Dist. 3, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2
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-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether Christ was tithed in Abraham.*

Secondly it is asked whether Christ was tithed in Abraham. And that he was, it seems:

1. By the authority of the Apostle to the Hebrews, chapter seven: through Abraham Levi too was tithed; he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him; but Christ was in the loins of Abraham when he gave those tithes: therefore he was tithed, just as Levi was.

2. Likewise, as Hugh of Saint Victor says: « By the tithes Christ himself is signified »: therefore it seems that the tithing itself, insofar as it is a figural act, regards Christ more principally than the other sons of Abraham: therefore it seems rather that he ought to be said to be tithed than the others.

3. Likewise, nothing more is required for a tithing than that there be really fulfilled in the offspring that which was signified in Abraham's tithing; but this was fulfilled most of all in Christ, who offered himself as a victim to God and the Father through the offering of his body and blood.

4. Likewise, the whole flesh of Christ was in the flesh of the blessed Virgin; but the flesh of the Virgin had to be tithed in Abraham: therefore so also the flesh of Christ.

**Sed contra:**
1. Augustine, in the tenth book *On Genesis according to the Letter*: « He is not tithed whose flesh drew from there not the ferment of a wound, but the matter of a remedy »; but Christ was of this kind: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, as sinning Adam stands to his posterity, so does Abraham in giving tithes; but although Christ was in sinning Adam, Christ is not said to have sinned in Adam; therefore by parity of reasoning, in Abraham's giving tithes he is not said to be tithed.

3. Likewise, the tithing was either a healing or a prefiguration of healing; but Christ was neither healed there nor prefigured to be healed: therefore it seems that he was not tithed there.

4. Likewise, if Christ was tithed in the loins of Abraham, just as Levi was, then the Apostle's argument is null, by which he proves the priesthood of Melchizedek to be greater than the levitical priesthood through the fact that Levi was tithed: but if the Apostle's reasoning is correct, it follows therefore that Christ was not tithed in Abraham.

There is, then, a question alongside this: on what does that consequence rest, by which the Apostle proves the priesthood of Melchizedek to be greater than the levitical priesthood, for the reason that Levi offered tithes to Melchizedek? It seems that it does not compel, because by that reasoning it could be argued that the dignity of one poor priest is greater than the Pope's, granted that the Pope's father gave tithes to a simple priest.

### Conclusio

> Christ was not tithed in the loins of Abraham.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that, as the Master determines in the text—indeed Augustine in the tenth book *On Genesis according to the Letter*—Christ was not tithed in the loins of Abraham.

And the reason for this is that the tithing prefigured the future healing. Since therefore Christ in the loins of Abraham was not as one needing healing, but rather as the medicine; hence it is that the tithing did not pertain to him. For just as in Adam those alone sinned who proceed from him according to carnal generation and seminal concupiscence; and therefore Christ is excluded from that generality by which it is said: All sinned in Adam, because he did not proceed from him according to the ardor of lust, but according to the operation of the Holy Spirit: so in the matter at hand it is to be understood concerning the tithing.

1. And by this the reply is clear to that which is first objected to the contrary; for Christ was in the loins of Abraham, and so was Levi, but not in the same way. And therefore it does not follow that, as it belongs to one to be tithed, so it should fit the other. For the tithing regards not only *being in the loins*, but also the *mode of being* according to the transmission of original sin.

2. To that which is objected, that Christ is signified by the offered tithe; it must be said that the offered tithe was not tithed, but rather the tithing regards that which remains in another, as Hugh says, since there remains the imperfection removed by the unity, which is the perfection of the denarius, through which the future healing is signified. Hence, just as others are figured in that tithing as *being healed*, so Christ is figured as *the ground of the remedy*.

3. To that which is objected, that in that tithing the offering of Christ was signified; it must be said that this is true, but Christ's offering is not signified as one *for whom* the offering would be made, but as one *who* is offered for others. And since he is said to be *tithed* for whom the offering of the tithe is made; hence it is that the act of tithing ought not to be attributed to Christ; for Christ was prefigured in one way, the others in another.

4. To that which is objected, that the flesh of Christ was in the blessed Virgin, and the flesh of the Virgin in Abraham; it must be said that there is a sophism *of accident* there, because the mode of being is varied *on this side and that*. For in one way the flesh of the blessed Virgin was in Abraham, in another the flesh of Christ in his Mother; because the blessed Virgin proceeded according to the law of concupiscence, but Christ in no way.

To that which was asked concerning the authority of the Apostle and the reasoning, it can be said that the Apostle's reasoning is good against those against whom he argues, namely the Jews, who supposed Abraham to be more worthy in his own kind. If, then, Abraham was blessed by Melchizedek and offered tithes to him as to a superior, it follows from this that not only was Melchizedek greater than Abraham, but also greater than all who proceeded from him according to the law of the flesh; and therefore he was more worthy than Levi and Aaron.

But since that does not seem to be true—that Melchizedek was more excellent than Moses and David and the blessed Virgin, who proceeded from Abraham; and since the Apostle does not proceed from false suppositions: therefore it is necessary to speak otherwise, namely that the Apostle argues from the truth and signification of that figure by a necessary argumentation. The tithing for that time signified healing. When therefore Abraham offered tithes to Melchizedek and was blessed by him, he signified that he needed healing and blessing through that priest who was signified by Melchizedek. But he who heals and blesses is the greater, without any contradiction. Since therefore the priesthood of Christ was that which was prefigured by that of Melchizedek, as is read in the Psalm: *Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek*; it follows therefore that the priesthood of Christ was greater than Levi's. And this is the Apostle's reasoning, which it is impossible to dissolve. — Nor is it similar in the case of a simple priest and the Pope's father, because there there is no ground of figure. But this whole reasoning is founded upon the tithing, according as it is a figural act; for according as it is a moral act, it contributes nothing to the matter at hand, since neither Abraham nor his posterity were obliged to give tithes to Melchizedek, especially those who were of the stock of Levi, who were bound to give no tithes.

---