2).]

The question is then discussed whether liberality is a part of justice. Aquinas concludes 'that liberality is not a species of justice, because justice renders to another what is his, but liberality gives him what is the giver's own. Still, it has a certain agreement with justice in two points; first that it is to another, as justice also is; secondly, that it is about exterior things like justice, though in another way. And therefore liberality is laid down by some to be a part of justice as a virtue annexed to justice as an accessory to a princ.i.p.al.'[1] Again, 'although liberality supposes not any legal debt as justice does, still it supposes a certain moral debt considering what is becoming in the person himself who practises the virtue, not as though he had any obligation to the other party; and therefore there is about it very little of the character of a debt.'[2]

[Footnote 1: II. ii. 117, art. 5.]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid._, ad. 1.]

It is important to draw attention to the fact that _liberalitas_ consists in making a good use of property, and not merely in distributing it to others, as a confusion with the English word 'liberality' might lead us to believe. It is, as we said above, therefore certain that a wise and prudent saving of money for investment would be considered a course of conduct within the meaning of the word _liberalitas_, especially if the enterprise in which the money were invested were one which would benefit the community as a whole. 'Modern industrial conditions demand that a man of wealth should distribute a part of his goods indirectly--that is, by investing them in productive and labour-employing enterprises.'[1]

[Footnote 1: Ryan, _The Alleged Socialism of the Church Fathers_, p.

20, and see Goyau, _Le Pape et la Question Sociale_, p. 79.]

The nature of the virtue of _liberalitas_ may be more clearly understood by an explanation of the vices which stand opposed to it.

The first of these treated by Aquinas is avarice, which he defines as 'superfluus amor habendi divitias.' Avarice might be committed in two ways--by harbouring an undue desire of acquiring wealth, or by an undue reluctance to part with it--'primo autem superabundant in retinendo ... secundo ad avaritiam pertinet superabundare in accipiendo.'[1] These definitions are amplified in another part of the same section. 'For in every action that is directed to the attainment of some end goodness consists in the observance of a certain measure.

The means to the end must be commensurate with the end, as medicine with health. But exterior goods have the character of things needful to an end. Hence human goodness in the matter of these goods must consist in the observance of a certain measure, as is done by a man seeking to have exterior riches in so far as they are necessary to his life according to his rank and condition. And therefore sin consists in exceeding this measure and trying to acquire or retain riches beyond the due limit; and this is the proper nature of avarice, which is defined to be an immoderate love of having.'[2] 'Avarice may involve immoderation regarding exterior things in two ways; in one way immediately as to the receiving or keeping of them when one acquires or keeps beyond the due amount; and in this respect it is directly a sin against one's neighbour, because in exterior things one man cannot have superabundance without another being in want, since temporal goods cannot be simultaneously possessed by many. The other way in which avarice may involve immoderation is in interior affection....'

These words must not be taken to condemn the acquisition of large fortunes by capitalists, which is very often necessary in order that the natural resources of a country may be properly exploited. One man's possession of great wealth is at the present day frequently the means of opening up new sources of wealth and revenue to the entire community. In other words, superabundance is a relative term. This, like many other pa.s.sages of St. Thomas, must be given a _contemporanea expositio_. 'There were no capitalists in the thirteenth century, but only h.o.a.rders.'[3]

[Footnote 1: II. ii. 118, 4.]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid._, ad. 1.]

[Footnote 3: Rickaby, _Aquinas Ethicus_, vol. ii. p. 234.]

It must also be remembered that what would be considered avarice in a man in one station of life would not be considered such in a man in another. So long as one did not attempt to acquire an amount of wealth disproportionate to the needs of one's station of life, one could not be considered avaricious. Thus a common soldier would be avaricious if he strove to obtain a uniform of the quality worn by an officer, and a simple cleric if he attempted to clothe himself in a style only befitting a bishop.[1]

[Footnote 1: Aquinas, _In Orat. Dom. Expos_., iv. Ashley gives many quotations from early English literature to show how fully the idea of _status_ was accepted (_Economic History_, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 389).

On the warfare waged by the Church on luxury in the Middle Ages, see Baudrillard, _Histoire du Luxe prive et publique_, vol. iii. pp. 630 _et seq._]

The avaricious man offended against liberality by caring too much about riches; the prodigal, on the other hand, cared too little about them, and did not attach to them their proper value. 'In affection while the prodigal falls short, not taking due care of them, in exterior behaviour it belongs to the prodigal to exceed in giving, but to fail in keeping or acquiring, while it belongs to the miser to come short in giving, but to superabound in getting and in keeping. Therefore it is clear that prodigality is the opposite of covetousness.'[1] A man, however, might commit both sins at the same time, by being unduly anxious to acquire wealth which he distributed prodigally.[2] Prodigality could always be distinguished from extreme liberality by a consideration of the circ.u.mstances of the particular case; a truly liberal man might give away more than a prodigal in case of necessity.[3] Prodigality, though a sin, was a sin of a less grievous kind than avarice.[4]

[Footnote 1: II. ii. 119, 1.]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid._, ad. 1.]

[Footnote 3: _Ibid._, ad. 3.]

[Footnote 4: _Ibid._, art. 3. 'Per prodigalitatem intelligimus habitum quo quis praeter vel contra dictamen rectae rationis circa pecunias excedit in datione vel consumptione vel custodia; et per illiberalitatem intelligimus habitum quo quis contra dietamen rectae rationis deficit circa pecunias in datione vel consumptione, vel superabundat in acceptione vel custodia ipsarum' (Buridan, _Eth._, iv.

3).]

In addition to the duties which were imposed on the owners of property in all circ.u.mstances there was a further duty which only arose on special occasions, namely, _magnificentia_, or munificence. This virtue is discussed by Aquinas[1], but we shall quote the pa.s.sages of Buridan which explain it, not because they depart in any way from the teaching of Aquinas, but because they are clearer and more scientific.

'By munificence, we understand a habit inclining one to the performance of great works, or to the incurring of great expenses, when, where, and in the manner in which they are called for (_fuerit opportunum_), for example, building a church, a.s.sembling great armies for a threatened war, and giving splendid marriage feasts.' He explains that 'munificence stands in the same relation to liberality as bravery acquired by its exercise in danger of death in battle does to bravery simply and commonly understood.' Two vices stand opposed to munificentia: (1) _parvificentia_, 'a habit inclining one not to undertake great works, when circ.u.mstances call for them, or to undertaking less, or at less expense, than the needs of the situation demand,' and (2) (_[Greek: banousia]_,) 'a habit inclining one to undertaking great works, which are not called for by circ.u.mstances, or undertaking them on a greater scale or at a greater expense than is necessary[2].'

[Footnote 1: II. ii. 134.]

[Footnote 2: _Eth._, iv. 7.]

Both in the case of avarice and prodigality the offending state of mind consisted in attaching a wrong value to wealth, and the inculcation of the virtue of liberality must have been attended with good results not alone to the souls of individuals, but to the economic condition of the community. The avaricious man not only imperilled his own soul by attaching too much importance to temporal gain, but he also injured the community by monopolising too large a share of its wealth; the prodigal man, in addition to incurring the occasion of various sins of intemperance, also impoverished the community by wasting in reckless consumption wealth which might have been devoted to productive or charitable purposes. He who neglected the duty of munificence, either by refusing to make a great expenditure when it was called for (_parvificentia_) or by making one when it was unnecessary (_[Greek: banousia]_) was also deemed to have done wrong, because in the one case he valued his money too highly, and in the other not highly enough. In other words, he attached a wrong value to wealth. Nothing could be further from the truth than the suggestion that the schoolmen despised or belittled temporal riches. Quite on the contrary, they esteemed it a sin to conduct oneself in a manner which showed a defective appreciation of their value[1]. Riches may have been the occasion of sin; but so was poverty. 'The occasions of sin are to be avoided,' says Aquinas, 'but poverty is an occasion of evil, because theft, perjury, and flattery are frequently brought about by it.

[Footnote 1: 'Non videtur secundum humanam rationem esse boni et perfecti divitias abjicere totaliter, sed eis uti bene et reficiendo superfluas pauperibus subvenire et amicis' (Buridan, _Eth._, iv. 3).]

Therefore poverty should not be voluntarily undertaken, but rather avoided.'[1] Buridan says: 'There is no doubt that it is much more difficult to be virtuous in a state of poverty than in one of moderate affluence;'[2] and Antoninus of Florence expresses the opinion that poverty is in itself an evil thing, although out of it good may come.[3] Even the ambition to rise in the world was laudable, because every one may rightfully desire to place himself and his dependants in a partic.i.p.ation of the fullest human felicity of which man is capable, and to rid himself of the necessity of corporal labour.[4] Avarice and prodigality alike offended against liberality, because they tended to deprive the community of the maximum benefit which it should derive from the wealth with which it was endowed. Dr. Cunningham may be quoted in support of this view. 'One of the gravest defects of the Roman Empire lay in the fact that its system left little scope for individual aims, and tended to check the energy of capitalists and labourers alike. But Christian teaching opened up an unending prospect before the individual personally, and encouraged him to activity and diligence by an eternal hope. Nor did such concentration of thought on a life beyond the grave necessarily divert attention from secular duties; Christianity did not disparage them, but set them in a new light, and brought out new motives for taking them seriously....

The acceptance of this higher view of the dignity of human life as immortal was followed by a fuller recognition of personal responsibility. Ancient philosophy had seen that man is the master of material things; but Christianity introduced a new sense of duty in regard to the manner of using them.... Christian teachers were forced to protest against any employment of wealth that disregarded the glory of G.o.d and the good of man.'[5] It was the opinion of Knies that the peculiarly Christian virtues were of profound economic value.

'Temperance, thrift, and industry--that is to say, the sun and rain of economic activity---were recommended by the Church and inculcated as Christian virtues; idleness as the mother of theft, gambling as the occasion of fraud, were forbidden; and gain for its own sake was cla.s.sed as a kind of robbery[6].'

[Footnote 1: _Summa cont. Gent._, iii. 131.]

[Footnote 2: _Eth._, iv. 3.]

[Footnote 3: _Summa_, iv. 12, 3.]

[Footnote 4: Cajetan, _Comm._ on II. ii. 118, 1.]

[Footnote 5: _Western Civilisation_, vol. ii. pp. 8-9.]

[Footnote 6: _Politische Oekonomie vom Standpuncte der geschichtlichen Methode_, p. 116, and see Rambaud, _Histoire_, p. 759; Champagny, _La Bible et l'Economie politique_; Thomas Aquinas, _Summa_, II. ii.

50, 3; Sertillanges, _Socialisme et Christianisme_, p. 53. It was nevertheless recognised and insisted on that wealth was not an end in itself, but merely a means to an end (Aquinas, _Summa_, I. ii. 2, 1).]

The great rule, then, with regard to the user of property was liberality. Closely allied with the duty of liberality was the duty of almsgiving--'an act of charity through the medium of money.'[1]

Almsgiving is not itself a part of liberality except in so far as liberality removes an obstacle to such acts, which may arise from excessive love of riches, the result of which is that one clings to them more than one ought[2]. Aquinas divides alms-deeds into two kinds, spiritual and corporal, the latter alone of which concern us here. 'Corporal need arises either during this life or afterwards. If it occurs during this life, it is either a common need in respect of things needed by all, or is a special need occurring through some accident supervening. In the first case the need is either internal or external. Internal need is twofold: one which is relieved by solid food, viz. hunger, in respect of which we have to _feed the hungry_; while the other is relieved by liquid food, viz. thirst, in respect of which we have to _give drink to the thirsty_. The common need with regard to external help is twofold: one in respect of clothing, and as to this we have to _clothe the naked_; while the other is in respect of a dwelling-place, and as to this we have to _harbour the harbourless_. Again, if the need be special, it is either the result of an internal cause like sickness, and then we have to _visit the sick_, or it results from an external cause, and then we have to _ransom the captive_. After this life we _give burial to the dead_.[3]

Aquinas then proceeds to explain in what circ.u.mstances the duty of almsgiving arises. 'Almsgiving is a matter of precept. Since, however, precepts are about acts of virtue, it follows that all almsgiving must be a matter of precept in so far as it is necessary to virtue, namely, in so far as it is demanded by right reason. Now right reason demands that we should take into consideration something on the part of the giver, and something on the part of the recipient. On the part of the giver it must be noted that he must give of his surplus according to Luke xi. 4, "That which remaineth give alms." This surplus is to be taken in reference not only to the giver, but also in reference to those of whom he has charge (in which case we have the expression _necessary to the person_, taking the word _person_ as expressive of dignity).... On the part of the recipient it is necessary that he should be in need, else there would be no reason for giving him alms; yet since it is not possible for one individual to relieve the needs of all, we are not bound to relieve all who are in need, but only those who could not be succoured if we did not succour them. For in such cases the words of Ambrose apply, "Feed him that is dying of hunger; if thou hast not fed him thou hast slain him." Accordingly we are bound to give alms of our surplus, as also to give alms to one whose need is extreme; otherwise almsgiving, like any other greater good, is a matter of counsel.'[4] In replying to the objection that it is lawful for every one to keep what is his own, St. Thomas restates with emphasis the principle of community of user: 'The temporal goods which are given us by G.o.d are ours as to the ownership, but as to the use of them they belong not to us alone, but also to such others as we are able to succour out of what we have over and above our needs.'[5]

Albertus Magnus states this in very strong words: 'For a man to give out of his superfluities is a mere act of justice, because he is rather then steward of them for the poor than the owner;'[6] and at an earlier date St. Peter Damian had affirmed that 'he who gives to the poor returns what he does not himself own, and does not dispose of his own goods.' He insists in the same pa.s.sage that almsgiving is not an act of mercy, but of strict justice.[7] In the reply to another objection the duty of almsgiving is stated by Aquinas with additional vigour. 'There is a time when we sin mortally if we omit to give alms--on the part of the recipient when we see that his need is evident and urgent, and that he is not likely to be succoured otherwise--on the part of the giver when he has superfluous goods, which he does not need for the time being, so far as he can judge with probability.'[8]

[Footnote 1: II. ii. 32, 1.]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid._, ad. 4.]

[Footnote 3: II. ii. 32, art. 2.]

[Footnote 4: II. ii. 32, art. 5.]

[Footnote 5: _Ibid._, ad. 2.]

[Footnote 6: Jarrett, _Mediaeval Socialism_, p. 87.]

[Footnote 7: _De Eleemosynis_, cap. 1.]

[Footnote 8: II. ii. 32, 5, ad. 3.]

The next question which St. Thomas discusses is whether one ought to give alms out of what one needs. He distinguishes between two kinds of 'necessaries.' The first is that without which existence is impossible, out of which kind of necessary things one is not bound to give alms save in exceptional cases, when, by doing so, one would be helping a great personage or supporting the Church or the State, since 'the common good is to be preferred to one's own.' The second kind of necessaries are those things without which a man cannot live in keeping with his social station. St. Thomas recommends the giving of alms out of this part of one's estate, but points out that it is only a matter of counsel, and not of precept, and one must not give alms to such an extent as to impoverish oneself permanently. To this last provision, however, there are three exceptions: one, when a man is entering religion and giving away all his goods; two, when he can easily replace what he gives away; and, three, when he is in presence of great indigence on the part of an individual, or great need on the part of the common weal. In these three cases it is praiseworthy for a man to forgo the requisites of his station in order to provide for a greater need.[1]

[Footnote 1: II. ii. 32, 6.]

The mediaeval teaching on almsgiving is very well summarised by Fr.

Jarrett,[1] as follows: '(1) A man is obliged to help another in his extreme need even at the risk of grave inconvenience to himself; (2) a man is obliged to help another who, though not in extreme need, is yet in considerable distress, but not at the risk of grave inconvenience to himself; (3) a man is not obliged to help another when necessity is slight, even though the risk to himself should be quite trifling.'

[Footnote 1: _Mediaeval Socialism_, p. 90.]

The importance of the duty of almsgiving further appears from the section where Aquinas lays down that the person to whom alms should have been given may, if the owner of the goods neglects his duty, repair the omission himself. 'All things are common property in a case of extreme necessity. Hence one who is in dire straits may take another's goods in order to succour himself if he can find no one who is willing to give him something.'[1] The duty of using one's goods for the benefit of one's neighbours was a fit matter for enforcement by the State, provided that the burdens imposed by legislation were equitable. 'Laws are said to be just, both from the end, when, to wit, they are ordained to the common good--and from their author, that is to say, when the law that is made does not exceed the power of the law-giver--and from their form, when, to wit, burdens are laid on the subjects according to an equality of proportion and with a view to the common good. For, since every man is part of the community, each man in all that he is and has belongs to the community: just as a part in all that it is belongs to the whole; wherefore nature inflicts a loss on the part in order to save the whole; so that on this account such laws, which impose proportionate burdens, are just and binding in conscience.'[2]