|
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ "paid tithes" in
Abraham's loins. For the Apostle says (Heb. 7:6-9) that
Levi, the great-grandson of Abraham, "paid tithes in Abraham,"
because, when the latter paid tithes to Melchisedech, "he was yet in
his loins." In like manner Christ was in Abraham's loins when the
latter paid tithes. Therefore Christ Himself also paid tithes in
Abraham.
Objection 2: Further, Christ is of the seed of Abraham according
to the flesh which He received from His Mother. But His Mother
paid tithes in Abraham. Therefore for a like reason did Christ.
Objection 3: Further, "in Abraham tithe was levied on that which
needed healing," as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x). But all
flesh subject to sin needed healing. Since therefore Christ's flesh
was the subject of sin, as stated above (Article 7), it seems that
Christ's flesh paid tithes in Abraham.
Objection 4: Further, this does not seem to be at all derogatory to
Christ's dignity. For the fact that the father of a bishop pays
tithes to a priest does not hinder his son, the bishop, from being of
higher rank than an ordinary priest. Consequently, although we may
say that Christ paid tithes when Abraham paid them to Melchisedech,
it does not follow that Christ was not greater than Melchisedech.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x) that "Christ
did not pay tithes there," i.e. in Abraham, "for His flesh
derived from him, not the heat of the wound, but the matter of the
antidote."
I answer that, It behooves us to say that the sense of the passage
quoted from the Apostle is that Christ did not pay tithes in
Abraham. For the Apostle proves that the priesthood according to the
order of Melchisedech is greater than the Levitical priesthood, from
the fact that Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedech, while Levi, from
whom the legal priesthood was derived, was yet in his loins. Now, if
Christ had also paid tithes in Abraham, His priesthood would not
have been according to the order of Melchisedech, but of a lower
order. Consequently we must say that Christ did not pay tithes in
Abraham's loins, as Levi did.
For since he who pays a tithe keeps nine parts to himself, and
surrenders the tenth to another, inasmuch as the number ten is the sign
of perfection, as being, in a sort, the terminus of all numbers which
mount from one to ten, it follows that he who pays a tithe bears
witness to his own imperfection and to the perfection of another.
Now, to sin is due the imperfection of the human race, which needs to
be perfected by Him who cleanses from sin. But to heal from sin
belongs to Christ alone, for He is the "Lamb that taketh away the
sin of the world" (Jn. 1:29), whose figure was Melchisedech,
as the Apostle proves (Heb. 7). Therefore by giving tithes to
Melchisedech, Abraham foreshadowed that he, as being conceived in
sin, and all who were to be his descendants in contracting original
sin, needed that healing which is through Christ. And Isaac,
Jacob, and Levi, and all the others were in Abraham in such a way
so as to be descended from him, not only as to bodily substance, but
also as to seminal virtue, by which original sin is transmitted.
Consequently, they all paid tithes in Abraham, i.e. foreshadowed
as needing to be healed by Christ. And Christ alone was in Abraham
in such a manner as to descend from him, not by seminal virtue, but
according to bodily substance. Therefore He was not in Abraham so as
to need to be healed, but rather "as the balm with which the wound was
to be healed." Therefore He did not pay tithes in Abraham's
loins.
Thus the answer to the first objection is made manifest.
Reply to Objection 2: Because the Blessed Virgin was conceived in
original sin, she was in Abraham as needing to be healed. Therefore
she paid tithes in him, as descending from him according to seminal
virtue. But this is not true of Christ's body, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: Christ's flesh is said to have been subject
to sin, according as it was in the patriarchs, by reason of the
condition in which it was in His forefathers, who paid the tithes:
but not by reason of its condition as actually in Christ, who did not
pay the tithes.
Reply to Objection 4: The levitical priesthood was handed down
through carnal origin: wherefore it was not less in Abraham than in
Levi. Consequently, since Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedech as
to one greater than he, it follows that the priesthood of
Melchisedech, inasmuch as he was a figure of Christ, was greater
than that of Levi. But the priesthood of Christ does not result from
carnal origin, but from spiritual grace. Therefore it is possible
that a father pay tithes to a priest, as the less to the greater, and
yet his son, if he be a bishop, is greater than that priest, not
through carnal origin, but through the spiritual grace which he has
received from Christ.
|
|