apart from
social life, became an end in themselves, and it was desired rather to
annihilate instinct than to control it. Possibly this was a necessary
phase in a movement of progress, but however that be, charity, as St
Paul understood it, had in it no part. (2) But the evil went farther.
Jewish religious philosophy is not elaborated as a consistent whole by
any one writer. It is rather a miscellany of maxims; and again and
again, as in much religious thought, side issues assume the principal
place. The direct effect of the charitable act, or almsgiving, is
ignored. Many thoughts and motives are blended. The Jews spoke of the
poor as the means of the rich man's salvation. St Chrysostom
emphasizes this: "If there were no poor, the greater part of your sins
would not be removed: they are the healers of your wounds" (_Hom._
xiv., Timothy, &c., St Cyprian on works and alms). Alms are the
medicine of sin. And the same thought is worked into the penitential
system. Augustine speaks of "penance such as fasting, almsgiving and
prayer for breaches of the Decalogue" (Reichel, _Manual of Canon Law_,
p. 23); and many other references might be cited. "Pecuniary penances
(Ib. 154), in so far as they were relaxations of, or substitutes for,
bodily penances, were permitted because of the greater good thereby
accruing to others" (and in this case they were--A.D. 1284--legally
enforceable under English statute law). The penitential system takes
for granted that the almsgiving is good for others and puts a premium
on it, even though in fact it were done, not with any definite object,
but really for the good of the penitent. Thus almsgiving becomes
detached from charity on the one side and from social good on the
other. Still further is it vulgarized by another confusion of thought.
It is considered that the alms are paid to the credit of the giver,
and are realized as such by him in the after-world; or even that by
alms present prosperity may be obtained, or at least evil accident
avoided. Thus motives were blended, as indeed they now are, with the
result that the gift assumed a greater importance than the charity, by
which alone the gift should have been sanctified, and its actual
effect was habitually overlooked or treated as only partially
relevant.

(3) The Christian maxim of "loving ([Greek: agape]) one's neighbour as
one's self" sets a standard of charity. Its