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 circumstances 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,