Dist. 3, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/3/q/bon-sent-III-d3-p2-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article I. *On the tithing of Christ.*
### Question I. *Whether anyone can be tithed in his forefathers.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus and asks whether anyone has to be tithed in his forefathers. And that this is so is proved:

1. By that saying of the Apostle to the Hebrews, chapter seven: *Through Abraham, Levi too, who received tithes, was tithed.*

2. Likewise, this same thing seems to follow from Augustine, in the tenth book *On Genesis according to the Letter*, and it is found in the Gloss: «Just as, when Adam sinned, those who were in his loins sinned; so, when Abraham gave tithes, those who were in his loins were tithed»; but it is established that the offspring could sin in Adam: therefore also be tithed in Abraham.

3. Likewise, this same thing seems to follow by reason: because offspring can be set free and reduced to servitude in their forefathers, since a slave is born of servile condition: therefore by like reasoning it seems that, when forefathers give tithes, the sons have to be tithed in them.

4. Likewise, tithing is a *figurative* act; but a figure regards not only the present, but also the past and the future: therefore it seems that a son can be tithed not only in his own person, but also when he is in his forefather as in a cause and matter.

**On the contrary:** 1. Augustine, in the tenth book *On Genesis according to the Letter*: «In the loins of Abraham that was tithed which was healed»; but the sons of Abraham were not healed of original sin, but rather were born with original sin: therefore it does not seem that they were tithed in Abraham.

2. Likewise, when a tithe is given of grain, a tithe is not on that account given of that grain which is to be born: therefore by like reasoning, when a tithe is given for a man, it does not seem that he who is to be born from him is tithed in him — for just as a man is in a man seminally, so is a grain in a grain — therefore this reasoning seems sound.

3. Likewise, just as circumcision is a remedy against original sin under the Law of figure, and baptism under the Law of grace, so tithing under the Law of nature, as Hugh of Saint Victor says; but no one could be baptized or circumcised in his mother's womb: therefore neither tithed.

4. Likewise, either *to be tithed* is to be healed by the tithe, or *to be tithed* is to be obligated to the tithe, or *to be tithed* is to give a tenth part of something, or *to be tithed* is to be prefigured by the tithe; but by none of these modes was Levi tithed in Abraham, since he was neither healed by the tithe, nor obligated to give tithes, since he rather received them, nor did he give a tithe, nor was he signified by the tithe: therefore in no way does he seem to have been tithed in Abraham; and if he was not tithed, by like reasoning neither were any others.

### Conclusion

> Offspring can in some manner be tithed in their forefathers, according to that mode by which tithing posits nothing in act with regard to those tithed, but is a *figurative* act, *signifying a future healing*.

**I respond:** For an understanding of the foregoing, it must be noted that tithing was a *moral*, *sacramental*, and *figurative* act. According as it was a

*moral* act, tithing is so called as the donation of a certain fixed part for the support of those who serve the Lord and are appointed to divine worship; and in this manner tithing in some way perseveres even now. — But according as tithing is a *sacramental* act, tithing is the donation of a part for the healing of the original disease. — But according as tithing is a *figurative* act, tithing is the donation of a tenth part for the prefiguration of the universal healing which was to come about through the offering of Christ.

Taken in the first two modes, tithing regards only the present; because a tithe is given only of that which is had, and nothing is healed except what already has the disease. But taken in the third mode, tithing belongs not only to the present, but also to the future, inasmuch as *figuration* is *signification*, and signification extends itself not only to present things, but also to future ones; and in this manner the sons of Abraham are said to be tithed in Abraham, because through that tithing all the sons of Abraham were prefigured as to be healed through him who was signified by Melchizedek, that is, through the true priest Christ. And this is what Augustine says, in the tenth book *On Genesis according to the Letter*: «Since that very tithing pertained to the prefiguring of the medicine, he was being tithed in Abraham who was being healed», not when he was being prefigured, but when the truth of that figure was being fulfilled. — Therefore the reasons are to be granted which show that offspring can in some manner be tithed in their forefather, according to that mode by which tithing posits nothing in act with regard to those tithed, but only according to a signification which belongs not only to present things, but also to future ones.

*To 1.* To that which is objected first concerning the authority of Augustine, it must be said that, as is clear from the preceding word, *that was tithed which was healed* does not assert a concomitance according to the same time with respect to what it is *to be tithed*, but rather extends itself to every time, and for that time renders the statement true, in which the truth of the figure was being fulfilled.

*To 2.* To that which is objected — that a tithe is not given of grain which is not in reality, but only in seminal account — it must be said that it is not similar, because tithing, insofar as it is a *figurative* act, does not extend itself to signify something about the grain, but to signify something about the human race; whence it regards the grain as the matter about which it has to be exercised, not as that which is to be signified through it. And because *exercise* requires present matter, *signification* extends itself to future things, therefore it is not similar.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning baptism and circumcision, it must be said that it is not similar, except insofar as tithing is a *sacramental* act of the Law of nature for the remedy of original sin; in this manner it is only about the present, like circumcision and baptism. But according as it is a *figurative* act, it is not similar.

But if it be asked why baptism and circumcision cannot be a figurative act, as tithing is; it must be said that the reason for this is that circumcision and baptism is an act *in the person*; but tithing, since it is the offering of a tenth part, is an act *on behalf of the person*. And because an offering can be made on behalf of that which is and that which is to be, but one is circumcised and baptized only as regards what already is; hence it is that the act of tithing could extend itself to future ones, but not the act of circumcising or baptizing.

*To 4.* To that which is asked, how offspring is said to be tithed in its forefather; it must be said that tithing is the same as the prefiguration of healing. Whence it is taken in none of those modes which were assigned in the objection: and therefore that objection proceeded insufficiently.