Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Clergy (Book I)
Chapter 25: On Tithes
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Clericis (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book I), On the Clergy (On the Members of the Church, Book I). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The seventh question was on the temporal goods of clerics. Now there are three kinds of goods about which it can be doubted whether they befit clerics. In the first place are tithes, which are owed to clerics in justice. Secondly, there are fields, houses, and other possessions which the Church holds by the gift of the laity, especially of princes. Thirdly, there are goods held by a plainly secular title, as by paternal inheritance, purchase, sale, and so on. Of each we will speak in order. And first, of tithes I find four errors.
The first error was John Wycliffe’s, who (as Waldensis relates, Book II of the Doctrinal of the Faith, article 3, chapters 64 and 65) taught that tithes are pure alms and owed to priests by no right. The same error the Anabaptists and Trinitarians follow today; for in the booklet which they issued in the year 1568 at Alba Julia, On the Antitheses of the True and the False Christ, they make this third antithesis: “The false Christ, as he himself is the eternal and richest God, so gave his priests tithes and many temporal goods; but the true Christ, who was a temporal and poor man, wishes his ministers too to be poor.”
The error is manifest; for it can easily be shown that it is of natural and divine right that laymen pay something to priests, and besides of ecclesiastical right that what is paid be a tenth part. That it is of natural right is proved; for certainly reason dictates that to those who labor for the people the people should furnish food. For whence we deduce that tribute is owed to kings, pay to soldiers, and salaries to judges and other public ministers, thence too we can deduce that tithes, or something in their place, are owed to priests. And so in the time of the law of nature we see Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek the priest, who then was (Genesis 14). On which passage Chrysostom writes (homily 35 on Genesis) that Abraham by this deed was our teacher, and admonished what we ought to do.
And that it is of divine right is proved from both Testaments. And first (Leviticus, last chapter; Numbers 18; Malachi 3, and elsewhere) God ordered tithes to be given to the Levites; which precepts, although they do not bind Christians as they were judicial, yet bind inasmuch as they were moral — that is, that some part of the fruits is to be given to priests. For this Clement openly teaches (Book II of the Apostolic Constitutions, chapters 29, 38, and 39, and Book VIII, chapter 36), where he says that although Christians are free from the ceremonies of the old law, yet not from tithes and oblations; nay, that Christians are now more bound to all these, since their justice ought to abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees.
Likewise Blessed Jerome (on Malachi 3) says thus: “What we have said of tithes and firstfruits, which of old were given by the people to the priests and Levites, understand also of the peoples of the Church, who are commanded not only to give tithes and firstfruits, but also to sell all they have and give to the poor. But if we will not do this, let us at least imitate the beginnings of the Jews, that we give the poor a part out of the whole, and render due honor to the priests and Levites; which he who does not, is convicted of defrauding and supplanting God.” Where note, however, that although Blessed Jerome says it is a precept to sell all and give to the poor, yet he understands it to be a precept not absolutely, as of paying tithes, but if anyone wishes to be perfect; for of that he adds, “but if we will not do this,” and so on; but of tithes he says, “which he who does not, is convicted of defrauding and supplanting God.”
Likewise Blessed Augustine (sermon 219 on the season, treating the same passage of Malachi): “God, who deigned to give the whole, deigns to demand back from us the tenth — without doubt to profit not Himself but us; for so He Himself promised through the Prophet, saying: Bring in all the tithe into my barns, that there may be food in my house, and prove me in these, saith the Lord.” Perhaps this sermon is not Blessed Augustine’s, yet it is without doubt notable, and of some ancient Father; for thence, as from Augustine, many things are transcribed into the decree (cause 16, question 1). Likewise Blessed Gregory (homily 16 on the Gospel): “As in the law you are bidden, dearest brethren, to offer the tithes of your goods, so strive to offer Him the tithes of your days too.”
Then in the New Testament we have (Matthew 22): “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” On which passage Jerome and Augustine (Book of Fifty Homilies, homily 48) say that the Lord commands that tribute be rendered to Caesar, and tithes to God. Besides, Matthew 10: “The laborer is worthy of his hire.” 1 Corinthians 9: “Know you not that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place, and they that serve the altar partake with the altar? So also the Lord ordained that they who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel.” And in the same place: “Who serveth as a soldier at his own charges ever? And if we have sown to you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things?”
Of which passage Augustine treating (in the tract on Psalm 146), and thence expounding those words of the Psalm, “Who prepareth rain for the earth, bringing forth grass on the mountains,” says that the peoples, who like the earth receive the rain of doctrine from the priests, ought to bring forth for them the grass of temporal goods: “Receive the rain,” he says, “and give the grass; for all these things which are given to the Church by the rich for the necessities of those who serve God, what are they but grass?” And below: “To the rain is owed fruit, to the servant is owed food, as the Lord says: Eat the things that are theirs; and lest they should think they gave anything of their own, He says, The laborer is worthy of his hire.” And below: “Take out some part of thy revenues; wilt thou tithes? take out tithes, though it be little; for it was said that the Pharisees gave tithes, and what says the Lord? Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
Note that in the time of Blessed Augustine many in Africa were not wont to pay tithes, as now in certain other parts, and therefore Blessed Augustine exhorts them to tithes, as he also does (homily 48, from the Book of Fifty Homilies): “Our forefathers therefore abounded in all supplies, because they gave God tithes and rendered Caesar tribute. But now, because the devotion to God has departed, the exaction of the treasury has come on. We would not share tithes with God, but now the whole is taken away.”
It remains that we bring forward the ecclesiastical laws. And first there are many ancient Councils in which this is openly commanded: as the First of Orleans (chapter 17), a thousand years ago. Likewise the Second of Macon (chapter 5), celebrated in the same century, says that the divine laws about paying tithes, kept in the Church for long times, are henceforth also to be kept. The Council of Friuli (last chapter) has the same. The Council of Mainz in the time of Charlemagne (chapter 38); the Council of Mainz under Rabanus (chapter 10); the Council of Mainz in the time of the Emperor Arnulph (chapter 17) bids those be excommunicated who neglect to give tithes. The Council of Reims (chapter 38) in the time of Charlemagne, the Council of Valence in the time of Lothair (chapter 10), the Fourth of Arles (chapter 9), the Second of Chalon (chapter 19), the Council of Metz (chapter 2), the Council of Tribur (chapter 13) — all of which were done 700, or 800, or a thousand years ago. Besides, there are general Councils: the Lateran under Innocent III (chapters 53, 54, 55, and 56) established that tithes be paid before tributes and taxes; and in the Council of Vienne (as is had in the Clementine Cupientes, on penalties) religious are excommunicated by the very fact who in a sermon say anything by which they draw the people back from paying tithes. The Council of Constance (session 8) condemned the article of Wycliffe that tithes are pure alms. And at last the Council of Trent (session 25, chapter 12) teaches that the payment of tithes is owed to God, and bids that those be excommunicated who withdraw them or hinder their being given by others, and that they ought not to be absolved until they fully restore. To these are added very many decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, which are had (cause 16, questions 1 and 7, and in the title On Tithes, and in the Sext and Clementines, and the Extravagants of the same title).
The second error is of the same Wycliffe: namely, that tithes are not only pure alms, but also are in no way to be given to bad priests. For Wycliffe held that he who gives alms to a sinner communicates in his sin. Of which error we will say more in the treatise on almsgiving; now the present error is briefly refuted. First, from that of Matthew 22: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Where Saint Jerome writes thus: “What He says, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, let us understand of the coin, tribute, and money; and, the things that are God’s, of tithes, firstfruits, oblations, and victims.” But it is certain that in the Lord’s time not only was Caesar impious and infidel, but the priests too were most wicked and most depraved. Secondly, from Innocent III (in the letter to the bishop of Vercelli, had in the chapter Tua nos, on tithes): “Under pretext of the wickedness of clerics, men cannot pay out tithes at their own discretion to any but those to whom they are owed by divine mandate, since it is lawful to no one to grant another’s property to anyone against the Lord’s will.” Finally, thirdly, because tithes are given to clerics not because they are good, but because they are clerics — as tributes are given to kings, not because upright, but because kings.
The third error is of certain men called Fraticelli, or Pseudo-apostles, who among other errors (which John of Torquemada relates, Book IV, part 2, chapter 37, of the Summary) taught that those cannot receive tithes who do not live in poverty after the manner of the Apostles. The error is without any foundation; for the reason why tithes are owed to clerics is that they labor for the people’s advantage; and this reason can be found no less in a rich than in a poor man. Add that the Lord (Matthew 22) ordered tithes to be given to the priests of the Jews, who did not live in poverty.
The fourth error is of many canonists, who contend that tithes, even as to the determination of the quantity, are of divine right, and that no other quantity can be established by any human law or custom. So the Gloss (on chapter 1, on tithes, in the Sext), Innocent (in the Rubric on tithes), Panormitanus (on the chapter In aliquibus, on tithes), and Hostiensis (in his Summary, title on tithes, section 7), whom almost all the others follow. Their argument is that very many canons, and especially the chapter In aliquibus (on tithes), say that tithes are owed by divine right. But without any doubt it is a manifest error, as not only all the theologians but even, of the canonists, Sylvester (under the word “tithe,” question 4) and Navarrus (chapter 21, number 28) teach; and many of the canonists sin not once but twice: once, because they defend a falsehood; again, because they condemn of heresy almost all the theologians who hold the contrary, when on the contrary their own opinion can most easily be convicted of error.
It is proved, then, that the precept of paying tithes, as to the determination of such a quantity, is not now of divine right. Such a precept is nowhere found imposed on Christians, neither in the new nor in the old law; and that it is not in the new is plain; that it is not in the old is proved. For the precept of the old law, as to that determination, was not moral, nor properly ceremonial, but judicial, as Alexander teaches (part 3, question 51, at 3) and Blessed Thomas (in the Second Part of the Second Part, question 87, article 1), whom all the theologians follow. That it is not moral is plain, because moral precepts always bound, but the law of tithes was not before the times of Moses; nor does reason dictate that ten parts be given to the priest, but that so much be given as suffices for his sustenance. Whence (Genesis 28) Jacob vowed that he would give God tithes of all he possessed, if God directed him in the way; but it would have been impious to vow tithes with such a condition, if he had been absolutely obligated to pay them. Besides, if that determination of tithes had been moral, certainly the precept which is added in the same place would also be moral — that those who have tithes should have no other patrimony — and so by divine right clerics would be bound to give up their patrimony.
And that it is not properly ceremonial, but judicial, is proved. For it is not ordered immediately to the worship of God, but to establishing equity among men. For God therefore ordered a tenth part of all goods to be given to the Levites, not an eighth or a twentieth, that there might be a proportion between the wealth of the Levites and of the others. For the family of Levi was one of the twelve tribes of Israel, or rather of thirteen; for although the sons of Israel were twelve, yet Joseph made two tribes, that is, Ephraim and Manasseh; and according to equity they ought to have had a thirteenth part of the goods, yet because they were nobler than the rest, and because God foresaw that transgressors would not be lacking who would not pay fully, therefore He attributed to them a tenth part, that is, more than to the rest, that so equality might be reached notwithstanding the transgressors.
Nor does it stand in the way that Pope Innocent (chapter Tua nos, on tithes) says that God requires tithes for the profession of supreme dominion — from which it seems to follow that it is a ceremonial precept; for tithes are not given immediately and of themselves to this end, that those who give them profess that they acknowledge the supreme dominion of God, as those do who offer sacrifice, but only mediately and through another, because they are given to God through His ministers; for they are given to priests as the ministers of God. And it is established by Catholic faith that the old law was abrogated after the coming of Christ, inasmuch as it was positive, as the Apostle openly teaches (Galatians 3, Ephesians 2, Hebrews 7, and elsewhere), and the same confirms the unique decretal On Purification after Childbirth, which the canonists cannot be ignorant of. Not, then, does that law of paying a tenth part of goods, since it is judicial, pertain to Christians by the force of the Old Testament.
To their argument we answer that when the sacred canons say tithes are owed by divine right, they can be understood in three ways. In one way, so that the sense is, they are owed by divine right as to substance, not as to quantity — or by divine right with the Church’s determination added, as we say that feasts are to be sanctified by divine right even now; and in this way understand the Second Council of Macon (chapter 5), where it says that the divine law of paying tithes is to be kept. In another way, so that the sense is, God imposed tithes on Christians not by word but by example. For while He imposed them on the Jews, He at the same time showed what it would be fitting for Christians too to do; in which way indeed the Fathers say that Lent was indicted by the Lord, because He taught us by example to fast Lent. See Ambrose (sermon 36). In a third way, so that the sense is, they are owed by divine right — that is, according to the determination of quantity which is had in divine right, though not by the force of divine right, but by the force of ecclesiastical right; and in this way ought the words of the chapter In aliquibus (on tithes) to be understood, which are these: “For those tithes are necessarily to be paid which are owed by divine law, or by the approved custom of the place.” For the sense is: those tithes are necessarily to be paid which are owed either according to the quantity determined by divine law, which the Church renewed (as happens where full tithes are paid), or according to the quantity determined by the custom of the place (as happens where less than a tenth is paid, and yet is called a tithe). And note that from this text, on which the canonists most rely, is taken an excellent argument against them; for if tithes as to quantity were owed by divine right, everywhere full ones would have to be paid, nor would that text say that in some places they must be paid according to custom. And so much of the errors. It follows that we explain certain doubts.
First doubt: Whether the precept of paying tithes can be abrogated by a contrary custom. I answer: it is certain that the precept of paying tithes, in the part in which it is divine and natural, cannot be abolished by any human law or contrary custom. And accordingly it is certain that the Church has the right of demanding tithes even where the custom is that they are not paid; for in this all theologians and canonists agree. But it is doubtful whether the precept of tithes, inasmuch as it is positive and human, can be changed by custom. Soto (Book IX, question 4, article 1, On Justice) says it cannot, and thinks this is the mind of Blessed Thomas. I hold the contrary true, with Sylvester (under the word “tithe,” question 4) and Navarrus (chapter 21, number 28). Nor do I doubt that this is the mind of Blessed Thomas; for Blessed Thomas (in the Second Part of the Second Part, question 87, article 1) teaches that the precept of tithes, inasmuch as it is human, can be changed by the Church, so that the people be bound to pay not a tenth, but a twelfth or an eighth. But a custom lawfully prescribed has no less force than any human law, as, with the rest, Soto himself teaches (Book I, question 7, article 2, On Justice). Besides, Blessed Thomas (Quodlibet 2, article 8), after he had taught that the law of paying tithes is never abrogated by custom, adds the reason, because that law is divine and natural. Therefore Blessed Thomas does not deny that the law of tithes, inasmuch as it is ecclesiastical, can be changed by custom, but only inasmuch as it is natural and divine. To these is added the chapter In aliquibus (on tithes), where it is said that tithes are to be paid according to the determination either of divine law or of approved custom. Here, however, it must be observed that as custom takes away law, so law takes away custom, if for just causes it be made by him who has authority. And so where now there is a custom of paying only a thirtieth or a fiftieth in place of a tenth, they are not bound to pay anything more; yet if now the Pontiff or a Council, for just causes, again made a law that full tithes be paid everywhere, notwithstanding the custom, without doubt all would be bound to pay — just as, by the judgment of all, those are bound to pay who dwell in places where there is no custom of paying less than a tenth.
Second doubt: Whether poor laymen are bound to give tithes to rich clerics. The reason of the doubt is that as a layman is bound to feed a priest because he is a priest, so a priest is bound to feed a layman because he is poor. Blessed Thomas answers (Quodlibet 6, article 10) that without doubt a poor layman ought to give tithes to a rich cleric, because the obligation of tithes pertains to commutative justice, in which the condition of the person is not considered, but the equality of thing to thing; for he who, for example, buys ought to pay as much as the thing is worth, whether he himself be rich or poor. Nor does the argument to the contrary avail, because a cleric is not bound to feed this poor man rather than another.
Third doubt: Whether those who pay no tithes, where there is no custom of paying, can be excused from sin. I answer that those who pay no tithes can sin in three ways, as Sylvester (in the place above) and others teach. First, if the Church notably suffers for the lack of tithes; for then, whether it demand tithes or not, the people is altogether bound to provide for it. Secondly, if the Church by right demands tithes, whether it be notably in need or not, the people is bound to pay, even if it has been accustomed not to pay. Thirdly, if the people were of such a mind as not to pay, even if they understood tithes to be most justly demanded of them. Outside these cases they are without any doubt excused, because, as Blessed Thomas says, the Church, while it does not demand tithes, is deemed to condone them; and he does not sin who does not pay a debt condoned to him. Otherwise the Apostle would have made the Corinthians sin, since he would not receive the pay owed him by them, lest he put a hindrance to the Gospel (1 Corinthians 9). Saint Augustine too would have fostered his people in sin, whom he did not compel to pay tithes, though he exhorted them, as is plain from the tract on Psalm 146 and from homily 48 of the Fifty Homilies.
Fourth doubt: By what reasoning it can be shown that the Church’s determination is just, that Christians give a tenth part of their fruits to the Church. We do not dispute whether this is just because the Church established it; for that would be of the most insolent madness, as Blessed Augustine wrote (in letter 118); but by what reasoning it can be shown to be just. For in the old law it was just because the Levites were a twelfth or thirteenth part of the whole Hebrew people. But the clergy in the new law do not seem to be a hundredth part of the Christians; by what equity, then, ought they to have a tenth part of all the goods that are in the Christian world? Cajetan (on the Second Part of the Second Part, question 87) answers that he can give no other reason than that it is just for the clergy to have a tenth part because they ought to feed the poor, who are without number. But although this reason is excellent, since we see the canons everywhere command that clerics feed the poor from tithes, yet this is not the only reason why tithes are just.
For, first, it is not true that the Levites were a thirteenth part of the Jewish people, and that our clergy are not a hundredth part of the Christian people. For the Hebrews numbered without the Levites (Numbers 1) were 603,550, and children under twenty years were not numbered, nor the aged; for with these there were without doubt more than twice as many, that is, about 1,300,000. But all the Levites, from infant to aged, are numbered (Numbers 3) only 22,000. Now then, adding the Levites to the other Hebrews, and dividing the whole number by 22,000, the divided parts come to sixty; therefore the Levites were not a thirteenth part, but scarcely a sixtieth of the whole people. But the clergy of the Christians are perhaps greater than a sixtieth part of the Christian people. For there is almost no ample family from which there is not some ecclesiastic, and there is no village where there is not one church or more, and some priests.
Then, the Christian clergy are subject to greater labors and expenses than the tribe of Levi was among the Jews — to omit the dignity of our priesthood, incomparably greater than that of the Aaronic priesthood. Then there was one temple, one pontiff, and a few priests of the sole family of Aaron, who by turns ministered in the temple, all the rest being a crowd of servants. But now there are innumerable churches to be maintained at the Church’s expense, there are also very many bishops and prelates, and innumerable priests, who ought to be learned, and accordingly to spend much on studies from their own patrimony, and afterward to be present at the ministries of the Church not by turns but perpetually — whom it certainly behooves to live honorably, according to the condition of their state, from the goods of the Church. To these is added that many are free from paying tithes, many out of malice do not pay, or certainly not fully and faithfully. Often too kings and princes not only do not pay, but even obtain from the Church a part of the tithes in subsidy of war and other public expenses. Finally, since the Christian people ought to be more perfect than the Jewish (as is said, Matthew 5), if the latter gave a tenth of their goods to God, why will the Christian not do at least as much? And so it is true what Blessed Thomas says (in the place noted), that this determination of the Church, in respect of the people, is more humane and more benign than the rigor of absolute justice would allow.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXV. 0 De decimis. Septima qusestio erat de tempoialibus bo¬ nis Clericorum ; Sunt autem tria bonorum genera, de quibus ambigi potest, an Clericis conveniant. Primo loco sunt decimae, quae debentur Clericis ex justitia. Secundo, sunt, agri, domus, ac possessiones cseteree, quas dono Laicorum, maxime Principum, Eccle¬ sia possidet. Tertio, sunt bona, quae haben¬ tur titulo plane saeculari, ut haereditate pa¬ terna, emptione, venditione etc. de singulis ordine dicemus. Ac primum, de decimis qua- tuor invenio errores. Primus error fuit Joan. Wiclefi, qui, ut refert Wald. lib. II doctrinalis fidei art. 3, cap. 64 et 65. docebat decimas esse puras eleemosynas, et nullo jure deberi Sacerdoti¬ bus. Eumdem errorem sequuntur hodie Ana- baptistae, Trinitarii : Nam in libello, quem ediderunt anno 1568, Albae Juliae de Antithe- sibus veri et falsi Christi, tertiam Antithesin faciunt hanc : « Falsus Christus, sicut ipse est Deus aeternus, et ditissimus, sic dedit suis Sacerdotibus decimas, et multa bona temporalia. Christus autem verus, qui homo temporalis, et pauper fuit, pauperes etiam vult Ministros. » Error est manifestus, facile enim doceri potest, esse de jure naturas et divino, quod aliquid solvant Laici Sacerdotibus, et prae¬ terea de jure Ecclesiastico, ut id quod solti- tur sit pars decima. Quod sit de jure natu¬ rae, probatur : Nam certe ratio dictat, ut iis, qui pro populo laborant, populus alimenta praebeat : Unde enim deducimus deberi Re¬ gibus tributa, et militibus stipendia, et ju¬ dicibus, aliisque ministris publicis salaria, inde etiam deducere possumus, deberi sa¬ cerdotibus decimas, vel aliquid earum loco. Itaque tempore legis naturae videmus Abra- ham dedisse decimas Melchisedecho sacer¬ doti, qui tunc erat Genes. XIV. In quem lo¬ cum scribens Chrysostomus hom. 35. in Genes, dicit Abrahamum hoc facto Docto- rem nostrum fuisse, ac monuisse quid nos facere debeamus. Quod autem de jure divino sit, probatur ex utroque Testamento, ac primum Levit, ult. Num. XVIII. Malach. III et alibi, Deus jussit decimas Levitis dari, quae quidem praecepta licet non obligent Christianos, ut 'judicialia erant, obligant tamen quatenus moralia, id est, quod pars aliqua fructuum sit Sacerdotibus danda; Id enim aperte do¬ cet Clemens lib. II constitu^. Apostol. cap. 29, 38, et 39, et lib. VIII. cap. 36. ubi dicit, etsi Christiani sint liberi a caeremoniis legis veteris, non tamen a decimis, et oblationi¬ bus, imo nunc magis teneri ad haec omnia Christianos , cum debeat eorum justitia abundare plusquam Scribarum etPhariseeo- rum. Item B. Hieronymus in cap. Malach. III. sic ait : a Quod inquit, de decimis, primi¬ tiisque diximus, quae olim dabantur a po¬ pulo Sacerdotibus, atque Levitis, in Eccle¬ siae quoque populis intelligite, quibus prae¬ ceptum est non solum decimas, et primitias dare, sed et vendere omnia quae habent, et dare pauperibus. Quod si facere nolumus, saltem Judaeorum imitemur exordia, ut pau¬ peribus partem demus ex toto, et Sacerdoti¬ bus ac Levitis honorem debitum deferamus : quod qui non fecerit, Deum fraudare, et supplantare convincitur. » Ubi tamen nota, quod etsi B. Hieronymus dicat esse praecep¬ tum, vendere omnia, et dare pauperibus tamen intelligit esse praeceptum non abso¬ lute, sicut de solvendis decimis, sed si quis perfectus esse velit ; nam de isto subdit : « Quod si facere nolumus etc. » De decimis autem dicit : « Quod qui non fecerit, Deum fraudare, et supplantare convincitur. » Item B. Augustinus serm. 219. de tem¬ pore eumdem locum Malachiae tractans : <c Deus, inquit, qui dignatus est totum dare, decimam a nobis dignatur repetere, non sibi, sed nobis sine dubio profuturam ; sic enim per Prophetam ipse promisit, dicens : In¬ ferte omnem decimam in horreis meis, ut sit cibus in domo mea, et probate me in his, dicit Dominus. » Forte non est B. Augus¬ tini iste sermo, tamen insignis est sine du¬ bio, et antiqui alicujus Patris; nam inde tanquam ex Augustin. multa sunt adseripta in decreto 16, q. 1. Item B. Gregorius hom. 16- in Evangelia : « Sicut, inquit, offerre in lege jubemini, fra¬ tres carissimi, decimas rerum, ita ei offerre contendite, et decimas dierum. » Deinde in Testamento novo habemus Matth. XXII ; Red¬ dite quee sunt Ccesaris, Ccesari, et quee sunt CAPUT XXV. Dei , Deo (1). In quem locum Hieronymus et Augustinus lib. L. homil. hom. 48. dicunt prsecipere Dominum , ut reddantur Caesari tributa, et Deo decimae. Praeterea Mattii. X : Dignus est operarius mercede sua. I. Gorinth. I X : Nescitis , quoniam qui in sacrario operan¬ tur , quae de sacrario sunt edunt , et qui altari deserviunt , cum altari participant : Ita et Do¬ minus ordinavit iis , qui Evangelium annun¬ tiant , de Evangelio vivere. Et ibidem : Quis militat suis stipendis unquam ; Et si nos vobis spiritualia seminavimus , magnum est , si nos carnalia vestra metamus ? (2) De quo loco tractans Augustinus tract. in Ps. CXLVI. et inde exponens illa verba Psalmi : Qui parat terree pluviam , producens in montibus fcenum (3), dicit populos, quitan- quam terra accipiunt pluviam doctrinae a Sacerdotibus, debere illis producere fcenum temporalium bonorum : « Accipe, inquit, pluviam, et da fcenum ; etenim ista omnia, quae Ecclesiae ad necessitates servientium Deo dantur a divitibus, quid sunt nisi foe- num ? » Et infra : « Debetur pluviae fructus, debetur servo cibus sicut Dominus ait : Manducate quae ab ipsis sunt ; et ne puta¬ rent aliquid de suo donare ; dignus est, in¬ quit, operarius mercede sua. » Et infra : « Exime aliquam partem reddituum tuo¬ rum ; decimas vis, decimas exime, quan- quam parum sit ; dictum est enim , quia Pharisaei decimas dabant, et quid ait Do¬ minus ? Nisi abundaverit justitia vestra plus- quam Scribarum, et Pharisaeorum, non in¬ trabitis in regnum coelorum . » Nota, tempore B. Augustini multos in Africa non consuevisse decimas solvere, si¬ cut modo in quibusdam aliis partibus, et ideo eos B. Augustinum ad decimas cohortari, sicut etiam facit hom. 48. ex lib. L. homi- liarum : « Majores nostri, inquit, ideo co¬ piis omnibus abundabant, quia Deo decimas dabant, et Caesari censum reddebant. Modo autem quia discessit devotio Dei, accessit indictio fisci : Noluimus partiri cum Deo de¬ cimas, modo autem totum tollitur. » Superest, ut jura Ecclesiastica profera¬ mus. Ac primum multa sunt antiqua Con¬ cilia, in quibus id aperte praecipitur, ut Au- relianense I. cap. 17. ante annos mille. Item Matisconense II, cap. 5. eodem saeculo cele¬ bratum, dicit leges divinas de solvendis de¬ 471) cimis longis temporibus in Ecclesia custo¬ ditas, etiam deinceps esse custodiendas. Fo- rojuliense cap. ult. idem habet. Moguntinum tempore Caroli Magni cap. 38. Moguntinum sub Rabano, cap. 10. Moguntinum tempore Imperatoris Arnulphi, cap. 17. excommuni¬ cari jubet eos, qui decimas dare neglexerint. Remense, cap. 38. tempore Caroli Magni, Valentinum tempore Lotharii, cap. 10. Are- latense IV, cap. 9. Cabilonense II, cap. 19. Metense cap. 2. Tiburiense , c. 13. quae omnia ante annos 700. vel 800. vel mille acta sunt. Praeterea sunt Concilia generalia, Latera¬ nense sub Innocentio III, cap. 53, 54, 55, et 56. statuit, ut decimae ante tributa, et cen¬ sus persolvantur, et alia quaedam in Conci¬ lio Viennensi, ut habetur in Clement. Cu¬ pientes, de poenis, excommunicantur ipso facto religiosi, qui in concione aliquid di¬ cunt, unde retrahunt populum a solvendis decimis. Concilium Constantiense, sess. 8. damnavit articulum Wiclefi, quod decimae sint purae eleemosynae. Ac demum Conci¬ lium Tridentinum sess. XXV, cap. 12. do¬ cet solutionem decimarum debitam esse Deo; et jubet ut excommunicentur, qui eas subtrahunt, aut ne ab aliis dentur impe¬ diunt, nec debere absolvi, donec integre restituant. His accedant plurima decreta Pontificum summorum, quae habentur 16. qu. 1. et 7. et extra de decimis, necnon in Sexto et Clementinis, et extravagantibus eo¬ dem titulo. Alter error est ejusdem Wiclefi, quod sci¬ licet decimae non modo sint purae eleemosy¬ nae, sed etiam nullo modo dandae sint malis Sacerdotibus. Existimavit enim Wiclefus, eum qui eleemosynam facit peccatori , in peccato ejus communicare. De quo errore plura dicemus in tractatu de eleemosyna : nunc breviter refellitur error praesens. Pri¬ mo, ex illa Matth. XXII : Reddite quee sunt Cessaris, Cessari , et quee sunt Dei, Deo (4). Ubi ita S. Ilieron. scribit : « Quod ait, inquit, reddite quae sunt Caesaris, Caesari, nummum, tributum, et pecuniam ; et quae sunt Dei, Deo, decimas, primitias, et oblationes, ac victimas sentiamius. » At certum est tem¬ pore Domini non solum Caesarem impium, et infidelem, sed etiam Sacerdotes impro¬ bissimos, ac depravatissimos fuisse. Secundo fl) Matth. XXII, 21. — (2) Matth. X, 10; I. Corinth. IX, 13, 7 et 11. - (3) Psal. CXLVI, 8.. — (4) Matth. XXII, 21. I 480 LIBER I. ex Innocsntio III. in epist. ad Episcopum Vercellensem, et habetur cap. Tua nos, de decimis : « Praetextu, inquit, nequitiae Cleri¬ corum nequeunt decimas, nisi quibus ex mandato divino debentur, pro suo arbitrio erogare, cum nulli sit licitum aliena cuique concedere praeter Domini voluntatem. » De¬ nique tertio, quia decimae non dantur Cleri¬ cis, quia boni sunt, sed quia Clerici sunt, si¬ cut tributa dantur Regibus, non quia probi, sed quia Reges. Tertius error est quorumdam, qui dicun¬ tur Fraticelli, sive Pseudoapostoli, qui inter alios errores, quos refert Joannes Turrecre- mata lib. IV, par. 2, cap. 37. Summae, do¬ cebant non posse percipere decimas eos, qui non vivunt in paupertate more Apostolorum; error est sine ullo fundamento; Nam ratio, cur debeantur Clericis decimae, est, quia la¬ borant in populi utilitatem : Haec autem ra¬ tio non minus in divite quam in paupere in¬ veniri potest ; Accedit quod Dominus Matth. XXII. jussit dari decimas Sacerdotibus Ju¬ daeorum, qui in paupertate non vivebant. Quartus error est multorum Canonista- rum, qui contendunt decimas, etiam quoad determinationem quantitatis, esse de jure divino ; nec posse ulla humana lege aut con¬ suetudine aliam statui quantitatem. Ita Glos, in cap. I. de decimis, in Sexto, Innocentius in Rubric. de decimis, Panormitanus in cap. In aliquibus, de decimis, et Ostiensis in sua summa tit. de decimis, § 7. quos alii fere omnes sequuntur. Argumentum eorum est, quia plurimi Canones, ac prsesertim cap. In aliquibus, de decimis, dicunt decimas deberi jure divino. At sine ullo dubio error est ma¬ nifestus, ut non solum Theologi omnes, sed etiam ex Canonistis docent Sylvest. verbo decima, qu. 4. et Navarrus cap. 21, nu. 28. nec semel tantum, sed bis peccant multi Ca- nonistarum : Semel, quia falsum defendunt: Iterum, quia damnant fere heereseos omnes Theologos, qui contrarium sentiunt ; cum e contrario ipsorum sententia facillime con¬ vinci possit erroris. Probatur igitur praeceptum de solvendis decimis, quantum ad determinationem talis quantitatis non esse nunc de jure divino. Tale praeceptum nusquam invenitur Chris¬ tianis impositum, nec in nova, nec in veteri lege; et quod non in nova, patet; quod non in veteri, probatur ; nam praeceptum legis veteris, quoad illam determinationem, non erat morale, nec proprie cseremoniale, sed judiciale, ut Alexander docet 3. par. quaest. LI, in 3. et B. Thomas in 2, 2. quaest. LXXXVII. artic. 1. quos omnes Theologi se¬ quuntur. Quod non sit morale, patet, quia moralia semper obligaverunt, lex autem de decimis non fuit ante tempora Mosis ; Nec ratio dic¬ tat, ut sacerdoti dentur decem partes, sed ut detur quantum satis est ad ejus sustenta¬ tionem. Unde Genes. XXVIII. Jacob vovit se daturum decimas Deo omnium, quae posside¬ ret, si Deus eum dirigeret in via etc. At im¬ pium fuisset vovere decimas cum tali con¬ ditione, si absolute fuisset obligatus eas sol¬ vere. Praeterea si moralis fuisset ista deter¬ minatio decimarum, certe etiam morale es¬ set praeceptum, quod ibidem additur, ut qui decimas habent, nullum aliud patrimonium habeant, atque ita jure divino tenerentur Clerici dimittere patrimonium. Quod autem non sit proprie caeremoniale, sed judiciale, probatur. Nam non ordinatur immediate ad colendum Deum, sed ad aequi¬ tatem inter homines constituendam. Ideo enim jussit Deus dari decimam partem om¬ nium bonorum Levitis, non octavam aut vi¬ cesimam, ut esset proportio inter opes Levi- tarum, et aliorum. Erat enim familia Levi una ex duodecim tribubus Israel, vel potius ex tredecim ; nam etiamsi duodecim fuerint filii Israel, tamen Joseph duas tribus fecit, id est, Ephraim, et Manasse, et secundum aequitatem, tertiam decimam partem bono¬ rum habere debuissent, tamen quia erant cseteris nobiliores, et quia Deus praevidebat, non defuturos transgressores, qui non inte¬ gre solverent, idcirco attribuit eis partem decimam, id est, amplius quam caeteris, ut sic ad aequalitatem veniretur, non obstanti¬ bus transgressoribus. Neque obstat quod Innocentius Papa c. Tua nos, de decimis, dicit decimas Deum requirere ad professionem supremi dominii. Ex quo videtur sequi, quod sit praeceptum caeremoniale; nam non dantur decimae im¬ mediate, et per se ad hunc finem, ut profi¬ teantur, qui eas dant, se agnoscere supre¬ mum dominium Dei, sicut faciunt qui sacri¬ ficium offerunt, sed solum mediate, et per aliud, quia nimirum dantur Deo per suos ministros; dantur enim Sacerdotibus ut mi¬ nistris Dei. Constat autem ex fide Catholica legem veterem post Christi adventum esse abrogatam, quatenus positiva erat ut Apos¬ tolus Gal. III, Ephes. II, Hcbr. VII, et alibi CAPUT XXV. 481 diserte docet, et idem confirmat decretalis unica, de purificatione post partum^ quam Canonistae ignorare non possunt. Non igitur lex illa de solvenda decima parte bonorum, cum sit judicialis ad Christianos pertinet, ex vi Testamenti veteris. Ad argumentum ipsorum respondemus, quod cum sacri Canones dicunt, jure divino deberi decimas, tribus modis intelligi pos¬ sunt. Uno modo, ut sensus sit, deberi jure divino quoad substantiam, non quoad quan¬ titatem, sive jure divino addita Ecclesiae de¬ terminatione, sicut dicimus festa jure divino sanctificanda esse etiam nunc : et hoc modo intellige Concilium Matisconense II, cap. 5. ubi dicit, legem divinam de solvendis deci¬ mis esse servandam. Altero modo, ut sit sensus, Deum impo¬ suisse decimas Christianis non verbo, sed exemplo. Nam dum eas Judaeis imposuit, simul ostendit, quid etiam Christianos facere par esset; Quomodo quidem Patres, dicunt, quadragesimam indictam esse a Domino, quia nimirum exemplo nos docuit jejunare quadragesimam. Vide Ambrosium serm. 36. Tertio modo, ut sit sensus, deberi jure di¬ vino, id est, juxta determinationem quanti¬ tatis, quae habetur in jure divino, quamquam non ex vi juris divini, sed ex vi juris Eccle¬ siastici ; et hoc modo intelligi debent verba capitis, in aliquibus, de decimis, quae talia sunt : « Illae quippe decimae necessario sol¬ vendae sunt, quae debentur ex lege divina, vel loci consuetudine approbata. » Est enim sensus. Illae decimae necessario solvendae sunt, quae debentur, vel juxta quantitatem lege divina determinatam, quam Ecclesia innovavit , ut fit, ubi solvuntur integrae de¬ cimae ; vel juxta quantitatem consuetudine loci determinatam, ut fit, ubi solvitur minus quam decima, et tamen vocatur decima. Et nota ex hoc textu, quo Canonistae maxime nituntur, sumi argumentum optimum contra ipsos ; Si enim decimae quoad quantitatem deberentur jure divino, ubique integrae sol¬ vendae essent, nec diceret textus iste, alicubi debere solvi juxta consuetudinem. Atque haec de erroribus. Sequitur ut dubia quae¬ dam explicemus. DUBIUM PRIMUM. An praeceptum de solvendis decimis possit con¬ traria consuetudine abrogari. Respondeo, certum est, praeceptum de solvendis decimis, qua parte divinum et na¬ turale est, non posse ulla lege humana vel consuetudine contraria aboleri. Ac proinde certum est, Ecclesiam habere jus petendi decimas, etiam ubi consuetudo est ut non solvantur ; In hoc enim omnes Theologi et Canonistae conveniunt. Dubium autem est, an praeceptum de decimis, quatenus positi¬ vum, et humanum est, possit mutari con¬ suetudine. Sotuslib. IX. quaest. 4. art. 1. de justitia, dicit non posse, et hanc putat men¬ tem esse B. Thomae. Contrarium puto verum cum Sylvestro, verbo Decima, quaest. 4. et Navarro cap. 21, num. 28. Nec dubito hanc esse mentem B. Thomae ; Nam B. Thomas in 2. 2, quaest. LXXXVII, artic. 1. docet, praeceptum de decimis, quatenus humanum est, posse ab Ecclesia mutari, ita ut teneatur populus non decimam, sed duodecimam , vel octavam solvere. At non minorem vim habet con¬ suetudo legitime praescripta, quam lex quae¬ libet humana, ut, cum caeleris, docet ipse etiam Sotuslib. I. quaest. 7, artic. 2. de jus¬ titia. Praeterea B. Thomas quodlibet 2. art. 8. posteaquam docuit consuetudine num- quam abrogari legem de solvendis decimis, subjungit rationem, quia lex ista divina et naturalis est. Ergo B. Thomas non negat le¬ gem de decimis, quatenus Ecclesiastica est, posse mutari consuetudine, sed solum qua¬ tenus naturalis et divina est. His accedit cap. In aliquibus, de decimis, ubi dicitur solvendas esse decimas secun¬ dum determinationem aut legis divinae, aut consuetudinis approbatae. Hic tamen obser¬ vandum est, qtiod sicut consuetudo tollft le¬ gem, ita lex tollit consuetudinem, si justis causis feratur ab eo, qui habet auctoritatem. Itaque ubi nunc est consuetudo solvendi so¬ lum tricesimam aut quinquagesimam, loco decimae , non tenentur solvere quidquam amplius ; Tamen si nunc Pontifex, aut Con¬ cilium justis de causis iterum legem ferat, ut integrae decimae solvantur ubique, non ob¬ stante consuetudine, sine dubio tenerentur 31 Tom. II. 482 LIBER 1. omnes solvere ; sicut omnium judicio tenen¬ tur solvere, qui in eis locis agunt, ubi non est consuetudo solvendi minus, quam deci¬ mam. DUBIUM II. An Laici pauperes teneantur decimas dare Clericis divitibus. Ratio dubitationis est, quia sicut laicus te¬ netur alere Sacerdotem, quia Sacerdos est, ita Sacerdos tenetur alere laicum, quia pau¬ per est. Respondet B. Thomas quodlib. VI, art. 10. sine dubio debere pauperem laicum dare decimas Clerico diviti, quia obligatio deci¬ marum ad justitiam commutativam pertinet, in qua non consideratur conditio personae, sed aequalitas rei ad rem ; qui enim v. gr. emit, debet solvere quantum res valet, sive ipse sit dives, sive pauper. Neque argumen¬ tum in contrarium valet, quia non tenetur Clericus hunc pauperem potius alere, quam alium. DUBIUM III. An excusari possint a peccato , qui nullas deci¬ mas solvunt, ubi non est consuetudo solvendi. Respondeo, tribus modis peccare posse, qui nullas decimas solvunt, ut Sylvester, ubi supra, et alii docent. Primo, si Ecclesia pro¬ pter defectum decimarum notabiliter patia¬ tur, tunc enim sive ipsa decimas petat, sive non, tenetur populus omnino ei providere. Secundo, si Ecclesia jure petat decimas, sive egeat notabiliter, sive non, tenetur populus solvere, etiamsi consueverit non solvere. Ter¬ tio, si populus eo animo esset, ut non solve¬ ret, etiamsi justissime eas a se peti intelli- gerex. Extra hos casus sine ullo dubio excusan¬ tur, quia, ut B. Thomas dicit, Ecclesia dum non petit decimas , censetur eas con¬ donare ; non autem peccat, qui non solvit debitum sibi condonatum. Alioqui Aposto¬ lus peccare fecisset Corinthios, qui stipendia sibi debita ab eis accipere nolebat, ne impe¬ dimentum poneret Evangelio I. Cor. IX. S. etiam Augustinus in peccato fovisset popu¬ lum suum, quem ad solvendas decimas non cogebat, etiamsi hortaretur, ut patet ex tract. in Ps. CXLVI. et ex hom. 48. ex 50. homiliis. DUBIUM IV. Qua ratione ostendi possit , justam esse deter¬ minationem Ecclesia ?, quod Christiani deci¬ mam partem suorum fructuum Ecclesiae tri¬ buant. Non disputamus, an hoc sit justum, quia Ecclesia statuit; id enim insolentissimse in¬ saniae esset, ut B. Augustinus scripsit in epist. 118. sed qua ratione id esse justum ostendi possit. Nam in veteri lege ideo jus¬ tum erat, quia Levitae erant pars duodecima, vel tertiadecima totius populi Hebraeorum. At Clerus in nova lege non videtur centesi¬ ma pars Christianorum ; qua igitur aequitate decimam partem habere debet omnium bo¬ norum, quae sunt in orbe Christiano? Caje- tanus in 2. 2, qu. LXXXVII. respondet, se non posse aliam rationem reddere, quam ideo justum esse, ut Clerus habeat decimam partem, quia debet pauperes alere, qui sine ullo numero sunt? Sed quamvis haec ratio optima sit, cum videamus canones passim id praecipere, ut Clerici ex decimis alant pau¬ peres, tamen non est haec sola ratio, cur justae sint decimae. Primum enim non est verum Levitas fuisse tertiamdecimam partem populi Judaici, et nostrum Clerum non esse centesimam par¬ tem populi Christiani ; Nam Hebraei nume¬ rati sine Levitis Num. I. erant sexcenta tria millia, quingenti quinquaginta, et non nu¬ merabantur pueri ante annos viginti,- neque senes ; nam cum his sine dubio erant plus quam duplo plures, id est, circiter mille mil¬ lia, et trecenta millia. Levitae autem omnes ab infante usque ad senem numerantur Nu- mer. III. vigintiduo millia tantum. Jam igi¬ tur addendo Levitas caeteris Hebraeis, et di¬ videndo totum numerum per vigintiduo mil¬ lia, efficiuntur partes divisae sexaginta, ergo Levitae non erant pars tertiadecima, sed vix sexagesima totius populi. Porro Clerus Chris¬ tianorum forte major est, quam sexagesima pars Christiani populi. Nulla est enim fere ampla familia, ex qua non sit aliquis Eccle¬ siasticus, et nullus est pagus, ubi non sit CAPUT XXVI. 483 templum unum, aut plura, et aliquot Sacer¬ dotes. Deinde, Christianus Clerus majoribus la¬ boribus et sumptibus obnoxius est, quam tribus Levitica erat apud Judaeos, ut omit¬ tam dignitatem sacerdotii nostri incompara¬ biliter majorem quam sacerdotii Aaronici. Tunc unum erat templum, unus Pontifex, et pauci quidam Sacerdotes ex sola familia Aa- ron, qui per vices in templo ministrabant, reliqui omnes erant turba famulorum. At nunc sunt innumera templa conservanda sumptibus Ecclesiae , sunt etiam plurimi Episcopi, et Praelati, necnon innumeri Sa¬ cerdotes, qui docti esse debent, et proinde multum in studiis ex patrimonio suo insu¬ mere, et postea non per vices, sed perpetuo Ecclesiae ministeriis adesse, quos certe ho¬ neste pro status sui conditione vivere opor¬ tet ex Ecclesiae bonis. His accedit, quod multi sunt liberi a sol¬ vendis decimis, multi ex maditia non sol¬ vunt, aut certe non plene et fideliter. Saepe etiam Reges et Principes non solum non sol¬ vunt, sed etiam impetrant ab Ecclesia deci¬ marum partem in subsidium belli, aliorum¬ que publicorum sumptuum. Denique, cum populus Christianus debeat esse perfectior, quam Judaicus, ut dicitur Matth. V. si ille decimam suorum bonorum dabat Deo, cur non tantumdem saltem faciet Christianus ? Itaque verum est quod loco no¬ tato dicit B.Thomas, hanc determinationem Ecclesiae respectu populi esse humaniorem ac benigniorem, quam rigor justitiae absolu¬ tae pateretur.