Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 137 (1/2)

Obj. 3: Further, during the time of grace, men are not more bound to the legal observances than before the Law. But before the Law t.i.thes were given, by reason not of a precept but of a vow. For we read (Gen. 28:20, 22) that Jacob ”made a vow” saying: ”If G.o.d 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 t.i.thes to Thee.”

Neither, therefore, during the time of grace are men bound to pay t.i.thes.

Obj. 4: Further, in the Old Law men were bound to pay three kinds of t.i.the. For it is written (Num. 18:23, 24): ”The sons of Levi ...

shall ... be content with the oblation of t.i.thes, which I have separated for their uses and necessities.” Again, there were other t.i.thes of which we read (Deut. 14:22, 23): ”Every year thou shalt set aside the t.i.thes of all thy fruits, that the earth bringeth forth year by year; and thou shalt eat before the Lord thy G.o.d in the place which He shall choose.” And there were yet other t.i.thes, of which it is written (Deut. 14:28): ”The third year thou shalt separate another t.i.the 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 t.i.thes. Neither therefore are they bound to pay the first.

Obj. 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 t.i.thes in those countries where t.i.thes 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 t.i.thes.

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

_I answer that,_ In the Old Law t.i.thes were paid for the sustenance of the ministers of G.o.d. Hence it is written (Malach. 3:10): ”Bring all the t.i.thes into My [Vulg.: 'the'] store-house that there may be meat in My house.” Hence the precept about the paying of t.i.thes was partly moral and instilled in the natural reason; and partly judicial, deriving its force from its divine inst.i.tution. Because natural reason dictates that the people should administer the necessaries of life to those who minister the divine wors.h.i.+p 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 Cor. 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 wors.h.i.+p does not belong to the natural law, but was determined by divine inst.i.tution, 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 one-tenth part of their revenues to the Levites [*Num. 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 inst.i.tutions 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 inst.i.tutions foreshadowed something in the future, even as everything else connected with them, according to 1 Cor. 12, ”All these things happened to them in figure.” In this respect they had something in common with the _ceremonial precepts,_ which were inst.i.tuted chiefly that they might be signs of the future.

Hence the precept about paying t.i.thes 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 G.o.d. 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 (I-II, 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 (Ex.

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 t.i.the; 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 Matt. 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 (2 Cor.

3:7, 8).

Accordingly it is evident that man's obligation to pay t.i.thes arises partly from natural law, partly from the inst.i.tution 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.

Reply Obj. 2: The precept about paying t.i.thes, in so far as it was a moral precept, was given in the Gospel by our Lord when He said (Matt. 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 Cor. 9:4 seqq.). But the fixing of the particular proportion is left to the ordinance of the Church.

Reply Obj. 3: Before the time of the Old Law the ministry of the divine wors.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+p: 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 t.i.thes to Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High G.o.d, according to Gen.

14:20, and again Jacob made a vow to give t.i.thes [*Gen. 28:20], although he appears to have vowed to do so, not by paying them to ministers, but for the purpose of the divine wors.h.i.+p, for instance for the fulfilling of sacrifices, hence he said significantly: ”I will offer t.i.thes to Thee.”

Reply Obj. 4: The second kind of t.i.the, 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 t.i.the 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 t.i.thes that are given to the ministers of the Church should be dispensed by them for the use of the poor.

Reply Obj. 5: The ministers of the Church ought to be more solicitous for the increase of spiritual goods in the people, than for the ama.s.sing 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 Cor. 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 t.i.thes, 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 t.i.thes in places where the Church does not demand them are not in a state of d.a.m.nation, unless they be obstinate, and unwilling to pay even if t.i.thes were demanded of them.

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 87, Art. 2]

Whether Men Are Bound to Pay t.i.thes of All Things?

Objection 1: It would seem that men are not bound to give t.i.thes of all things. The paying of t.i.thes seems to be an inst.i.tution of the Old Law. Now the Old Law contains no precept about personal t.i.thes, 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 t.i.thes on such things.

Obj. 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 G.o.d immediately, seem to be more closely connected with the divine wors.h.i.+p than t.i.thes which are offered to the ministers.

Therefore neither should t.i.thes be paid on ill-gotten goods.

Obj. 3: Further, in the last chapter of Leviticus (30, 32) the precept of paying t.i.thes refers only to ”corn, fruits of trees” and animals ”that pa.s.s 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 t.i.thes.

Obj. 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 t.i.thes on such like things.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Gen. 28:22): ”Of all things that Thou shalt give to me, I will offer t.i.thes to Thee.”

_I answer that,_ In judging about a thing we should look to its principle. Now the principle of the payment of t.i.thes is the debt whereby carnal things are due to those who sow spiritual things, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Cor. 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 t.i.thes. Now whatever man possesses comes under the designation of carnal things. Therefore t.i.thes must be paid on whatever one possesses.