Palladium theologicum, Tomus quintus: De virtutibus

On Almsgiving.

Most excellently does the Seraphic Doctor in the Diaeta, tit. 2, cap. 7 compare Almsgiving to a radiant light, which ought to be carried not behind, but before a man walking; for Almsgiving is not to be done after death, but before death, more fruitfully, as the wise man says Eccles. 14: before death do good to your friend. But he who does otherwise is like one carrying a light behind him; see there also other splendid similitudes.

Whether to give ALMS is an act of Charity.

I assert that it is an act of Charity.

IT IS PROVED by S. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 14, p. 2, dub. 5, litt. and Book 6 of the Compendium of Theology, cap. 31, and D. Thom. art. 1. External acts pertain to that virtue to which pertains what is the motive of such an act; but the motive for giving Alms is mercy, of which dist. 9, sect. 3 — for in Greek Eleemosyna is named from mercy; and mercy is an effect of Charity, as I showed in the place cited.

Next it is proved by D. Bonavent. in the Diaeta, tit. 2, at the end, because this motive is for the love of God, who ascribes it as given to himself Matthew 25.

Whether the kinds of ALMS are fittingly distinguished.

Seven kinds of corporal alms are set forth in this verse:

I visit, I give drink, I feed, I redeem, I shelter, I clothe, I bury.

That is, to feed the hungry, to give drink to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, to receive in the stranger (harbor the harborless), to visit the sick, to redeem the captive, and to bury the dead.

Seven other kinds are of spiritual alms, which are expressed in this verse:

Counsel, rebuke, console, forgive, bear, pray.

To teach the ignorant, to counsel the doubting, to console the sorrowful, to correct the sinner, to forgive offenses, to bear the burdensome and the heavy, and to pray for all.

These are reported by S. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 15, part. 2, dub. 2, litt. and on the seven Gifts, on the Gift of Piety, cap. 1, and in the Diaeta, tit. 7, cap. 4, and Book 5 of the Compendium of Theology, cap. 52, and on Luke 11 in these words: That which remains over, give as alms. D. Thom. here, and the Theologians commonly.

IT IS PROVED by the holy Doctors from the defects of one's neighbors, by whom one can be helped; of which some are on the part of the body; some on the part of the soul, which needs are easily gathered, and among the holy Doctors are clear.

But spiritual alms are intrinsically the greater; nevertheless in some case corporal alms can be the greater; whence in extreme necessity the person failing is rather to be fed than another ignorant one taught, as the holy Doctors teach, Thom. art. 4, and Bonavent. dist. cit. dub 4.

Whether ALMSGIVING is commanded.

I assert that Almsgiving is commanded by Natural and Divine law.

IT IS PROVED by D. Thom. here, and D. Bonavent. in the Diaeta, tit. 10, cap. 5. That concerning which there will be the last judgment, and on account of which Christ will distribute eternal rewards and eternal punishments, is commanded; but in the judgment those who have given alms will be called to the fatherland; and those who have omitted it will be cast into hell, as is described Matt. 25. Therefore.

IT IS PROVED secondly by D. Thom. here, and D. Bonavent. on these words Luke 11: That which remains over, give as alms, and in 3. dist. 29, quaest. 6, because love of neighbor is commanded; therefore those things must fall under command without which love of neighbor is not preserved; but to love of neighbor it pertains that we not only wish good to our neighbor, but also work it, according to that, 1 John 3: let us not love in word, nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth. But for this, that we wish and work the good of someone, it is required that we come to the aid of his necessity, which is done through the bestowal of alms; and therefore their bestowal is commanded. But because commands are given concerning acts of virtues, it is necessary that in this way the gift of Almsgiving fall under command as it is of the necessity of virtue, as right reason requires; yet on the part of the giver, so as to give of his superfluities, according to that cited Luke 11 — his superfluity, I say, and that of others whose care rests upon him. On the part of the recipient also some necessity is required: hence Paul said 2 Cor. 8: For it is not that there may be relief for others, and tribulation for you, as the Seraphic Doctor notes on Luke 11, because if you, or yours, have necessity, you ought not bring tribulation upon yourselves so as to come to the aid of another, except in that person's extreme necessity, if yours be moderate. See D. Bonavent. in the places cited, and D. Thom. art. 6, Valencia p. 4. By the law of nature also the command stands in that Matt. 7: whatsoever you wish that men do to you, do you also to them.

See the Encomia of Almsgiving in D. Bonavent. there, and Book 2 of the Pharetra, cap. 39, which Valencia accepts disp. 3, quaest. 9, p. 1.

The Seraphic Doctor observes moreover in the places alleged, quaest. 2, that the burial of the dead is not enumerated in Matt. 25; nevertheless it is a work of mercy enumerated Tobias 4 and 12. Whence D. Ambrose, Book on Tobias, cap. 1: If the law commands to cover the naked while living, how much more ought we to cover the bodies of the dead. Nothing is more excellent than this, to vindicate from birds and beasts the sharer of our nature.

IT IS PROVED also by S. Bonavent. in the places alleged, and S. Thom. art. 2, ad 1, because great is the honor to the dead of burial; burial; and great is the punishment, to lie unburied; and not less than to expose one's nakedness while living. Which reason was made known by D. August. lib. de cura pro mortuis, cap. 7. Valencia disp. 3, quaest. 9, p. 2. Bannes article 2.

It is proved finally concerning the other alms, Prov. 21: he that stops his ear against the cry of the poor, he shall cry himself and shall not be heard, and 1 John 3: he that hath the substance of this world, and shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up his bowels from him; how doth the charity of God abide in him? The same attest Cyprian serm. de eleemosyna, Ambrose lib. de Nabuthe, cap. 22. Basil on that saying of the rich man: I will destroy my barns. Nazianzen on the love of the poor. See Valencia puncto 4, where he observes that John says: and shall see; for if he is ignorant, he is excused, as the Doctors also commonly note.

Since however this command is affirmative, not obliging always, many questions arise as to the time in which it obliges.

I shall suppose, moreover, some certain ones. First, in extreme necessity this command of coming to the aid of the needy presses. But extreme necessity is understood not only of imminent death; but also of a grave imminent peril to life, as Valencia notes with Medina de eleemosyna, quaest. 3. Navar. in the Manual. cap. 24. In this indeed we must give alms even from things belonging to the decency of one's state, which do not stand in an indivisible, but admit breadth, as D. Thom. teaches art. 6, Sylvester under the word almsgiving, num. 2, and others with Tannero disp. 2, quaest. 5, dub. 2. That alms are to be given in extreme need to one in need of them for one's state, the Doctors teach: So D. Bonav. in the places cited, D. Thom. art. 5. Ioan. Medina tract. de eleemosyna, quaest. 3, where he says it is the common and certain opinion of the Doctors.

It is proved, because by the order of charity you are held more to the life of your neighbor than to your own means: whence runs that saying: Feed him dying of hunger; if you have not fed him, you have killed him, which saying they ascribe to S. Ambrose de offic. Gratian disp. 86, can. Pasce. And D. Thom. art. 5. For the rest see Valencia. Now I shall adduce some disputed questions.

Whether it is a precept to give alms to the poor from superfluities in common necessities.

( D. Thom. quaest. 32. art. 5.

I explained extreme necessity above. Grave is that which deprives one of the necessaries for his state. Ordinary, however, is that which the poor have in common.

The first opinion is negative, and is followed by Gerson p. 2. Alphab. 52. litt. E.; Alensis 4. p. quaest. 113. membr. 1.; Panormitanus in cap. si vero, extra de Iureiurando; Turrecremata in cap. sicut hi, dist. 47; Antoninus 1. p. tit. 1. cap. 24; Summa Rosella, and Pisana verbo Eleemosyna; Gabriel in 4. dist. 26. quaest. 1. Durandus 4. dist. 15. quaest. 6 leans that way; Ioan. Med. quaest. 5; and it seems to be that of D. Thomas art. 5. in fine corporis; Fernandez in suo Exam. Theol. p. 4. cap. 20. §. 2; Victorellus in the notes to Navarrus cap. 23. num 74; Turtianus 2. 2. disp. 82. dub. 2; Vasquez opusc. de eleem. cap. 1. dub. 3. num. 21; Malderus 2. 2. quaest. 27. art. 6. dub. 4; Peter Navarrus lib. 3. cap. 1. num. 358; Couarruvias lib. 3. var. cap. 14 — whom Diana cites and follows Tom. 1. tract. 15. resol. 32. et tom. 5. tract. 8. resol. 17, adding Hurtado disp. 159. sect. 4. §. 131. Nor is Granado absent Contr. 3. tract. 11. disp. 2. sect 4, saying that to withhold is only venial. Barlaeus inclines to it v. Eleem. num. 5. in praxi, and others.

The second opinion is that one is absolutely held. So D. Thom. hic, art. 7, where Cajetan, and Bannes, and the other Thomists; Paludanus 4. dist. 15. quaest. 3. art. 2; Richardus quaest. 2. art. 2; Abulensis in cap. 6. Matth. quaest. 34; Lyra in cap. 3. prima Ioan; Caesarius in eundem locum; Adrian in 4. de restit; Navarrus in manual. cap. 24; Valencia disp. 3. quaest. 9. p. 4, where he says it is already received in the schools; Becanus 2. 2. cap. 21; Bellarmine lib. de Eleemos. cap. 7; Beia in resolut. casuum, p. 2. casu in Sabb. die 19. Octob; and others, whom Tanner cites and follows disp. 2. quaest. 5. dub. 2. num. 12. It is also clearly the opinion of D. Bonaventure in the places to be alleged in the arguments.

Caspensis, walking in a certain middle way tract. 17. disp. 5. sect. 2, indeed denies such a precept universally. But he adds that one is at times held, in such a way that he who should have the purpose, even virtual, of not giving alms except in grave necessity, would sin mortally. He alleges Suarez diff. 7 sect. 3; Castro Palao: de Lorcam disp. 39. sect. 3. membr. 3; Tanner diff. 2. quaest. 5. dub. 2. num. 12; and others; but unwillingly he returns to our opinion; for he gives the reason why the rich are not universally held, because they prudently believe that the common necessities of the poor are to be driven off by others. A droll reason indeed. So therefore this good man is either never held in good faith, or always held; because they ought not believe this of other rich men; or if this is given universally as the rule, all will believe it of the others, and no one will be held to succor, nor will he succor.

I assert that the rich are held in common necessities to give alms from their superfluities.

It is proved first from D. Bonaventure ad 11. Lucae, at those words: Verumtamen, quod superest, date eleemosynam: et ecce omnia munda sunt vobis — Nevertheless, what remains, give alms: and behold, all things are clean to you. Now he explains this as being about alms owed to our own necessity, certainly necessary for penance, that we may be cleansed. Then about true alms from superfluities. And from the effects he shows its necessity. For the reasoning of Christ is: Et ecce omnia munda sunt vobis, that is, since you are full of iniquity, he teaches you to cleanse yourselves, as Valencia and Tanner also note.

For first, by alms the soul is cleansed; for it is disposed to grace, prima Timot. 4: Pietas ad omnia utilis est, promissionem habens vitae, quae nunc est, et futurae — Piety is useful for all things, having the promise of the life that now is, and of that to come. Eccles. 3: Eleemosyna enim Patris non erit in oblivione: et sicut in sereno glacies, solventur peccata tua — For the alms of the Father shall not be forgotten: and as ice in clear weather, your sins shall melt away.

Secondly, it frees from eternal punishment, Tobiae 4: Eleemosyna ab omni peccato, et a morte liberat, et non patietur, animam ire in tenebras — Alms frees from all sin, and from death, and shall not suffer the soul to go into darkness.

Thirdly, it defends from transitory punishment, Dan. 4: Peccata tua eleemosynis redime — Rede your sins with alms.

Fourthly, it mitigates the tinder of concupiscence, Ecclesiast. 3: Ignem ardentem extinguit aqua, et eleemosyna resistit peccatis — Water extinguishes a burning fire, and alms resists sins.

Fifthly, it gives victory over the enemy, Ecclesiastici 29: Conclude eleemosynam in corde pauperis, et haec pro te exorabit ab omni malo. Super Scutum potentis, et super Lanceam, adversus inimicum tuum pugnabit — Shut up alms in the heart of the poor man, and it shall pray for you against all evil. It shall fight for you as a shield of the mighty, and as a lance, against your enemy.

Sixthly, it preserves grace, Eccles. 17: Eleemosyna viri, quasi signaculum cum ipso, gratiam hominis quasi pupillam conservabit — The alms of a man, as a signet with him, shall preserve the grace of a man as the apple of the eye.

Seventhly, it gives confidence of arriving at glory, Tob. 4: Fiducia magna erit coram summo Deo eleemosyna facientibus eam — Great shall be the confidence before the most high God for those who give alms. And he adds, that these things are judged in the Judgment, Matth. 25: namely, that those who have given alms are called to life; and those who omitted them are cast into eternal fire.

That he speaks of common necessities is clear; for the inquiry is made universally about the works of mercy toward all the needy.

Moreover, he gives the conditions of these: The first is simplicity of heart, Matth. 6: Te autem faciente eleemosynam, nesciat sinistra tua, quid faciat dextera tua — But when you make alms, let not your left hand know what your right hand does. The second, discretion, Eccles. 12: Si benefeceris, scito cui benefeceris — If you have done well, know to whom you have done it. The third, compassion, Isa. 58: Cum effuderis esurienti animam tuam — When you shall pour out your soul to the hungry. And Iob. 30: Flebam quondam super eo, qui afflictus erat, et compatiebatur anima mea pauperi — I once wept for him that was afflicted, and my soul had compassion on the poor. The fourth, sweetness in speech, Eccles. 18: Nonne ardorem refrigerabit ros? Sic et verbum melius quam datum — Does not the dew refresh the heat? So also a word better than a gift. The fifth, cheerfulness in face, Eccles. 35: In omni dato hilarem fac vultum tuum — In every gift make a cheerful face. The sixth, due quantity, Tob. 4: Quomodo poteris; ita esto misericors. Si multum tibi fuerit, etc. — As you are able, so be merciful. If you have much, etc. — and he speaks of common necessities. The seventh, speed, Proverb. 3: Ne dicas amico tuo: vade, et revertere — Say not to your friend: Go, and come again,

He infers therefore D. Bonaventure from that text the argument of Christ: Since you Pharisees are full of uncleanness and iniquity, I teach you the necessary mode of cleansing yourselves, namely true penance, and alms from superfluities. For so you will make fruits worthy of penance.

Similar is the passage Lucae tertio, where John, questioned by the crowds about how they could make fruits worthy of penance — about which he had said: Omnis arbor, quae non facit fructum bonum, excidetur, et in ignem mittetur — Every tree that does not make good fruit shall be cut down and cast into the fire — answered: Qui habet duas tunicas, det non habenti, et qui escas habet, similiter faciat — He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise. The force of whose sentence D. Jerome rightly interprets, epist. ad Hedibiam, quaest. 1, as being that it is necessary to spend superfluities on the needy, as S. Doctor notes on that place of Luke. Therefore (says S. Doctor), since they had heard that it was necessary to make fruits worthy of penance, they ask; and he also brings forward Lucae 11, alleged above. But he admonishes most beautifully, with Bede and Gregory, homil. 20. in Evangelia, that a precept is given about dividing two coats, because one is superfluous; not about dividing one, if he does not have another; for so neither would be clothed — although that would be an eminent work, such as that of the most glorious Martin at the gate of Amiens, when he divided his cloak. Behold, S. Bonaventure plainly notes, with the Holy Fathers, that it is a precept. Therefore it is the same precept, Lucae 3. et 11. Quod superest, date — What remains, give. Where the particle superest does not signify what we call "for the rest," but what supplies or super-exists, as is had in the Greek, and Valencia observes, with the same Bede and D. Bonaventure, who reads: De eo, quod superest, or "from what super-exists," from the Greek idiom, of which S. Doctor was most skilled, as they know who read his works through. Moreover, here and in the places to be alleged, they observe that the precept is taken from mere superfluity.

It is proved thirdly from D. Bonaventure in Diaeta, tit. 2. ad finem, from that 1. Timot. cap. 6. Divitibus huius saeculi praecipe facile tribuere, communicare, thesaurizare sibi fundamentum bonum in futurum — Charge the rich of this world to give easily, to communicate, to lay up for themselves a good foundation for the future. But S. Doctor notes that this is a precept given to the rich, not with respect to poor men in grave need, but precisely insofar as those riches of the rich, since they are superfluous to them, are owed to the Lord as tribute, or as a debt out of justice. And as Princes take away even the capital from those who defraud them of tributes; so also the Lord, from those who deny alms and retain their superfluities, takes away not only grace, but also, and often, temporal goods. Which must be gravely admonished; and of this he interprets Matth. 25. Tollite ab eo talentum, et date ei, qui decem talenta habet — Take away the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents; for from the avaricious man temporal substance is to be taken and given to him who, pitying the poor, fulfills the commands of the Lord and trades those riches so that he may receive a hundredfold in this life, and then life eternal. Hence I shall infer the reason.

Then S. Doctor considers the motives with which one ought to be led to give alms generously. The first motive is that Christ declares alms made to himself, Matth. 25. Therefore he imposes on all who wish for the eternal kingdom that they make alms. Hence it is no great thing that rich men who wish for the kingdom from God buy it with a morsel of bread; and they ought to fear hearing: Ite maledicti — Go, you cursed — according to Proverb 21. Qui obturat aures suas ad clamorem pauperis, clamabit ipse, et non audietur — He who stops his ears at the cry of the poor shall himself cry, and shall not be heard. Therefore the first motive is: Quis postulet? — Who asks? — namely, God in the poor man. The second motive is: Quid petatur? — What is asked? — because God in the poor asks what is his own: Wherefore (says S. Doctor) David said, Psal. 29. Tua sunt Domine omnia, et quae de manu tua recepimus, dedimus tibi — All things are yours, O Lord, and what we have received from your hand we have given to you.

The third motive is: Ad quid petis Deus? — For what do you ask, God? — namely that he repay as at usury: Centuplum accipiet, et vitam aeternam possidebit — He shall receive a hundredfold, and shall possess life eternal. S. Doctor uses these arguments, mingled with so many ornaments of Scripture, most useful also for sermons.

It is proved thirdly from D. Bonaventure in 3. dist. 30. quaest. 5, from that Proverb. 25. Si esurierit inimicus tuus, ciba illum; et si sitierit, potum da illi — If your enemy hunger, feed him; and if he thirst, give him drink. And Exodi 23. Si occurreris bovi inimici tui, aut asino erranti, reduc ad eum. Si videris asinum odientis te iacere sub onere, non pertransibis, sed sublevabis cum eo — If you meet the ox of your enemy, or his ass going astray, bring it back to him. If you see the ass of him who hates you lying under its burden, you shall not pass by, but shall lift it up with him. This indeed is not a ceremonial law or judicial precept, but the Natural and Divine Law, on account of which, Matth. 25, all shall be examined in judgment.

It is proved fourthly from D. Bonaventure ad 18. Lucae with those words: Facilius est, camelum per foramen acus transire, quam divitem intrare in regnum caelorum — It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. But Christ said this to him who wished to give his riches in some part to the poor — against whom it is said, Eccles. 7. Noli esse pusillanimis in animo tuo: exorare, et facere eleemosynam ne despicias — Be not fainthearted in your mind: to pray, and to make alms, do not despise — as S. Doctor observes with Theophylactus.

Therefore clinging men are not saved, he says, because, as it is said prima Timot. 6. Incidunt in laqueum Diaboli, et desideria, quae mergunt homines — They fall into the snare of the Devil, and into desires which drown men. Where note that this is not said of the rich who are unwilling to give up everything and vow poverty; for that is the counsel which Christ gave to that young man; but seeing him bitter, resisting any alms whatsoever from superfluities, he said: Quam difficile est, etc. Facilius est, etc. ut supra ad 18. Lucae — How difficult it is, etc. It is easier, etc., as above at 18. Luke.

It is proved fifthly from S. Doctor ex illo Lucae 16, where that rich man Sepultus est in inferno — was buried in hell — doubtless because of his lack of mercy toward Lazarus.

It is proved sixthly from S. Doctor ex illo Lucae 12, where that rich man, whose field had yielded abundant fruits, said: Destruam horrea mea, et faciam maiora: et illuc congregabo omnia, quae nata sunt mihi, et bona mea — I will destroy my barns and make greater ones, and there I will gather all things that are born to me and my goods — but by night he heard: Stulte, hac nocte animam tuam repetent a te; quae autem parasti, cuius erunt? Sic est (inquit Christus) qui sibi thesaurizat, et non est in Deum dives — Fool, this night your soul shall be required of you; whose then shall those things be which you have provided? So is he (says Christ) who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God — where he admonishes that which he had taught Matth. 6, where alms is enjoined, and the simple manner handed down: Cum facis eleemosynam noli tuba canere — When you make alms, do not sound a trumpet. He adds: Thesaurizate vobis thesauros in caelo, etc. Nolite thesaurizare vobis thesauros in terra — Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, etc. Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth. As if to say: Everyone who lays up treasure on earth, retaining his superfluities, loses the treasures of heaven, destitute of Divine grace. Tanner also uses these means.

Hence Basil, on that passage: Destruam, etc. — I will destroy, etc. — says: Cur tu abundas; ille vero mendicat, nisi ut tu bona dispensationis merita consequaris; ille vero patientia braviis decoretur. Est panis famelici, quem tu tenes; tunica, quam in conclavi conservas; discalceati calceus, qui penes te marcescit; indigentis argentum, quod possides infossum. Quocirca tot iniuriaris, quot dare valens es — Why do you abound, while that man begs, unless that you may obtain the merits of dispensation of goods, and that he be adorned with the prizes of patience? The bread of the hungry is that which you hold; the coat, which you keep in your closet; the shoe of the barefoot, which withers in your keeping; the silver of the needy, which you possess buried. Wherefore you commit as many injuries as you are able to give.

Crying out SIMILAR things is S. Gregory of Nyssa, and he concludes, in the oration on loving the poor: O pauperum inimici! an nescitis horum causa commemorari in Evangelio exempla horrenda, et terribilia? — O enemies of the poor! Do you not know that for their sake horrible and terrible examples are recounted in the Gospel? And he adds the two examples of the twin rich men alleged above Lucae 12. et 16.

And D. Ambrose lib. de Nabuthe, cap. 11 has the same, and serm. 81: Quis tam iniustus, tam avidus, quam, qui multorum alimenta suum non usum, sed abundantiam, et delicias facit? Neque enim maius est crimen habenti tollere, quam cum possides, et abundas, indigentibus denegare. Esurientium panis est, quem tu detines — Who is so unjust, so greedy, as he who makes the food of many his own abundance and delights, not his use? For no greater crime is it to take from one who has, than, when you possess and abound, to deny the needy. The bread of the hungry is that which you detain.

D. HIERONYMUS in regula, cap. 6, as cited by Gratian, says: Aliena rapere convincitur, qui ultra necessaria sibi retinere probatur — He is convicted of seizing what belongs to others who is proved to retain for himself beyond the necessaries.

D. AUGUST. in Psal. 147: Caetera, quae superflua iacent, aliorum sunt necessaria: superflua igitur necessaria sunt pauperum; res aliena possidetur, cum superflua retinentur — The rest, which lie superfluous, are the necessaries of others: therefore superfluities are the necessaries of the poor; another's property is possessed, when superfluities are retained. The same he asserts in serm. 119, where he concludes: Quidquid enim Deus nobis, plusquam opus est dederit, non nobis specialiter dedit, sed per nos aliis erogandum transmisit: quod si non dederimus, res alienas invasimus — For whatever God has given us more than is needed, he gave not specially to us, but transmitted through us to be spent on others: and if we do not give, we have invaded the goods of others. Beda has similar things in cap. 11. Lucae.

It is CONFIRMED by D. Bonaventure lib. 2. Pharetrae, cap. 49, from that Lucae 16. Matth. 6: Facite vobis amicos de mamona iniquitatis — Make for yourselves friends of the mammon of iniquity — where D. Gregory: Si caelestis patrimonium eleemosynis emitur, pauperes non sunt audiendi, ut egeni; sed ut patroni exorandi — If the heavenly patrimony is bought with alms, the poor are not to be heard as needy, but to be entreated as patrons — thus homil. 40. in Evang. near the end. But S. Doctor notes in connection with that passage that Mammon is called the mammon of iniquity, not because the goods were acquired by rapine and iniquity; but because riches mostly lead to iniquity, as is said Eccles. 11: Si dives fueris, non eris immunis a peccato — If you shall be rich, you shall not be free from sin. But it is understood (says D. Bonaventure) that it ought to be given from riches which are possessed by a just title, and yet beget iniquity unless they are distributed, according to that Eccles. 10: Nihil est iniquius, quam amare pecuniam — Nothing is more iniquitous than to love money. For he who does so has even his soul for sale. Of these riches, I say, friends ought to be made to you through the bestowal of alms, which manifest the affection of piety; for it is said prima Ioan. 3: Qui habuerit substantiam huius mundi, et viderit fratrem suum necessitatem habere, et clauserit viscera sua ab eo: quomodo charitas Dei manet in eo — He who shall have the substance of this world, and shall see his brother have need, and shall shut up his bowels from him: how does the charity of God remain in him? And Eccles. 29: Perde pecuniam propter fidem, et amicum, et ne abscondas illam sub lapidem in perditionem — Lose your money for faith and a friend, and hide it not under a stone to perish. And Proverb. 11: Qui abscondit frumenta maledicetur in populis — He who hides up grain shall be cursed among the peoples. Thus far S. Doctor at 16. Lucae.

AGAIN in the Pharetra the same confirms it, from that Matth. 25, where he adds D. Gregory homil. 40: Ad tribuendum pigri cur estis, quando hoc, quod iacetis in terra porrigitis, sedenti in caelo datis? Dominus ait: Quidquid fecistis uni de his fratribus meis minimis, mihi fecistis — Why are you slothful in bestowing, when you give to him who sits in heaven what you extend lying on the earth? The Lord says: What you have done to one of these my least brethren, you have done to me.

These authorities, indeed, speak not of grave necessities only, but of ordinary ones, as is evident to the reader. Nor is this precept only at certain times, but it is taken from the very nature of superfluous riches, and binds by the very fact that superfluous riches are present.

It is PROVED also by the reason indicated in argument 2, from D. Bonav. in Diaeta, tit. 2, which is taken from the Holy Fathers — Basil, Ambrose, August., Nyssenus, and others above — and which D. Thomas 2. 2. quaest. 66. art. 7, Valencia here, and others use. The division of things made by the law of nations was just, when before all things were common. But if it is just, it ought to have constituted a human mode of living from things before common by the law of nature: Yet what would be an equal distribution, if some washed their robes in wine, swam in butter, abounding in all riches, flowing with all commodities; while others had not even bread enough; and yet the most opulent were not held to furnish necessaries to these poor men? Surely this is the pedagogy reserved to God, that if the rich have redundancies, they give to the needy something at least for necessity. This indeed would be iniquitous, to leave the greater part of men in misery, when by the law of nature they were equally owners before.

THAT that distribution was just is proved; for in it all the peoples consented unanimously, by the dictate of natural reason; otherwise the Laws of the law of nations would have to be rescinded, which are nevertheless everywhere held in the highest esteem.

THEREFORE God, from nature, preserved this in that law of nature: that superfluities be distributed to the poor. Hence Ambrose, serm. 81: Numquid iniquus est Deus, ut nobis non aequaliter distribuat vitae subsidia? ut tu quidem esses affluens, et abundans, aliis vero deesset, et egerent? — Is God iniquitous, that he does not distribute the helps of life equally to us? so that you indeed should be affluent and abounding, while others lack and are needy? Behold the reason of D. Bonaventure assigned above.

You OBJECT first with Diana, and others collected by him: If all superfluities were to be given to the poor, it would be necessary to condemn all rich men who have superfluities, and all their Confessors. Vasquez presses it num. 14: Laity can retain from patrimonial goods for their own state, or that of their blood relations, to be increased; but then it will never be superfluous. Hence you will scarcely find superfluities among seculars and Kings. These things indeed are plausible to the Confessors of the rich.

Valencia ANSWERS, from the doctrine of D. Bonaventure above in the arguments, that the precept of spending alms on the needy arises not from grave, but from ordinary necessity, not from the force of necessity; but from the force of superfluity, which indeed is to be prudently estimated, so that he is not held to spend to every needy man, but to those whom he shall see, with a prudent proportion, to pertain to him, the things to be retained being retained, for his state and the preservation of that state; indeed, and with some cautious augmentation, as men of a scrupulous conscience are wont. Yet the avarice of that rich man, Lucae 12, who wished to enlarge his barns so as to change his state, is to be shunned, for this mode is reprobated by God. Hence that rich man is called a fool by God. Therefore the rich ought to distribute a part to the needy from their superfluities, with regard had to place, time, and other circumstances. And so in our opinion the rich, or their Confessors, are not condemned so headlong; but avarice and cupidity are condemned, which if any Confessors foster (Valencia says) they will be blind, giving leadership to the blind, and both will fall into the pit, as is said Matth. 15.

You OBJECT secondly. If he is held to give his superfluities, and cannot retain them: Therefore neither can he acquire them.

Valencia ANSWERS, denying the sequel, because it is not a sin simply to have superfluities; but to retain them, not giving on occasions, even to the needy; indeed, to acquire some, so that he may provide prudently both for himself and be able to give generously to the needy: but it would be a sin if at once the possessions were ill-gotten. Those things indeed cannot be acquired which are detained against justice; nor if they are acquired with that mind, that you wish to retain them tenaciously, denying alms to the needy on occasions; But to acquire them simply is not evil; for these can be licitly retained, giving on occasions even to poor Churches for pious uses, etc. Hence nor are even certain things prohibited for their own state, as banquets, etc.

From which it is elicited that, much more in grave necessity, one is held to spend alms from superfluities. So hold Diana resol. 14. tract. 8. Granado is cited contr. 3. tract. 11. disp. 2. sect. 4. num. 18; Vuigers quaest. 36. art. 6. concl. 3; Laymann lib. 2. tract. 3. cap. 6. num. 4; Sanchez in opusc. tom. 1. lib. 1 cap. 5. disp. 5; Bannes quaest. 32. art. 6; Soto de Iustitia, lib. 5. quaest. 3. art. 4; Aragon quaest. 32. art. 5; Salo quaest. 32. art. 5; Salo quaest. 71. art. 1. controv. 1. ad 1; Navarrus de restit. lib. 3. cap. 1. num. 358; Malderus quaest. 32. art. 6. dub. 4; Valencia disp. 3. quaest. 9. p. 4; Hurtado disp. 159. sect. 4. §. 82; Azorius tom. 2. lib. 22. cap. 7. quaesito 4; Coninck disp. 27. dub. 8. num. 125. et 130; Turrianus disp. 82. dubio 1; Vasquez opusc. de eleemosyna, cap. 1; Tannerus disp. 2. quaest. 5. dub. 2. num. 13, citing very many.

It is PROVED, because charity commands one to relieve the grave evil of his neighbor. It is confirmed from all that has been said for the common necessity, which here presses much more.

Moreover, monasteries also that abound are held to this alms. So Sanchez tom. 1. lib. 2. cap. 2. dub. 28. num. 17, and both Rodriguez, Emanuel and Hieronymus — the latter here in Compend. qq. regul. quaest. 59, the former in qq. regul. tom. 2. quaest. 57. art. 1; Soto de Iustitia lib. 10. quaest. 4. art. 4; Reginaldus tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 21. num. 283; Tostatus ad cap. 6. Matthaei, quaest. 60 — who bring forward that Lucae 11. Quod superest, date eleemosynam — What remains, give alms — as it is cited cap. Quia sua, 12. quaest. 1. These speak also in ordinary necessities. But Diana Resol. 33, with Suarez tom. 2. de Relig. tract. 1. lib. 2. cap. 26. num. 13, limit it to grave necessities only, to whom add Peirinus de Praelatis tom. 2. quaest. 1. cap. 3. num. 57. To these I add, with D. Bonav. in 4. dist. 15. p. 2. quaest. 1, that individual religious also can do this by the license of the prelate.

Also all who have ownership are HELD, as sons in castrensian goods. See Filliuccius tom. 2. tract. 28. cap. 4. num. 94; Diana loc. cit. resol. 25. So also wives, from paraphernal goods — namely those which, when she married, she reserved to herself, besides the dowry, for her own uses, and which, the marriage standing, came to her by inheritance, or from donation. So D. Thom. quaest. 32. art. 8; D. Bonaventura in 4.

SIMILARLY, Tutors and curators, having administration, are held, in grave necessities.

Whether one is at some time obliged to give alms from goods necessary for one's state, apart from the extreme necessity of the neighbor.

The FIRST opinion is negative. So Cajetan in the treatise on alms and in the Summa, at the word Alms; Sanchez tom. 1. opusc. lib. 1. cap. 5. disp. 5. num. 44; Martin Ledesma in 2. p. q. quaest. 18. art. 3; D. Thomas in 4. dist. 15. quaest. 2. art. 4. quaestiunc. 1; Salo quaest. 31. art. 1; Soto de Iustitia, lib. 5. quaest. 8. art. 1; Navarrus de restit. lib. 3. cap. 1. num. 122; Diana is to be cited; Fulgentius lib. 3. cap. 10.

The SECOND opinion is that he is obliged, provided it can be done with less inconvenience than that which the needy neighbor undergoes; for instance, if the neighbor must fall from his state, or incur calamities. So Paludanus 4. dist. 15. quaest. 3; Adrian quodl. 12. art. 2. concl. 2; Bannes quaest. 31. art. 6. dub. 4, who says that certain theologians of our time have taught this opinion — Victoria, Soto, Cano; and it seems to be the opinion of D. Thomas art. 5. ad 3. Valencia also defends it disp. 3. quaest. 9. p. 4; Tanner disp. 2. quaest. 5. dub. 2. num. 12. This seems to me the opinion of D. Bonaventure LL. CC. in the preceding quaest., which Hurtado disp. 159. sect. 4. §. 92 and Sylvester quaest. 32. art. 6 uphold among the moderns, and others collected in Diana 4. p. tract. 4. resol. 225. and p. 5. tract. 8. resol. 15.

It is proved first from D. Bonaventure 3. dist. 29. quaest. 6, where he shows that charity must go forth into effect; and he brings forward prima Ioan. 3, where after saying: If anyone have the substance of this world, and see his brother have need, and shut up his bowels from him: how does the Charity of God remain in him? he concludes: Let us not love in tongue, but in deed, and in truth. This, he infers, is done if one has not denied one's own substance in any way to one's neighbor, when he is in a necessity that is not extreme; but if he has denied it, it is inferred that he does not have Charity.

It is proved secondly by that example Matth. 18 of the man who refused to forgive the debt to the one who owed him, and was delivered to the torturers; and yet he was such that he himself had not wherewith to pay his Lord. Hence he stood in need of those things which his fellow servant owed.

It is proved thirdly from the Fathers, who, while they say alms are to be given from superfluities, seem to understand by superfluities also the abundance suitable to one's state, which are to be given when the neighbor is in necessity, as Valencia observes after D. Bonaventure 4. dist. 15. p. 2. art. 2. quaest. 1. ad ultimum.

You object. Since the necessities of the poor are very many, very many rich men, who do not give what is suitable to their own state, would be condemned — who certainly do not gladly listen to this tune, and wise men find no reason why they should be condemned.

It is answered that the necessities of which we speak are not so many, so as to be evident even to us, so that many are condemned; and certainly Christian charity seems to teach by its own light that other Christians, who have slipped into miseries, are to be relieved with some inconvenience of ours, even a notable one: nor is it true, as Diana says, that the rich have a right to live splendidly in their own state at so great damage and misery to the poor.

Whether alms are owed to one in extreme indigence out of justice.

The FIRST opinion is that in such a case alms are given out of mercy alone. So Lorca 2. 2. sect. 3. disp. 39. membr. 4. num. 45; Sanchius in opusc. tomo 1. lib. 1. cap. 5. dub. 5. num. 61; Salo 2. 2. quaest. 62. art. 7. controv. 2; Bannes 2. 2. quaest. 32. art. 6; Maldonatus 2. 2. quaest. 32. art. 6. dub. 3; Azor tom. 2. lib. 12. cap. 9. quaesito 3; Turrianus tom. 1. in 2. 2. disp. 82. dub. 3; Soto de Iustitia lib. 4. quaest. 7. art. 1. ad 4. et lib. 5. quaest. 3. art. 4; Bellarmine lib. de eleemos. cap. 6; Louis of Saint Juan in Summa, quaest. de eleemos. art. 3. dub. 3. diff. 3; Coninck disp. 27. dub. 7. num. 104; Reginaldus tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 20. num. 264; Gordonus tom. 2. lib. 6. quaest. 14. cap. 3. §. 2; Molina Tom. 1. tract. 2. disp. 144; Vasquez opusc. de eleemos. cap. 1. num. 37; Suarez de Charitate, disp. 7. sect. 6; Villalobos in summa, tom. 1. tract. 22. diffic. 2. num. 9; Diana p. 5. tract. 8. resol. 2; Caspensis disp. 5. sect. 2.

The SECOND opinion is that in such a case it is a debt out of justice. So D. Bonaventure in 4. dist. 15. p. 2. dub. 5; D. Thomas quaest. 118. art. 4. ad 2; Cajetan ibi art. 3; Aragon 1. 2. quaest. 32. art. 5; Spino in spec. testament. gloss. 6. num. 8; Navarrus.

The same is the opinion of the Holy Fathers, whom I recited in quaest. 4, and they are cited in Gratian dist. 42.

I ASSERT, with this opinion, that alms are owed to one in extreme indigence out of justice.

It is proved, because all goods, common by the law of nature, were made private property with this condition, as I said in quaest. 4. Hence Hurtado reconciles the authors thus: one is held out of justice when the neighbor is in extreme need of money, clothing, and other goods, the division of which was made by the law of nations; not when the neighbor has need of our industry, for he never had a right to that.

The adversaries answer that this is not to be taken so strictly that, in extreme necessity, the rich owner loses ownership because of another's necessity; but only that he is bound out of mercy.

Yet it is not necessary that ownership be lost; but it suffices that, for the time of the necessity, the needy man be able to use them.

From these, other quaestiones are solved.

FIRST, Villalobos Tom. 1. tract. 22. difficult. 2. num. 10 infers, with Cajetan, Sarmiento, and Aragon, that one in extreme indigence can have recourse to a judge against the rich.

SECONDLY you have, that if the neighbor has need not only of the use, but of the thing itself, it is not enough to lend. So Villalobos Tract. 2. difficult. 2; Ariaga quaest. 118. art. 5; Bannes dub. 3; Granado 22. controv. 3. tract. 11. disp. 7; Valencia Tom. 3. disp. 3. quaest. 9. p. 4; Turrianus v. 2. Tom. 1. disp. 82. dub. 6; Suarez de Charitate, disp. 7. sect. 5; Becanus 2. 2. tom. 1. cap. 21; Lorca 2. 2. disp. 39. num. 54; Soto de Iustitia, lib. 4. quaest. 7. art. 1; Coninck disp. 27. dub. 9. num. 153; Reginaldus tom 1. lib. 4. cap. 20. num. 260; Diana loc. cit. resol. 5, against Tanner num. 20 and others collected by him. So also Foliensis lib. 3. cap. 10.

THIRDLY they gather that one is obliged, from goods necessary for one's state, to relieve one in extreme indigence. So Suarez de Charit. disp. 7. sect. 4; Turrianus 2. 2. disp. 82. dub. 4; Valencia disp. 3. quaest. 9. p. 4; Vasquez de eleemos. cap. 1. num. 10. et 25; Filliuccius tom. 2. tract. 28. cap. 3. num. 64; Gordonus tom. 2. lib. 6. quaest. 14. cap. 4. n. 7; Villalobos Tom. 1. tract. 22. diffic. 20, citing Bannes, Cajetan, and Sylvester against Foliensis loc. citat.

They DEDUCE, fourthly, Diana resol. 8; Peter Navarrus lib. 4. cap. 4. num. 24; Coninck disp. 27. dub. 10. num. 166; Palao tom. 1. tract. 6. disp. 2. p. 10; Hurtado 2. 2. disp. 159. sect. 3. §. 63, that he who stole before extreme necessity, and completed the theft in extreme necessity, is not held to restitution; and much less, if he stole in extreme necessity, is he afterwards held, even if he could restore — as Soto teaches de Iustitia, lib. 4. quaest. 7. art. 1; Aragon 2. 2. quaest. 31. art. 6; Sylvester; Angelus; Rosella; Tabiena — whom he cites and follows, and Azor does not dissent Tom. 2. lib. 12. cap. 8. quaestio 7, nor does Diana resol. 9.

From which I draw an argument ad hominem for our principal assertion: Therefore he is not held to restore, because the consumption of another's goods in extreme necessity is just — for indeed in that necessity it is licit to take goods from the rich, and this is done justly: Therefore alms are owed out of justice to one in extreme indigence.

Indeed, they deduce that if a creditor is in extreme necessity, and the debtor has father and mother also in extreme necessity, he is bound first to help father and mother, and indeed also sons and brothers. So Diana resol. 12; Sylvius 2. 2. quaest. 31. art. 3; Hurtado 2. 2. disp. 159. sect. 3. §. 69; Lessius lib. 2. cap. 16. dub. 1. num. 14; Toletus lib. 5. cap. 24; Castro Palao tom. 1. tract. 6. disp. 2. pag. 11.

Indeed, many say, in Diana resol. 23, that a poor man, even in a grave but not extreme necessity, may steal from the rich, when they themselves are bound to give alms. So Diana; Coninck disp. 27. dub. 10. num. 161; John Wiggers 2. 2. quaest. 32. art. 6. num. 33; Vasquez opusc. de eleemos. cap. 1. dub. 7. num. 60; Hurtado disp. 159. sect. 4. §. 92. iuncto §. 19; Angelus v. furtum, num. 37; Castro Palao tom. 1. tract. 6. disp. 2. p. 10; Andreas Duallius in 2. 2. D. Thom. tract. de charit. quaest. 8. art. 3. Nor do we say that owners of goods, in the extreme necessity of others, lose ownership of them — with which Caspensis num. 10 brandishes at us — but that in extreme necessity the needy man acquires the use, as far as the extreme necessity requires; and hence he does not acquire ownership simply, but only as regards that which the use carries with it in consumable goods.

CONCLUDE, finally, that Ecclesiastics are held more by this precept: both by reason of their state, and by reason of the goods of the Church, which are the patrimony of the poor. Hence, by the common opinion, they are held to expend in alms, or other pious works, whatever remains from the revenues of a benefice over and above their suitable sustentation. For so those goods were left by the testators; as Peter a Sancto Joseph Foliensis observes lib. 3. cap. 10. de Charit. I beseech that they engrave the holy decree of the Council of Trent sess. 25. cap. 1. de Reform. with golden characters in wax, to be infigged in the heart of cedar, and meditate on it assiduously and read it through with piety. There they will measure out a mediocrity; they will discern excesses, and moderate them. Read D. Bernard epistol. ad Fulc.

Whether Alms ought to be made from goods justly possessed.

OBSERVES S. Doct. that goods can be, or manifestly another's, or common, or one's own; and that these last can be acquired, either honestly, or disgracefully.

I ASSERT first, that alms cannot be made of another's goods.

IT IS PROVED by D. Bonav. first from all the laws, which enjoin that donations not be made of another's goods, because, he who does not have dominion of a thing, cannot transfer it.

SECONDLY from the Scriptures, Prov. 30. Honor God of thy substance. Ecclus. 34. The oblation of him who sacrificeth from unjust gain is spotted. He that offereth sacrifice of the substance of the poor, is as one that sacrificeth a son in the sight of his father. And below: The Most High approveth not the gifts of the wicked. S. Doct. adds to 11. Eccles. this: Cast thy bread, etc. thine, not another's (says S. Doctor.)

THIRDLY from D. Gregory in the Register, lib. 7. epist. 110. signifying this.

NEITHER let them say, that they wish to make satisfaction for the avaricious owner of those goods, who does not give alms: For it does not pertain to us to compel anyone to that to which he himself is bound, as D. August. says homil. 7. and 50. and it is reported in the Decretis 14. quaest. 5. can. Forte.

But the ASSERTION is understood, when it is done without the consent, at least presumed, of the Owner: for thus a son can give of his Father's goods, a wife of her Husband's, a servant of his Master's, because they can presume the consent of all of them. Yet Valentia adds with D. Bonav. and D. Thom. that in the case of the extreme necessity of one's neighbor, one can give of another's, because then all things are common. So Tanner. disp. 2 quaest. 5. dub. 1. num. 21.

Second assertion. As to common goods, the consent is necessary, either of the community, or of the Prelate, to whom it pertains, as is had in cap. Cum in cunctis, extra de iis, quae fiunt a maiori parte Capituli. And 12. quaest. 1. can. Certum est. As Medina well notes Tract. de eleemosyna, quaest. 4. Valentia disp. 3. quaest. 9. p. 5. Tannerus disp. 2. quaest. 5. dub. 2. num. 28.

Third assertion. If anyone does not have the administration of goods, he cannot give in alms, as the mentally incapacitated, and minors, as even those already cited note.

Fourth assertion. Those things which are disgracefully acquired, through some unjust business, as usury, a deceitful game, theft, rapine, cannot be given in alms; but they ought to be restored.

It is proved by S. Bonav. to 4. because dominion of these is not had by him who possesses them. As to things gained at dice, if they are acquired from someone who does not have the administration, as from a son, a minor, etc. they ought to be restored. Similarly, if someone led others to an illicit game, such as dice, or another which depends more on fortune than on skill. But truly, if he himself was induced by another, and he won, he is not bound; nevertheless he is called a possessor in bad faith by the laws, as Valentia reports disp. 5. quaest. 6. puncto 5. Nauarr. Manual. cap. 29. and it is had in an. Episcopus, dist. 35. and cap. Clerici 2. Extra de vita, et honest. clericorum, and L. solent, ff. de alea lusu. And Auth. Alearum usus, C. de Relig. et sumpt.

Tannerus adds, that of evilly acquired things, which are not to be restored in specie, alms can be made, the obligation of restitution remaining; but who is ignorant of this?

Fifth assertion, that things acquired in a disgraceful way, which is not against justice, as by meretricious means, can be given in alms. So S. Doct. to 4. D. Thom. art. 7. whom others follow. For that thing belongs to the very acquirer. See Tannetum num. 12.

I add first with D. Bonau. D. Thom. art. 7. and Valentia, that what is acquired through a game, to which he compelled another out of greed for gain, is illegitimately acquired. It is proved, because thus dominion was not transferred with full will.

I add second with D. Bonau. to 4. D. Thom. Valentia, Tanner, that on account of scandal, it is not to be offered to God from meretricious gain, nor accepted; whence it is said Deut. 23. Thou shalt not offer the hire of a harlot into the house of the Lord thy God; which was prohibited only on account of scandal, and irreverence.

S. Doct. adds third, that alms are not commonly to be given from that which is simply necessary for human sustenance, unless we wish to follow the state of perfection, according to the counsel of the Gospel, Matth. 19. If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor.

He notes also, that penitents are not to be compelled to those alms.

From all these you have, with D. Bonau. at the end of the body of the quaest. that all, and only those, can make alms, who have legitimate dominion, and administration. Therefore a married woman cannot make alms from the goods of her husband, but only from her own, as S. August. says epist. 199. So of gained revenues, at least the twentieth part she can give. So Bannes art. 8. Malderus there, Cenedo, Ledefma, Vega, and others, whom Diana reports p. 1. tract. 1. Miscel. resol. 33. Caspensis disp. 6. sect. 3. Tanner. num. 24. But of her own Paraphernal goods she can give generously. Similarly also a son of the Castrense, or quasi-castrense goods; See Valentia p. 6. Diana p. 5. tract. 8. resol. 25. Azorium t. 2. lib. 12. cap. 10. quaestio 1. Hurtadum 2. 2. disp. 159. sect. 6. §. 139. who adds, that a son can pilfer something for honest uses.

Circa those receiving alms, feigning poverty, they are bound to restitution. So commonly the Doctors at Diana 5. p. tract. 8. resol. 21. Fabrum in 4. dist. 50. num. 120. who adds Scotus, Gabriel, Alensis, and others. To these add D. Bonau. Tract. de paupertate, and on the rule of the Minors. Diana adds as to those begging door to door, that they are excused, because in few things the reason is had not of poverty, but of mercy. The restitution of these, however, some say must be made to the giver; others, to the poor. See Diana loc. cit. resol. 22.

Note further, as we said of charity, and its intrinsic order; so must we speak of the extrinsic, as to making alms; that it first be made to those more nearly related, and as S. Doct. taught there, that even sinners, as partners of nature, are to be loved, so I say that alms are also to be bestowed upon them, against Vuiclephus at Vualdensis Tom. 3. lib. 2. doctrinalis fidei antiquae, cap. 81. let it be not to the sinner, as the sinner is obstinate, and in this sense is understood Ecclus. 12. Give to the merciful, and uphold not the sinner, as S. Thom. also has it art. 9. ad 1.

To all of whom alms must be made, S. Doct. teaches to 11. Eccles. Cast thy bread upon the passing waters. The waters are the nations. Apoc. 17. and tribulations Psal. 68. Therefore Luke 14. When thou makest a feast, call the poor, and the feeble, the blind, and the lame.

You will object first, against the first assertion, Luke 16. Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of iniquity.

S. Doct. answers that this is to be understood of that which is gained unjustly by accident, not of the unjust against justice; for this ought to be restored.

Or they are called iniquities, because they are the origins of iniquities, as S. Thom. here, and S. Bonau. at that place expound. See the SS. Doctores, alleging other expositions.

You will object secondly. The Hebrews offered for the Sanctuary gold, and silver, stolen from the Egyptians.

S. Doct. answers that God transferred dominion to them; and by the right of wages, those things were owed to them, others note.

As to the quantity of alms of Ecclesiastics, Diana reports resol. 27. that he has devoured all the authors, and that the broadest opinion is, that they give the fourth part of revenues, as Bannes, and Tanner say, or the half of what remains after suitable sustentation.

And this also concerning the Pope many assert at Diana resol. 28. and many things concerning Pensionaries are had at the same resol. 29.

Many add, that they are bound to restitution, of whom ten are reported, almost all classic authors, by Diana resol. 31. Yet he himself holds the opposite with 16. Doctors, almost all moderns. The reason is, because they have dominion. He asserts also resol. 51. that Regulars, assumed to the Episcopate, have dominion, and he reports many DD. loc. cit. and 3. p. tract. 2. resol. 50. the opposite, however, he does not reject, which is that of very many.

FOUR genera of alms S. Doct. enumerates at Psal. 36. and in 4. dist. 15. punct. 2. in the literal dubia. Correction, remission of injuries, compassion for oneself, bestowal of one's own benefit. Of the first, and last it is said: Give to everyone that asketh thee, Luke 6. a thing, or the health of the soul by correction. Of the second it is said, Matth. 5. And if he strike thee on thy cheek, offer him the other also. Of the third it is said Ecclus. 30. Have pity on thy own soul, pleasing God. And surely spiritual alms are worthier, says S. Bonaventura dub. 3. litt. with D. August. Enchir. cap. 73.

But that spiritual alms should be begun with oneself, S. Doct. warns, dub. 4. Then he praises austerity toward oneself more than toward others, in corporal things.

As to quantity, dub. 6. he commends generous alms according to each one's state; nevertheless he admonishes those making alms, to take note so much of the little old woman, who gives according to her state a little, as of the Queen giving treasures, as is said Luke 21.

He APPENDS, dub. 7. certain conditions essential to alms; others accidental. Among the essential, the first, he says, is that it proceed from charity, that it be meritorious, as is said 1 Corinth. 13. The second on the part of the receiver, Luke 14. Call the poor, etc. The third on the part of the gift: Honor the Lord of thy substance. The fourth on the part of intention, that it not be made, as hypocrites are wont, for they have received their reward. Matth. 6.

THE OTHERS are conditions for the well-being of alms, Ecclus. 3. Give to the just, and receive not the sinner, which he expounds as deferring to the sinner. Or concerning the heretic, to whom an alms is not to be given without extreme necessity. Secondly hilarity in giving is required, 2. Cor. 9. Thirdly abundance, as much as can be done, Tob. 4. Fourthly speed is required, Prov. 3. Say not: go, and return Eccles. 4. Prolong not the gift to one in anguish.

MOST EMBLEMATIC symbols of alms see in S. Bonav. in the Diaeta, tit. 2. cap. 7. where he compares it to the Light, which ought to be sent before death, that we may see the way to eternal life. To the River, which goes out from the sea and returns, Ecclus. 1. For it returns the same to us. Therefore he compares it to the Seed, which multiplies grains. Therefore Prov. 19. He that is merciful to his neighbor, lendeth to God. He observes, however, that precious seeds, such as of wheat, are not gathered in the same year, so also alms, best given, not in this life, but in the other; while others have in this life a reward after the manner in which vile seeds, such as millet, immediately render their produce. See other most excellent things in S. Doctor. Of accepted alms he has very many authorities from the SS. PP. in the Pharetra lib. 2. cap. 49. Of rejected alms others, cap. 50.