CHARITY, among divines, one of the three grand theological virtues, consisting in the love of God and of our neighbour, or the habit and disposition of loving God with all our heart, and our neighbour as ourselves.

Charity is also used for the effect of moral virtue, which consists in supplying the necessities of others, whether with money, counsel, assistance, or the like.

As pecuniary relief is generally the most efficacious kind of charity, and at the same time that from which men are most ant to excuse themselves, this branch of the duty merits particular illustration; and a better cannot be offered than that which is contained in the Moral Philosophy of Archdeacon Paley.

Whether pity be an instinct or a habit, it is in faet a property of our nature which God has appointed; and the final cause for which it was appointed is to afford to the miserable, in the compassion of their fellow-creatures, a remedy for those inequalities and distresses which God foresaw that many must be exposed to under every general rule for the distribution of property.

The Christian Scriptures are more copious and explicit upon this duty than almost any other. The description which Christ has left us of the proceedings of the last day establishes beyond controversy the obligation of bounty. “When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from another. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, an ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. And inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” It is not necessary to understand this passage as a literal account of what will actually pass on that day. Supposing it only a scenical description of the rules and principles by which the Supreme Arbiter of our destiny will regulate his decisions, it conveys the same lesson to us. It equally demonstrates of how great value and importance are these duties in the sight of God, and what stress will be laid upon them. The apostles also describe this virtue as propitiating the divine favour in an eminent degree. And these recommendations have produced their effect. It does not appear that before the times of Christianity an infirmary, hospital, or public charity of any kind, existed in the world; whereas most countries in Christendom have long abounded with these institutions. To this it may be added, that a spirit of private liberality seems to flourish amidst the decay of many other virtues; not to mention the legal provision for the poor, which obtains in our i country, and which was unknown and unthought of by the most polished nations of antiquity.

St Paul adds upon this subject an excellent direction, which is practicable by all who have any thing to give. “Upon the first day of the week (or any other stated time) let every one of you lay by in store, as God hath prospered him.” By this the apostle may be understood to recommend what is the very thing wanting with most men, the being charitable upon a plan ; that is, from a deliberate comparison of our fortunes with the reasonable expenses and expectations of our families, to compute what we can spare, and to lay by so much for eharitable purposes, in some mode or other. The mode will be a consideration afterwards.

The effects which Christianity produced upon some of its converts were such as might fie looked for from a divine religion coming with full force and miraculous evidence upon the consciences of mankind. It overwhelmed all worldly considerations, in the expectation of a more important existence. “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul; neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his. own, but they had all things in common. Neither was there any among them that lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.”

Nevertheless, this community of goods, however it mani-rested[7:6:328] the sincere zeal of the primitive Christians, is no precedent for our imitation. It was confined to the church at Jerusalem; continued not long there; was never enjoined upon any; and, although it might suit the particular circumstances of a small and select society, is altogether impracticable in a large and mixed community.

The conduct of the apostles upon the occasion deserves to be noticed. Their followers laid down their fortunes at their feet; but so far were they from taking advantage of this unlimited confidence to enrich themselves or establish their authority, that they soon afterwards got rid of this business as inconsistent with the main object of their mission, and transferred the custody and management of the public fund to deacons elected to that office by the people at large.

There are three kinds of charity which prefer claims respectively to attention.

1. The first, and apparently one of the best, is to give stated and considerable sums, by way of pension or annuity, to individuals or families with whose behaviour and distress we are ourselves acquainted. In speaking of considerable sums, it is meant only, that five pounds, or any other sum, given at once, or divided amongst five or fewer families, will do more good than the same sum distributed amongst a greater number in shillings or half crowns; and that, because it is more likely to be properly applied by the persons who receive it. A poor fellow who can find no better use for a shilling than to drink his benefactor’s health, and purchase half an hour’s recreation for himself, would hardly break into a guinea for any such purpose, or be so improvident as not to lay it by for an occasion of importance, for his rent, his clothing, fuel, or stock of winter’s provision. It is a still greater recommendation of this kind of charity, that pensions and annuities, which are paid regularly, and can be expected at the time, are the only way by which we can prevent one part of a poor man’s sufferings, the dread of want.

2. But as this kind of charity supposes that proper objects of such expensive benefactions fall within our private knowledge and observation, which does not happen to all, a second method of doing good, which is in every one’s power who has the money to spare, is by subscription to public charities. Public charities admit of this argument in their favour, that the money goes farther towards attaining the end for which it is given, than it can do by any private and separate beneficence. A guinea, for example, contributed to an infirmary, becomes the means of providing one patient, at least, with a physician, surgeon, apothecary, with medicine, diet, lodging, and suitable attendance; which is not the tenth part of what the same assistance, if it could be procured at all, would cost to a sick person or family in any other situation.

3. The last, and, compared with the former, the lowest exertion of benevolence, is in the relief of beggars. Nevertheless, the indiscriminate rejection of all who implore our alms in this way is by no means to be approved. Some may perish by such a conduct. Men are occasionally overtaken by distress, for which all other relief would come too late; and besides, resolutions of this kind compel us to offer such violence to our humanity, as may go near, in a little while, to suffoeate the principle itself; which is a very serious consideration. A good man, if he do not surrender himself to his feelings without reserve, will at least lend an ear to importunities which are accompanied with outward attestations of distress; and, after a patient hearing of the complaint, will direct himself by the circumstances and credibility of the account he receives.

The pretences by which men excuse themselves from giving to the poor are various; as,

1. That they have nothing to spare·, that is, nothing for which they have not some other use; nothing which their plan of expense, together with the savings they have resolved to lay by, will not exhaust: never reflecting whether it be in their power, or that it is their duty, to retrench their expenses, and contract their plan, “that they;may have to give to them that need or rather that this ought to have been part of their plan originally.

2. That they have families of their own, and that charity begins at home. A father is no doubt bound to adjust his economy with a view to the reasonable demands of his family upon his fortune; and until a sufficiency for these is acquired, or will be in due time probably acquired (for in human affairs probability is enough), he is justified in declining expensive liberality; for to take from those who want, in order to give to those who want, adds nothing to the stock of public happiness. Thus far, therefore, and no farther, the plea in question is an excuse for parsimony, and an answer to those who solicit our bounty.

3. That charity does not consist in giving money, but in benevolence, philanthropy, love to all mankind, goodness of heart, and the like. But hear St James: “If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled, notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful for the body, what doth it profit?”

4. That giving to the poor is not mentioned in St Paul’s description of charity, in the thirteenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians. This is not a description of charity, but of good nature; and it is not necessary that every duty be mentioned in every place.

5. That they pay the poor-rates. They might as well allege that they pay their debts; for the poor have the same right to that portion of a man’s property which the laws assign them, that the man himself has to the remainder.

6. That they employ many poor persons. If they do so for their own sake, not the poor’s, the excuse is inadmissible; otherwise it is a good plea.

7. That the poor do not suffer so much as we imagine; that education and habit have reconciled them to the evils of their condition, and make them easy under it. Habit can never reconcile human nature to the extremities of cold, hunger, and thirst, any more than it can reconcile the hand to the touch of a red-hot iron; besides, the question is not, how unhappy any one is, but how much more happy we can make him.

8. That these people, give them what you will, will never thank you, or think of you for it. In the first place, this is not true; in the second place, it is not for the sake of their thanks that they ought to be relieved.

9. That, we are so liable to be imposed upon. If due inquiry be made, our motive and merit are the same; besides that the distress is generally real, whatever has been the cause of it.

10. That they should apply to their parishes. That is not always practicable; to which we may add, that there are many requisites to a comfortable subsistence, which parish relief does not always supply; that there are some who would suffer almost as much from receiving parish relief as by the want of it; and, lastly, that there are many modes of charity to which this answer does not relate at all.

11. That giving money encourages idleness and vagrancy. This is true only of injudicious and indiscriminate generosity.

12. That we have too many objects of charity at home to bestow any thing upon strangers ; or that there are other charities which are more useful, or stand in greater need. The value of this excuse depends entirely upon the fact, whether we actually relieve those neighbouring objects, and contribute to those other charities.
[7:6:329]

This enumeration seems to exhaust the pretences which men commonly employ to excuse themselves from dispensing private charity. What they are worth, when put to the test of examination, the reader will judge for himself.

Brothers of Charity, a sort of religious hospitallers, founded about the year 1297, since denominated Billetins. They took the third order of St Francis, and the scapulary, making the three usual vows, but without begging.

Brothers of Charity also denotes an order of hospitallers, still subsisting in Catholic countries, whose business is to attend the sick poor, and minister to them both spiritual and temporal succour. They are all laymen, except a few priests for administering the sacraments to the sick in their hospitals. The brothers of charity usually cultivate botany, pharmacy, surgery, and chemistry, which they practise with success. They were first founded at Granada, by St John de Dieu, and a second establishment was made at Madrid in the year 1553. The order was confirmed by Gregory XIII. in 1572. Gregory XIV. forbade them to take holy orders; but by leave of Paul V. in 1609, a few of the brothers might be admitted to orders. In 1619 they were exempted from the jurisdiction of the bishop. Those of Spain are separated from the rest; and they, as well as the brothers of France, Germany, Poland, and Italy, have their distinct generals, who reside at Rome. They were first introduced into France by Mary of Medicis in 1601, and have since built a fine hospital in the fauxbourg St Germain.

Sisters of Charity (Soeurs de la Charité), an order of female hospitallers, instituted, or rather revived, in France since the commencement of the present century, and consisting chiefly, if not wholly, of professed nuns, who devote themselves to the duties of attending the female poor and sick in the hospitals, ministering to their wants, dressing their sores, and affording them religious consolation in the midst of their sufferings. This order includes females belonging to some of the first families in France.