-kinship, citizenship, fellowship in spiritual things, etc. And according to these diverse fellowships diverse benefits are to be dispensed, to each one that benefit which pertains to his relationship to us. Yet this will be varied according to the diversity of places, times, and other circumstances. For in some cases the stranger in extreme necessity has higher claim than even a parent who has no such need.

(1) But the Lord said (S. Luke xiv. 12), "When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, nor thy kinsmen, but bid the poor," etc. Yes; but the Lord did not simply prohibit the inviting of friends or kinsmen, but the doing it for the sake of a return in kind, which is not charity but cupidity. Still it can happen. that strangers have the first claim on account of greater need. Cæteris paribus, the nearer are to be benefited first. But if, in the case of two persons, one is nearer and the other more needy, no universal rule can determine who is first to be aided, because there are various degrees of propinquity and of need. This requires prudent judgment.

(2) But debts are to be paid before gratuitous benefits are conferred; therefore benefactors have the preference over neighbours (by kinship, etc.). I answer that there are two kinds of debt; one, which is not to be counted among the goods of him who owes, but rather among the creditor's goods, say, if one has another's property which has been stolen from him, or which is a loan, or a deposit, or anything of that nature. A man has first to restore this debt, rather than to do good out of it to those who are connected with him, unless perhaps there should be grave necessity, in which case it would even be lawful to take another's property in order to relieve the immediate want. But even in this case the condition of each in other respects would have to be prudently considered, and no universal rule can be laid down for the infinite variety of cases.

But there is another debt which is reckoned among the goods of him who owes it, due not from necessity of justice,

but from a kind of moral equity, as in the case of benefits freely received. But no benefactor as such is equal to parents. Therefore parents, in the recompensing of benefits, are to be preferred to all others, unless grave necessity should give the preponderance to the other side, or some other condition should do so, say, the common utility of the Church or the republic. But in other cases estimation is to be made of the benefaction and of the propinquity, and no general rule can be laid down which will determine each particular case.

Note that beneficence is not a virtue distinct from charity, but is one of those outward acts of charity which are commanded (S. Matt. v. 44).

§ 10. Alms-giving.

Is alms-giving an act of charity?

Outward acts are referred to that virtue to which pertains the motive for those acts. But the motive for alms-giving is the relief of suffering and need. Hence it may be defined as the giving to the needy, for God's sake, out of compassion. Now this motive pertains to mercy, which is the effect of charity. Consequently, alms-giving is an act of charity, through mercy.

(1) But S. Paul said (1 Cor. xiii. 3), "Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and have not charity, I am nothing," which implies that alms-giving is not the work of charity. But I reply that a thing done may be outwardly a virtuous act, when the virtue itself does not exist; as doing just things is an act of justice, which may be done out of natural temperament, or fear of consequences, or hope of getting some advantage (acts "materially " just).

But in another way acts are inwardly virtuous ("formaliter"), as it is the act of justice to do just things in the manner in which the just man does them-sc., promptly and with pleasure; and in this way the virtuous act cannot exist without the virtue. To give alms, then, as an outward act, simply, can be without charity; but true alms-giving

—that is, for God's sake, pleasurably, and promptly, and in all other respects as one ought to do-cannot be without charity.

(2) The proper act elicited by one virtue may be attributed to another which commands it, and ordains it to its own end. So the prophet Daniel presented alms-giving as a work of satisfaction in the penitent, saying (Dan. iv. 27), "Redeem thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor.' And the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. xiii. 16) speaks of alms-giving as an act of worship towards God: "With such sacrifices God is well pleased."

S. John is conclusive (1 Ep. iii. 17), "Whoso hath this world's goods and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him ?"

The corporal works of mercy

are well distinguished as seven in number: to feed the hungry, to give drink to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, to entertain the stranger, to relieve the prisoner, to visit the sick, and to bury the dead. Seven, likewise, are the spiritual works of mercy; viz., to teach the ignorant, to counsel the doubting, to console the sorrowful, to correct the erring, to forgive the offender, to bear the infirmities of the weak, and to pray for all.

Compare the corporal and spiritual works of mercy.

In themselves the spiritual have the preeminence, for three reasons: (1) That which is given is a nobler gift, because it is spiritual; (2) it is a nobler thing to benefit the soul, the higher part of man; for as a man ought first to provide for his own soul, so in the case of his neighbour whom he loves as himself; (3) the acts themselves are nobler acts. But, on the other hand, there may be some particular case in which some corporal work of mercy is preferable to some spiritual act, as feeding a man who is

dying of famine is better than teaching him (preaching to him). So it may be with some other very needy man.

(1) It may be true, in some cases, that there is more recompense for spiritual works of mercy, but this does not detract from their praise and merit, if it be not the aim. So human glory is no detraction from the merit of virtue, if it was not the motive for action.

(2) It is true, also, that the needy is likely to be more. grateful for corporal mercy, and so there is more consolation for him in such acts. But merit does not depend on that in which the will of him who receives help actually rests, but rather on that in which he ought rationally to rest.

Have the corporal works of mercy a spiritual effect?

We may consider them in three ways: (1) In their substance; and so, of course, they have only material effect, in supplying the corporal needs of our neighbour. (2) But we may consider also their cause, the love of God and our neighbour. So viewed, they have spiritual fruit. "Give alms of thy goods, and never turn thy face from any poor man, and then the face of the Lord shall not be turned away from thee" (Tob. iv. 7). (3) We may consider their effect; and so they have spiritual fruit if the one who is succoured prays for his benefactor.

(1) But it is the sin of simony to try to purchase spiritual good. Yes; but he who gives alms does not intend to buy heaven, because he knows that spiritual blessings are infinitely more valuable than his gifts; but he aims through charity to merit spiritual good.

(2) The widow in the Gospel (S. Luke xxi. 1), in giving more according to her proportion, showed greater charity, from which the corporal works of mercy derive their spiritual efficacy.

Are corporal works of mercy obligatory?

That question is answered in the twenty-fifth chapter of

This requires

the Gospel of S. Matthew. For some are punished with eternal penalty for the omission of the corporal works of mercy. The love of our neighbour is commanded; therefore all things without which that love cannot be preserved fall under the precept. But it pertains to that love not only that we will our neighbour's good, but also that we effect it. "Let us not love in word and in tongue, but in deed and in truth" (1 Ep. S. John iii. 18). that we aid his necessity by giving of alms. But precepts are given respecting the acts of virtues, and the giving of alms falls under command as the act is necessary to the virtue; sc., as right reason requires, considering both the giver and the receiver. On the one side, that which is to be given is what is superfluous; i.e., over and above what is necessary for the giver's own sustenance. And I say "superfluous," not only as respects the individual giver, that which he needs for his own support, but also as regards others of whom he has charge. And that is to be considered as necessary for him (and for them) which is needful for their station in life. For each one is bound to provide first for himself and for those of whom he has charge, and afterwards out of the residue to aid the needs of others.

And on the part of the recipient, he must have necessity, for otherwise there would be no reason for giving alms to him. But since it is not possible for any one to relieve the necessities of all, not every necessity falls under the precept, but only those where without others' aid the needy cannot be sustained. So, then, to give alms of superfluities falls under the precept, and likewise to give alms in case of extreme necessity. But otherwise alms-giving is of counsel, as counsels are given for the attainment of higher spiritual good.

(1) What, then, shall we say of the much talked-of rights of property? Temporal goods are Divinely conferred as regards ownership. But as regards the use of them they are not the owner's alone, but also they belong to others who can be sustained out of the owner's superflui