whole people even as it is the people’s duty to provide a livelihood for their rulers and soldiers and so forth. Hence the Apostle proves this from human custom, saying ( 1 Corinthians 9:7): “Who serveth as a soldier at any time at his own charge? Who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof?”

But the fixing of the proportion to be offered to the ministers of divine worship does not belong to the natural law, but was determined by divine institution, in accordance with the condition of that people to whom the law was being given. For they were divided into twelve tribes, and the twelfth tribe, namely that of Levi, was engaged exclusively in the divine ministry and had no possessions whence to derive a livelihood: and so it was becomingly ordained that the remaining eleven tribes should give onetenth part of their revenues to the Levites [* Numbers 18:21] that the latter might live respectably; and also because some, through negligence, would disregard this precept. Hence, so far as the tenth part was fixed, the precept was judicial, since all institutions established among this people for the special purpose of preserving equality among men, in accordance with this people’s condition, are called “judicial precepts.” Nevertheless by way of consequence these institutions foreshadowed something in the future, even as everything else connected with them, according to <461201> Corinthians 12, “All these things happened to them in figure.” In this respect they had something in common with the “ceremonial precepts,” which were instituted chiefly that they might be signs of the future. Hence the precept about paying tithes foreshadowed something in the future. For ten is, in a way, the perfect number (being the first numerical limit, since the figures do not go beyond ten but begin over again from one), and therefore he that gave a tenth, which is the sign of perfection, reserving the nine other parts for himself, acknowledged by a sign that imperfection was his part, and that the perfection which was to come through Christ was to be hoped for from God. Yet this proves it to be, not a ceremonial but a judicial precept, as stated above.

There is this difference between the ceremonial and judicial precepts of the Law, as we stated above ( P(2a), Q(104), A(3) ), that it is unlawful to observe the ceremonial precepts at the time of the New Law, whereas there is no sin in keeping the judicial precepts during the time of grace although they are not binding. Indeed they are bound to be observed by some, if they be ordained by the authority of those who have power to make laws. Thus it was a judicial precept of the Old Law that he who stole a sheep should restore four sheep ( Exodus 22:1), and if any king were to order this to be done his subjects would be bound to obey. In like manner during the time of the New Law the authority of the Church has established the payment of tithe; thus showing a certain kindliness, lest the people of the New Law should give less to the ministers of the New Testament than did the people of the Old Law to the ministers of the Old Testament; for the people of the New Law are under greater obligations, according to Matthew 5:20, “Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven,” and, moreover, the ministers of the New Testament are of greater dignity than the ministers of the Old Testament, as the Apostle shows ( Corinthians 3:7,8).

Accordingly it is evident that man’s obligation to pay tithes arises partly from natural law, partly from the institution of the Church; who, nevertheless, in consideration of the requirements of time and persons might ordain the payment of some other proportion.

This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(1)- RO(2) —

The precept about paying tithes, in so far as it was a moral precept, was given in the Gospel by our Lord when He said ( Matthew 10:10) [*The words as quoted are from Luke 10:7:

Matthew has ‘meat’ instead of ‘hire’]: “The workman is worthy of his hire,” and the Apostle says the same ( 1 Corinthians 9:4 seqq.). But the fixing of the particular proportion is left to the ordinance of the Church.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(1)- RO(3) —

Before the time of the Old Law the ministry of the divine worship was not entrusted to any particular person; although it is stated that the first-born were priests, and that they received a double portion. For this very reason no particular portion was directed to be given to the ministers of the divine worship: but when they met with one, each man of his own accord gave him what he deemed right. Thus Abraham by a kind of prophetic instinct gave tithes to Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, according to Genesis 14:20, and again Jacob made a vow to give tithes [* Genesis 28:20], although he appears to have vowed to do so, not by paying them to ministers, but for the purpose of the divine worship, for instance for the fulfilling of sacrifices, hence he said significantly: “I will offer tithes to Thee.”

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(1)- RO(4) —

The second kind of tithe, which was reserved for the offering of sacrifices, has no place in the New Law, since the legal victims had ceased. But the third kind of tithe which they had to eat with the poor, is increased in the New Law, for our Lord commanded us to give to the poor not merely the tenth part, but all our surplus, according to Luke 11:41: “That which remaineth, give alms.” Moreover the tithes that are given to the ministers of the Church should be dispensed by them for the use of the poor.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(1)- RO(5) —

The ministers of the Church ought to be more solicitous for the increase of spiritual goods in the people, than for the amassing of temporal goods: and hence the Apostle was unwilling to make use of the right given him by the Lord of receiving his livelihood from those to whom he preached the Gospel, lest he should occasion a hindrance to the Gospel of Christ [* 1 Corinthians 9:12]. Nor did they sin who did not contribute to his upkeep, else the Apostle would not have omitted to reprove them. In like manner the ministers of the Church rightly refrain from demanding the Church’s tithes, when they could not demand them without scandal, on account of their having fallen into desuetude, or for some other reason. Nevertheless those who do not give tithes in places where the Church does not demand them are not in a state of damnation, unless they be obstinate, and unwilling to pay even if tithes were demanded of them.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(2) Whether men are bound to pay tithes of all things?

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(2)- O(1) —

It would seem that men are not bound to give tithes of all things. The paying of tithes seems to be an institution of the Old Law. Now the Old Law contains no precept about personal tithes, viz. those that are payable on property acquired by one’s own act, for instance by commerce or soldiering. Therefore no man is bound to pay tithes on such things.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, it is not right to make oblations of that which is ill-gotten, as stated above ( Q(86) , A(3) ). Now oblations, being offered to God immediately, seem to be more closely connected with the divine worship than tithes which are offered to the ministers. Therefore neither should tithes be paid on ill-gotten goods.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, in the last chapter of Leviticus (30,32) the precept of paying tithes refers only to “corn, fruits of trees” and animals “that pass under the shepherd’s rod.” But man derives a revenue from other smaller things, such as the herbs that grow in his garden and so forth. Therefore neither on these things is a man bound to pay tithes.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(2)- O(4) —

Further, man cannot pay except what is in his power. Now a man does not always remain in possession of all his profit from land and stock, since sometimes he loses them by theft or robbery; sometimes they are transferred to another person by sale; sometimes they are due to some other person, thus taxes are due to princes, and wages due to workmen. Therefore one ought not to pay tithes on such like things.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(2) —

On the contrary, It is written ( Genesis 28:22): “Of all things that Thou shalt give to me, I will offer tithes to Thee.”

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(2) —

I answer that, In judging about a thing we should look to its principle. Now the principle of the payment of tithes is the debt whereby carnal things are due to those who sow spiritual things, according to the saying of the Apostle ( 1 Corinthians 9:11), “If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things?” [thus implying that on the contrary “it is no great matter if we reap your carnal things”] [*The phrase in the brackets is omitted in the Leonine edition]. For this debt is the principle on which is based the commandment of the Church about the payment of tithes. Now whatever man possesses comes under the designation of carnal things. Therefore tithes must be paid on whatever one possesses.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(2)- RO(1) —

In accordance with the condition of that people there was a special reason why the Old Law did not include a precept about personal tithes; because, to wit, all the other tribes had certain possessions wherewith they were able to provide a sufficient livelihood for the Levites who had no possessions, but were not forbidden to make a profit out of other lawful occupations as the other Jews did. On the other hand the people of the New Law are spread abroad throughout the world, and many of them have no possessions, but live by trade, and these would contribute nothing to the support of God’s ministers if they did not pay tithes on their trade profits. Moreover the ministers of the New Law are more strictly forbidden to occupy themselves in moneymaking trades, according to 2 Timothy 2:4, “No man being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular business.” Wherefore in the New Law men are bound to pay personal tithes, according to the custom of their country and the needs of the ministers: hence Augustine, whose words are quoted 16, qu. 1, cap. Decimae, says [*Append. Serm. cclxxvii]: “Tithes must be paid on the profits of soldiering, trade or craft.”

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(2)- RO(2) —

Things are ill-gotten in two ways. First, because the getting itself was unjust: such, for instance, are things gotten by robbery, theft or usury: and these a man is bound to restore, and not to pay tithes on them. If, however, a field be bought with the profits of usury, the usurer is bound to pay tithes on the produce, because the latter is not gotten usuriously but given by God. On the other hand certain things are said to be ill-gotten, because they are gotten of a shameful cause, for instance of whoredom or stage-playing, and the like. Such things a man is not bound to restore, and consequently he is bound to pay tithes on them in the same way as other personal tithes. Nevertheless the Church must not accept the tithe so long as those persons remain in sin, lest she appear to have a share in their sins: but when they have done penance, tithes may be accepted from them on these things.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(2)- RO(3) —

Things directed to an end must be judged according to their fittingness to the end. Now the payment of tithes is due not for its own sake, but for the sake of the ministers, to whose dignity it is unbecoming that they should demand minute things with careful exactitude, for this is reckoned sinful according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 2). Hence the Old Law did not order the payment of tithes on such like minute things, but left it to the judgment of those who are willing to pay, because minute things are counted as nothing. Wherefore the Pharisees who claimed for themselves the perfect justice of the Law, paid tithes even on these minute things: nor are they reproved by our Lord on that account, but only because they despised greater, i.e. spiritual, precepts; and rather did He show them to be deserving of praise in this particular, when He said ( Matthew 23:23): “These things you ought to have done,” i.e. during the time of the Law, according to Chrysostom’s [*Hom. xliv in the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] commentary.

This also seems to denote fittingness rather than obligation. Therefore now too men are not bound to pay tithes on such minute things, except perhaps by reason of the custom of one’s country.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(2)- RO(4) —

A man is not bound to pay tithes on what he has lost by theft or robbery, before he recovers his property: unless he has incurred the loss through his own fault or neglect, because the Church ought not to be the loser on that account. If he sell wheat that has not been tithed, the Church can command the tithes due to her, both from the buyer who has a thing due to the Church, and from the seller, because so far as he is concerned he has defrauded the Church: yet if one pays, the other is not bound. Tithes are due on the fruits of the earth, in so far as these fruits are the gift of God. Wherefore tithes do not come under a tax, nor are they subject to workmen’s wages. Hence it is not right to deduct one’s taxes and the wages paid to workmen, before paying tithes: but tithes must be paid before anything else on one’s entire produce.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(3) Whether tithes should be paid to the clergy?

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(3)- O(1) —

It would seem that tithes should not be paid to the clergy. Tithes were paid to the Levites in the Old Testament, because they had no portion in the people’s possessions, according to Numbers 18:23,24. But in the New Testament the clergy have possessions not only ecclesiastical, but sometimes also patrimonial: moreover they receive firstfruits, and oblations for the living and the dead. Therefore it is unnecessary to pay tithes to them.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, it sometimes happens that a man dwells in one parish, and farms in another; or a shepherd may take his flock within the bounds of one parish during one part of the year, and within the bounds of one parish during one part of the year, and within the bounds of another parish during the other part of the year; or he may have his sheepfold in one parish, and graze the sheep in another. Now in all these and similar cases it seems impossible to decide to which clergy the tithes ought to be paid. Therefore it would seem that no fixed tithe ought to be paid to the clergy.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, it is the general custom in certain countries for the soldiers to hold the tithes from the Church in fee; and certain religious receive tithes. Therefore seemingly tithes are not due only to those of the clergy who have care of souls.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(3) —

On the contrary, It is written ( Numbers 18:21): “I have given to the sons of Levi all the tithes of Israel for a possession, for the ministry wherewith they serve Me in the Tabernacle.”

Now the clergy are the successors of the sons of Levi in the New Testament. Therefore tithes are due to the clergy alone.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(3) —

I answer that, Two things have to be considered with regard to tithes: namely, the right to receive tithes, and the things given in the name of tithes. The right to receive tithes is a spiritual thing, for it arises from the debt in virtue of which the ministers of the altar have a right to the expenses of their ministry, and temporal things are due to those who sow spiritual things. This debt concerns none but the clergy who have care of souls, and so they alone are competent to have this right.

On the other hand the things given in the name of tithes are material, wherefore they may come to be used by anyone, and thus it is that they fall into the hands of the laity.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(3)- RO(1) —

In the Old Law, as stated above ( A(1), ad 4), special tithes were earmarked for the assistance of the poor. But in the New Law the tithes are given to the clergy, not only for their own support, but also that the clergy may use them in assisting the poor.

Hence they are not unnecessary; indeed Church property, oblations and first-fruits as well as tithes are all necessary for this same purpose.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(3)- RO(2) —

Personal tithes are due to the church in whose parish a man dwells, while predial tithes seem more reasonably to belong to the church within whose bounds the land is situated. The law, however, prescribes that in this matter a custom that has obtained for a long time must be observed [*Cap. Cum sint, and Cap. Ad apostolicae, de Decimis, etc.]. The shepherd who grazes his flock at different seasons in two parishes, should pay tithe proportionately to both churches. And since the fruit of the flock is derived from the pasture, the tithe of the flock is due to the church in whose lands the flock grazes, rather than to the church on whose land the fold is situated.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(3)- RO(3) —

Just as the Church can hand over to a layman the things she receives under the title of tithe, so too can she allow him to receive tithes that are yet to be paid, the right of receiving being reserved to the ministers of the Church. The motive may be either the need of the Church, as when tithes are due to certain soldiers through being granted to them in fee by the Church, or it may be the succoring of the poor; thus certain tithes have been granted by way of alms to certain lay religious, or to those that have no care of souls. Some religious, however, are competent to receive tithes, because they have care of souls.

P(2b)- Q(87)- A(4) Whether the clergy also are bound to pay tithes?