want (_summa religionis Christianae in misericordia consistit quantum
ad exteriora opera_). It is, however, an emotion, not a virtue, and
must be regulated like any other emotion (... _passio est et non
virtus. Hic autem motus potest esse secundum rationem regulatus_, II.
II.^ae xxx. 3). Thus we pass to alms, which are the instrument of
pity--an act of charity done through the intervention of pity. The act
is not done in order to purchase spiritual good by a corporal means,
but to merit a spiritual good (_per effectum caritatis_) through being
in a state of charity; and from that point of view its effect is
tested by the recipient being moved to pray for his benefactor. The
claim of others on our beneficence is relative, according to
consanguinity and other bonds (II. II.^ae xxxi. 3), subject to the
condition that the common good of many is a holier obligation
(_divinius_) than that of one. Obedience and obligation to parents may
be crossed by other obligations, as, for instance, duty to the church.
To give alms is a command. Alms should consist of the
superfluous--that is, of all that the individual possesses after he
has reserved what is necessary. What is necessary the donor should fix
in due relation to the claims of his family and dependants, his
position in life (_dignitas_), and the sustenance of his body. On the
other hand, his gift should meet the actual necessities of the
recipient and no more. More than this will lead to excess on the
recipient's part (_ut inde luxurietur_) or to want of spirit and
apathy (_ut aliis remissio et refrigerium sit_), though allowance must
be made for different requirements in different conditions of life. It
were better to distribute alms to many persons than to give more than
is necessary to one. In individual cases there remains the further
question of correction--the removing of some evil or sin from another;
and this, too, is an act of charity.

It will be seen that though St Thomas bases his argument on a
duplicate theory of thought, action and happiness, part natural, part
theologic, and states fully the conditions of good action, he does not
bring the two into unison. Logically the argument should follow that
alms that fail in social benefit (produce _remissionem et
refrigerium_, for instance) fail also in spiritual good, for the two
cannot be inconsistent. But in regard to the former he does not press