Secunda Secundae · Justice

Of Oblations and First-fruits

II-II, q. 86 · Four articles

Prooemium · Thomas's plan for this question

Deinde considerandum est de oblationibus et primitiis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum aliquae oblationes sint de necessitate praecepti. Secundo, quibus oblationes debeantur. Tertio, de quibus rebus fieri debeant. Quarto, specialiter de oblationibus primitiarum, utrum ad eas homines ex necessitate teneantur.

We must next consider oblations and first-fruits. Under this head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether any oblations are necessary as a matter of precept?

(2) To whom are oblations due?

(3) of what things they should be made?

(4) In particular, as to first-fruits, whether men are bound to offer them?

  1. 1 Whether Men Are Under a Necessity of Precept to Make Oblations?
  2. 2 Whether Oblations Are Due to Priests Alone?
  3. 3 Whether a Man May Make Oblations of Whatever He Lawfully Possesses?
  4. 4 Whether Men Are Bound to Pay First-fruits?

Articulus I

Whether Men Are Under a Necessity of Precept to Make Oblations?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homines non teneantur ad oblationes ex necessitate praecepti. Non enim homines tempore Evangelii tenentur ad observanda caeremonialia praecepta veteris legis, ut supra habitum est. Sed oblationes offerre ponitur inter caeremonialia praecepta veteris legis, dicitur enim Exod. XXIII, tribus vicibus per singulos annos mihi festa celebrabitis, et postea subditur, non apparebis in conspectu meo vacuus. Ergo ad oblationes non tenentur nunc homines ex necessitate praecepti.

It would seem that men are not bound by precept to make oblations. Men are not bound, at the time of the Gospel, to observe the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law, as stated above (I-II, Q. 103, AA. 3, 4). Now the offering of oblations is one of the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law, since it is written (Ex. 23:14): "Three times every year you shall celebrate feasts with Me," and further on (Ex. 23:15): "Thou shalt not appear empty before Me." Therefore men are not now under a necessity of precept to make oblations.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, oblationes, antequam fiant, in voluntate hominis consistunt, ut videtur per hoc quod dominus dicit, Matth. V, si offers munus tuum ad altare, quasi hoc arbitrio offerentium relinquatur. Postquam autem oblationes sunt factae, non restat locus iterato eas offerendi. Ergo nullo modo aliquis ex necessitate praecepti ad oblationes tenetur.

Further, before they are made, oblations depend on man's will, as appears from our Lord's saying (Matt. 5:23), "If . . . thou offer thy gift at the altar," as though this were left to the choice of the offerer: and when once oblations have been made, there is no way of offering them again. Therefore in no way is a man under a necessity of precept to make oblations.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, quicumque aliquid tenetur reddere Ecclesiae, si non reddat, potest ad id compelli per subtractionem ecclesiasticorum sacramentorum. Sed illicitum videtur his qui offerre noluerint ecclesiastica sacramenta denegare, secundum illud decretum sextae synodi quod habetur I, qu. I, nullus qui sacram communionem dispensat, a percipiente gratiam aliquid exigat, si vero exegerit, deponatur. Ergo non tenentur homines ex necessitate ad oblationes.

Further, if anyone is bound to give a certain thing to the Church, and fails to give it, he can be compelled to do so by being deprived of the Church's sacraments. But it would seem unlawful to refuse the sacraments of the Church to those who refuse to make oblations according to a decree of the sixth council [Can. Trullan, xxiii, quoted I, qu. i, can. Nullus]: "Let none who dispense Holy Communion exact anything of the recipient, and if they exact anything let them be deposed." Therefore it is not necessary that men should make oblations.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, omnis Christianus procuret ad Missarum solemnia aliquid Deo offerre.

On the contrary, Gregory says [Gregory VII; Concil. Roman. v, can. xii]: "Let every Christian take care that he offer something to God at the celebration of Mass."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, nomen oblationis commune est ad omnes res quae in cultum Dei exhibentur. Ita quod si aliquid exhibeatur in cultum divinum quasi in aliquod sacrum quod inde fieri debeat consumendum, et oblatio est et sacrificium, unde dicitur Exod. XXIX, offeres totum arietem in incensum super altare, oblatio est domino, odor suavissimus victimae Dei; et Levit. II dicitur, anima cum obtulerit oblationem sacrificii domino, simila erit eius oblatio. Si vero sic exhibeatur ut integrum maneat, divino cultui deputandum vel in usus ministrorum expendendum, erit oblatio et non sacrificium. Huiusmodi ergo oblationes de sui ratione habent quod voluntarie offerantur, secundum illud Exod. XXV, ab homine qui offert ultroneus, accipietis eas. Potest tamen contingere quod aliquis ad oblationes teneatur quadruplici ratione. Primo quidem, ex praecedenti conventione, sicut cum alicui conceditur aliquis fundus Ecclesiae, ut certis temporibus certas oblationes faciat. Quod tamen habet rationem census. Secundo, propter praecedentem deputationem sive promissionem, sicut cum aliquis offert donationem inter vivos vel cum relinquit in testamento Ecclesiae aliquam rem, mobilem vel immobilem, in posterum solvendam. Tertio modo, propter Ecclesiae necessitatem, puta si ministri Ecclesiae non haberent unde sustentarentur. Quarto modo, propter consuetudinem, tenentur enim fideles in aliquibus solemnitatibus ad aliquas oblationes consuetas. Tamen in his duobus ultimis casibus remanet oblatio quodammodo voluntaria, scilicet quantum ad quantitatem vel speciem rei oblatae.

I answer that, As stated above (Q. 85, A. 3, ad 3), the term "oblation" is common to all things offered for the Divine worship, so that if a thing be offered to be destroyed in worship of God, as though it were being made into something holy, it is both an oblation and a sacrifice. Wherefore it is written (Ex. 29:18): "Thou shalt offer the whole ram for a burnt-offering upon the altar; it is an oblation to the Lord, a most sweet savor of the victim of the Lord"; and (Lev. 2:1): "When anyone shall offer an oblation of sacrifice to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour." If, on the other hand, it be offered with a view to its remaining entire and being deputed to the worship of God or to the use of His ministers, it will be an oblation and not a sacrifice. Accordingly it is essential to oblations of this kind that they be offered voluntarily, according to Ex. 25:2, of "every man that offereth of his own accord you shall take them." Nevertheless it may happen in four ways that one is bound to make oblations. First, on account of a previous agreement: as when a person is granted a portion of Church land, that he may make certain oblations at fixed times, although this has the character of rent. Secondly, by reason of a previous assignment or promise; as when a man offers a gift among the living, or by will bequeaths to the Church something whether movable or immovable to be delivered at some future time. Thirdly, on account of the need of the Church, for instance if her ministers were without means of support. Fourthly, on account of custom; for the faithful are bound at certain solemn feasts to make certain customary oblations. In the last two cases, however, the oblation remains voluntary, as regards, to wit, the quantity or kind of the thing offered.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in nova lege homines non tenentur ad oblationem causa solemnitatum legalium, ut in Exodo dicitur, sed ex quibusdam aliis causis, ut dictum est.

Under the New Law men are not bound to make oblations on account of legal solemnities, as stated in Exodus, but on account of certain other reasons, as stated above.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod ad oblationes faciendas tenentur aliqui et antequam fiant, sicut in primo et tertio et quarto modo, et etiam postquam eas fecerint per deputationem sive promissionem; tenentur enim realiter exhibere quod est Ecclesiae per modum deputationis oblatum.

Some are bound to make oblations, both before making them, as in the first, third, and fourth cases, and after they have made them by assignment or promise: for they are bound to offer in reality that which has been already offered to the Church by way of assignment.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod illi qui debitas oblationes non reddunt possunt puniri per subtractionem sacramentorum, non per ipsum sacerdotem cui sunt oblationes faciendae, ne videatur pro sacramentorum exhibitione aliquid exigere, sed per superiorem aliquem.

Those who do not make the oblations they are bound to make may be punished by being deprived of the sacraments, not by the priest himself to whom the oblations should be made, lest he seem to exact, something for bestowing the sacraments, but by someone superior to him.

Articulus II

Whether Oblations Are Due to Priests Alone?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod oblationes non solum sacerdotibus debeantur. Inter oblationes enim praecipue videmus esse quae hostiarum sacrificiis deputantur. Sed ea quae pauperibus dantur in Scripturis hostiae dicuntur, secundum illud Heb. ult., beneficentiae et communionis nolite oblivisci, talibus enim hostiis promeretur Deus. Ergo multo magis oblationes pauperibus debentur.

It would seem that oblations are not due to priests alone. For chief among oblations would seem to be those that are deputed to the sacrifices of victims. Now whatever is given to the poor is called a "victim" in Scripture according to Heb. 13:16, "Do not forget to do good and to impart, for by such victims [Douay: 'sacrifices'] God's favor is obtained." Much more therefore are oblations due to the poor.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, in multis parochiis monachi de oblationibus partem habent. Alia autem est causa clericorum, alia monachorum, ut Hieronymus dicit. Ergo non solum sacerdotibus oblationes debentur.

Further, in many parishes monks have a share in the oblations. Now "the case of clerics is distinct from the case of monks," as Jerome states [Ep. xiv, ad Heliod.]. Therefore oblations art not due to priests alone.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, laici de voluntate Ecclesiae emunt oblationes, ut panes et huiusmodi. Sed non nisi ut haec in suos usus convertant. Ergo oblationes possunt etiam ad laicos pertinere.

Further, lay people with the consent of the Church buy oblations such as loaves and so forth, and they do so for no other reason than that they may make use thereof themselves. Therefore oblations may have reference to the laity.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicit canon Damasi Papae, et habetur X, qu. I, oblationes quae intra sanctam Ecclesiam offeruntur, tantummodo sacerdotibus, qui quotidie domino servire videntur, licet comedere et bibere. Quia in veteri testamento prohibuit dominus panes sanctos comedere filiis Israel, nisi tantummodo Aaron et filiis eius.

On the contrary, A canon of Pope Damasus [Damasus I] quoted X, qu. i [Can. Hanc consuetudinem], says: "None but the priests whom day by day we see serving the Lord may eat and drink of the oblations which are offered within the precincts of the Holy Church: because in the Old Testament the Lord forbade the children of Israel to eat the sacred loaves, with the exception of Aaron and his sons" (Lev. 24:8, 9).

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod sacerdos quodammodo constituitur sequester et medius inter populum et Deum, sicut de Moyse legitur Deut. V. Et ideo ad eum pertinet divina dogmata et sacramenta exhibere populo, et iterum ea quae sunt populi, puta preces et sacrificia et oblationes, per eum domino debent exhiberi; secundum illud apostoli, ad Heb. V, omnis pontifex ex hominibus assumptus pro hominibus constituitur in his quae sunt ad Deum, ut offerat dona et sacrificia pro peccatis. Et ideo oblationes quae a populo Deo exhibentur ad sacerdotes pertinent, non solum ut eas in suos usus convertant, verum etiam ut fideliter eas dispensent, partim quidem expendendo eas in his quae pertinent ad cultum divinum; partim vero in his quae pertinent ad proprium victum, quia qui altari deserviunt cum altari participantur, ut dicitur I ad Cor. IX; partim etiam in usus pauperum, qui sunt, quantum fieri potest, de rebus Ecclesiae sustentandi; quia et dominus in usum pauperum loculos habebat, ut Hieronymus dicit, super Matth.

I answer that, The priest is appointed mediator and stands, so to speak, between the people and God, as we read of Moses (Deut. 5:5), wherefore it belongs to him to set forth the Divine teachings and sacraments before the people; and besides to offer to the Lord things appertaining to the people, their prayers, for instance, their sacrifices and oblations. Thus the Apostle says (Heb. 5:1): "Every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins." Hence the oblations which the people offer to God concern the priests, not only as regards their turning them to their own use, but also as regards the faithful dispensation thereof, by spending them partly on things appertaining to the Divine worship, partly on things touching their own livelihood (since they that serve the altar partake with the altar, according to 1 Cor. 9:13), and partly for the good of the poor, who, as far as possible, should be supported from the possessions of the Church: for our Lord had a purse for the use of the poor, as Jerome observes on Matt. 17:26, "That we may not scandalize them."

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ea quae pauperibus dantur, sicut non proprie sunt sacrificia, dicuntur tamen sacrificia inquantum eis dantur propter Deum, ita etiam secundum eandem rationem oblationes dici possunt, tamen non proprie, quia non immediate Deo offeruntur. Oblationes vero proprie dictae in usum pauperum cedunt non per dispensationem offerentium, sed per dispensationem sacerdotum.

Whatever is given to the poor is not a sacrifice properly speaking; yet it is called a sacrifice in so far as it is given to them for God's sake. In like manner, and for the same reason, it can be called an oblation, though not properly speaking, since it is not given immediately to God. Oblations properly so called fall to the use of the poor, not by the dispensation of the offerers, but by the dispensation of the priests.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod monachi sive alii religiosi possunt oblationes recipere tripliciter. Uno modo, sicut pauperes, per dispensationem sacerdotis vel ordinationem Ecclesiae. Alio modo, si sint ministri altaris. Et tunc possunt accipere oblationes sponte oblatas. Tertio, si parochiae sint eorum. Et tunc ex debito possunt accipere, tanquam Ecclesiae rectores.

Monks or other religious may receive oblations under three counts. First, as poor, either by the dispensation of the priests, or by ordination of the Church; secondly, through being ministers of the altar, and then they can accept oblations that are freely offered; thirdly, if the parishes belong to them, and they can accept oblations, having a right to them as rectors of the Church.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod oblationes, postquam fuerint consecratae, non possunt cedere in usum laicorum, sicut vasa et vestimenta sacra. Et hoc modo intelligitur dictum Damasi Papae. Illa vero quae non sunt consecrata, possunt in usum laicorum cedere ex dispensatione sacerdotum, sive per modum donationis sive per modum venditionis.

Oblations when once they are consecrated, such as sacred vessels and vestments, cannot be granted to the use of the laity: and this is the meaning of the words of Pope Damasus. But those which are unconsecrated may be allowed to the use of layfolk by permission of the priests, whether by way of gift or by way of sale.

Articulus III

Whether a Man May Make Oblations of Whatever He Lawfully Possesses?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non possit homo oblationes facere de omnibus rebus licite possessis. Quia secundum iura humana, turpiter facit meretrix in hoc quod est meretrix, non tamen turpiter accipit, et ita licite possidet. Sed non licet de eo facere oblationem, secundum illud Deut. XXIII, non offeres mercedem prostibuli in domo domini Dei tui. Ergo non licet facere oblationem de omnibus licite possessis.

It would seem that a man may not make oblations of whatever he lawfully possesses. According to human law [Dig. xii, v, de Condict. ob. turp. vel iniust. caus. 4] "the whore's is a shameful trade in what she does but not in what she takes," and consequently what she takes she possesses lawfully. Yet it is not lawful for her to make an oblation with her gains, according to Deut. 23:18, "Thou shalt not offer the hire of a strumpet . . . in the house of the Lord thy God." Therefore it is not lawful to make an oblation of whatever one possesses lawfully.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, ibidem prohibetur quod pretium canis non offeratur in domo Dei. Sed manifestum est quod pretium canis iuste venditi iuste possidetur. Ergo non licet de omnibus iuste possessis oblationem facere.

Further, in the same passage it is forbidden to offer "the price of a dog" in the house of God. But it is evident that a man possesses lawfully the price of a dog he has lawfully sold. Therefore it is not lawful to make an oblation of whatever we possess lawfully.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, Malach. I dicitur, si offeratur claudum et languidum, nonne malum est? Sed claudum et languidum est animal iuste possessum. Ergo videtur quod non de omni iuste possesso possit oblatio fieri.

Further, it is written (Malachi 1:8): "If you offer the lame and the sick, is it not evil?" Yet an animal though lame or sick is a lawful possession. Therefore it would seem that not of every lawful possession may one make an oblation.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur Prov. III, honora dominum de tua substantia. Ad substantiam autem hominis pertinet quidquid iuste possidet. Ergo de omnibus iuste possessis potest oblatio fieri.

On the contrary, It is written (Prov. 3:9): "Honor the Lord with thy substance." Now whatever a man possesses lawfully belongs to his substance. Therefore he may make oblations of whatever he possesses lawfully.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Verb. Dom., si depraedareris aliquem invalidum et de spoliis eius dares alicui iudici si pro te iudicaret, tanta vis est iustitiae ut et tibi displiceret. Non est talis Deus tuus qualis non debes esse nec tu. Et ideo dicitur Eccli. XXXIV, immolantis ex iniquo oblatio est maculata. Unde patet quod de iniuste acquisitis et possessis non potest oblatio fieri. In veteri autem lege, in qua figurae serviebatur, quaedam propter significationem reputabantur immunda, quae offerre non licebat. Sed in nova lege omnis creatura Dei reputatur munda, ut dicitur ad Tit. I. Et ideo, quantum est de se, de quolibet licite possesso potest oblatio fieri. Per accidens tamen contingit quod de aliquo licite possesso oblatio fieri non potest, puta si vergat in detrimentum alterius, ut si filius aliquis offerat Deo id unde debet patrem nutrire, quod dominus improbat Matth. XV; vel propter scandalum, vel propter contemptum, vel aliquid aliud huiusmodi.

I answer that, As Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. Serm. cxiii), "shouldst thou plunder one weaker than thyself and give some of the spoil to the judge, if he should pronounce in thy favor, such is the force of justice that even thou wouldst not be pleased with him: and if this should not please thee, neither does it please thy God." Hence it is written (Ecclus. 34:21): "The offering of him that sacrificeth of a thing wrongfully gotten is stained." Therefore it is evident that an oblation must not be made of things unjustly acquired or possessed. In the Old Law, however, wherein the figure was predominant, certain things were reckoned unclean on account of their signification, and it was forbidden to offer them. But in the New Law all God's creatures are looked upon as clean, as stated in Titus 1:15: and consequently anything that is lawfully possessed, considered in itself, may be offered in oblation. But it may happen accidentally that one may not make an oblation of what one possesses lawfully; for instance if it be detrimental to another person, as in the case of a son who offers to God the means of supporting his father (which our Lord condemns, Matt. 15:5), or if it give rise to scandal or contempt, or the like.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in veteri lege prohibebatur oblatio de mercede prostibuli propter immunditiam. In nova autem lege propter scandalum, ne videatur Ecclesia favere peccato, si de lucro peccati oblationem recipiat.

In the Old Law it was forbidden to make an offering of the hire of a strumpet on account of its uncleanness, and in the New Law, on account of scandal, lest the Church seem to favor sin if she accept oblations from the profits of sin.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod canis secundum legem reputabatur animal immundum. Alia tamen animalia immunda redimebantur, et eorum pretium poterat offerri, secundum illud Levit. ult., si immundum animal est, redimet qui obtulerit. Sed canis nec offerebatur nec redimebatur, tum quia idololatrae canibus utebantur in sacrificiis idolorum; tum etiam quia significant rapacitatem, de qua non potest fieri oblatio. Sed haec prohibitio cessat in nova lege.

According to the Law, a dog was deemed an unclean animal. Yet other unclean animals were redeemed and their price could be offered, according to Lev. 27:27, "If it be an unclean animal, he that offereth it shall redeem it." But a dog was neither offered nor redeemed, both because idolaters used dogs in sacrifices to their idols, and because they signify robbery, the proceeds of which cannot be offered in oblation. However, this prohibition ceased under the New Law.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod oblatio animalis caeci vel claudi reddebatur illicita tripliciter. Uno modo, ratione eius ad quod offerebatur. Unde dicitur Malach. I, si offeratis caecum ad immolandum, nonne malum est? Sacrificia autem oportebat esse immaculata. Secundo, ex contemptu. Unde ibidem subditur, vos polluistis nomen meum in eo quod dicitis, mensa domini contaminata est, et quod superponitur contemptibile est. Tertio modo, ex voto praecedenti, ex quo obligatur homo ut integrum reddat quod voverat. Unde ibidem subditur, maledictus dolosus qui habet in grege suo masculum, et votum faciens immolat debile domino. Et eaedem causae manent in lege nova. Quibus tamen cessantibus, non est illicitum.

The oblation of a blind or lame animal was declared unlawful for three reasons. First, on account of the purpose for which it was offered, wherefore it is written (Malach. 1:8): "If you offer the blind in sacrifice, is it not evil?" and it behooved sacrifices to be without blemish. Secondly, on account of contempt, wherefore the same text goes on (Malach. 1:12): "You have profaned" My name, "in that you say: The table of the Lord is defiled and that which is laid thereupon is contemptible." Thirdly, on account of a previous vow, whereby a man has bound himself to offer without blemish whatever he has vowed: hence the same text says further on (Malach. 1:14): "Cursed is the deceitful man that hath in his flock a male, and making a vow offereth in sacrifice that which is feeble to the Lord." The same reasons avail still in the New Law, but when they do not apply the unlawfulness ceases.

Articulus IV

Whether Men Are Bound to Pay First-fruits?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ad primitias solvendas homines non teneantur. Quia Exod. XIII, data lege primogenitorum, subditur, erit quasi signum in manu tua, et ita videtur esse praeceptum caeremoniale. Sed praecepta caeremonialia non sunt servanda in lege nova. Ergo neque primitiae sunt solvendae.

It would seem that men are not bound to pay first-fruits. After giving the law of the first-born the text continues (Ex. 13:9): "It shall be as a sign in thy hand," so that, apparently, it is a ceremonial precept. But ceremonial precepts are not to be observed in the New Law. Neither therefore ought first-fruits to be paid.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, primitiae offerebantur domino pro speciali beneficio illi populo exhibito, unde dicitur Deut. XXVI, tolles de cunctis frugibus tuis primitias, accedesque ad sacerdotem qui fuerit in diebus illis, et dices ad eum, profiteor hodie coram domino Deo tuo quod ingressus sum terram pro qua iuravit patribus nostris ut daret eam nobis. Ergo aliae nationes non tenentur ad primitias solvendas.

Further, first-fruits were offered to the Lord for a special favor conferred on that people, wherefore it is written (Deut. 26:2, 3): "Thou shalt take the first of all thy fruits . . . and thou shalt go to the priest that shall be in those days, and say to him: I profess this day before the Lord thy God, that I am come into the land, for which He swore to our fathers, that He would give it us." Therefore other nations are not bound to pay first-fruits.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, illud ad quod aliquis tenetur debet esse determinatum. Sed non invenitur nec in nova lege nec in veteri determinata quantitas primitiarum. Ergo ad eas solvendas non tenentur homines ex necessitate.

That which one is bound to do should be something definite. But neither in the New Law nor in the Old do we find mention of a definite amount of first-fruits. Therefore one is not bound of necessity to pay them.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur XVI, qu. VII, oportet decimas et primitias, quas iure sacerdotum esse sancimus, ab omni populo accipere.

On the contrary, It is laid down (16, qu. vii, can. Decimas): "We confirm the right of priests to tithes and first-fruits, and everybody must pay them."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod primitiae ad quoddam genus oblationum pertinent, quia Deo exhibentur cum quadam professione, ut habetur Deut. XXVI. Unde et ibidem subditur, suscipiens sacerdos cartallum, scilicet primitiarum, de manu eius qui defert primitias, et ponet ante altare domini Dei tui; et postea mandatur ei quod dicat, idcirco nunc offero primitias frugum terrae, quas dominus dedit mihi. Offerebantur autem primitiae ex speciali causa, scilicet in recognitionem divini beneficii, quasi aliquis profiteatur se a Deo fructus terrae percipere, et ideo se teneri ad aliquid de huiusmodi Deo exhibendum, secundum illud I Paral. ult., quae de manu tua accepimus, dedimus tibi. Et quia Deo debemus exhibere id quod praecipuum est, ideo primitias, quasi praecipuum aliquid de fructibus terrae, praeceptum fuit Deo offerre. Et quia sacerdos constituitur populo in his quae sunt ad Deum, ideo primitiae a populo oblatae in usum sacerdotum cedebant, unde dicitur Num. XVIII, locutus est dominus ad Aaron, ecce, dedi tibi custodiam primitiarum mearum. Pertinet autem ad ius naturale ut homo ex rebus sibi datis a Deo aliquid exhibeat ad eius honorem. Sed quod talibus personis exhibeatur, aut de primis fructibus, aut in tali quantitate, hoc quidem fuit in veteri lege iure divino determinatum, in nova autem lege definitur per determinationem Ecclesiae, ex qua homines obligantur ut primitias solvant secundum consuetudinem patriae et indigentiam ministrorum Ecclesiae.

I answer that, First-fruits are a kind of oblation, because they are offered to God with a certain profession (Deut. 26); where the same passage continues: "The priest taking the basket containing the first-fruits from the hand of him that bringeth the first-fruits, shall set it before the altar of the Lord thy God," and further on (Deut. 26:10) he is commanded to say: "Therefore now I offer the first-fruits of the land, which the Lord hath given me." Now the first-fruits were offered for a special reason, namely, in recognition of the divine favor, as though man acknowledged that he had received the fruits of the earth from God, and that he ought to offer something to God in return, according to 1 Paral 29:14, "We have given Thee what we received of Thy hand." And since what we offer God ought to be something special, hence it is that man was commanded to offer God his first-fruits, as being a special part of the fruits of the earth: and since a priest is "ordained for the people in the things that appertain to God" (Heb. 5:1), the first-fruits offered by the people were granted to the priest's use. Wherefore it is written (Num. 18:8): "The Lord said to Aaron: Behold I have given thee the charge of My first-fruits." Now it is a point of natural law that man should make an offering in God's honor out of the things he has received from God, but that the offering should be made to any particular person, or out of his first-fruits, or in such or such a quantity, was indeed determined in the Old Law by divine command; but in the New Law it is fixed by the declaration of the Church, in virtue of which men are bound to pay first-fruits according to the custom of their country and the needs of the Church's ministers.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod caeremonialia proprie erant in signum futuri, et ideo ad praesentiam veritatis significatae cessaverunt. Oblatio autem primitiarum fuit in signum praeteriti beneficii, ex quo etiam debitum recognitionis causatur secundum dictamen rationis naturalis. Et ideo in generali huiusmodi obligatio manet.

The ceremonial observances were properly speaking signs of the future, and consequently they ceased when the foreshadowed truth was actually present. But the offering of first-fruits was for a sign of a past favor, whence arises the duty of acknowledgment in accordance with the dictate of natural reason. Hence taken in a general sense this obligation remains.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod primitiae offerebantur in veteri lege non solum propter beneficium terrae promissionis datae a Deo, sed etiam propter beneficium fructuum terrae a Deo datorum. Unde dicitur Deut. XXVI, offero primitias frugum terrae, quas dominus Deus dedit mihi. Et haec secunda causa apud omnes est communis. Potest etiam dici quod sicut speciali quodam beneficio terram promissionis contulit Deus, ita generali beneficio toti humano generi contulit terrae dominium, secundum illud Psalm., terram dedit filiis hominum.

First-fruits were offered in the Old Law, not only on account of the favor of the promised land given by God, but also on account of the favor of the fruits of the earth, which were given by God. Hence it is written (Deut. 26:10): "I offer the first-fruits of the land which the Lord hath given me," which second motive is common among all people. We may also reply that just as God granted the land of promise to the Jews by a special favor, so by a general favor He bestowed the lordship of the earth on the whole of mankind, according to Ps. 113:24, "The earth He has given to the children of men."

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Hieronymus dicit, ex maiorum traditione introductum est quod qui plurimum, quadragesimam partem dabant sacerdotibus loco primitiarum; qui minimum, sexagesimam. Unde videtur quod inter hos terminos sint primitiae offerendae, secundum consuetudinem patriae. Rationabiliter tamen primitiarum quantitas non fuit determinata in lege, quia, sicut dictum est, primitiae dantur per modum oblationis, de cuius ratione est quod sint voluntariae.

As Jerome says [Comment. in Ezech. 45:13, 14; cf. Cap. Decimam, de Decim. Primit. et Oblat.]: "According to the tradition of the ancients the custom arose for those who had most to give the priests a fortieth part, and those who had least, one sixtieth, in lieu of first-fruits." Hence it would seem that first-fruits should vary between these limits according to the custom of one's country. And it was reasonable that the amount of first-fruits should not be fixed by law, since, as stated above, first-fruits are offered by way of oblation, a condition of which is that it should be voluntary.

Showing Thomas's answers only.