[238] Uhlhorn, op. cit. p. 294 sq.
[239] St. Chrysostom, De verbis Apostoli, Habentes eumdem spiritum, iii. 11 (Migne, op. cit. Ser. Graeca, li. sq. 300).
[240] Quoted by Uhlhorn, op. cit. i. 315.
[241] Cf. Milman, History of Latin Christianity, ix. 33 sq.
In the course of progressing civilisation the obligation of assisting the needy has been extended to wider and wider circles of men. The charity and generosity which savages require as a duty or praise as a virtue have, broadly speaking, reference only to members of the same community or tribe. Kindness towards foreigners is looked upon in a very different light. “The virtues of the Negroes,” Monrad observes, “are entirely restricted to their own tribe. The doing good to a stranger they would generally find ridiculous.”[242] To the Greenlander a foreigner, especially if he be of another race, is “an indifferent object, whose welfare he has no interest in furthering.”[243] The Bedouin, says Doughty, “has two faces, this of gentle kindness at home, the other of wild misanthropy and his teeth set against the world besides.”[244] At higher stages of civilisation the duty of charity embraces a wider group of people, in proportion to the largeness of the social unit or to the scope of the religion by which it is enjoined. But it is still more or less restrained by national or religious boundaries. M. Amélineau observes that the charity referred to on ancient Egyptian papyri is “la charité limitée à ceux de la même nation.”[245] According to Zoroastrianism, charity should be restricted to the followers of the true religion; to succour an unbeliever would be like a strengthening of the dominion of Evil.[246] The Zakât, or legal alms of the Muhammedans, must not be given to a non-Muslim, because it is regarded as a fundamental part of worship;[247] similarly the Ṣadaqah, or offering on the feast-day known as ʿIdu’l-Fiṭr, is confined to true believers.[248] Nor has Christian charity always been free from religious narrowness. Fleury says that the early Christians, in the care they took of the poor, always preferred Christians before infidels, because “their principal regard was to their spiritual concerns, and to their temporal welfare only in order to their spiritual.”[249] The principle of the Church was, “Omnem hominem fidelem judica tuum esse fratrem.”[250] In the seventeenth century the Scotch clergy taught that food or shelter must on no occasion be given to a starving man unless his opinions were orthodox.[251] On the other hand, Christianity of a higher type preaches charity towards all men; and so does advanced Judaism and Buddhism. It is said in the Talmud, with reference to the treatment of the poor, that no distinction should be made between such as are Jews and such as are not.[252] In modern times charity now and then steps over the barriers of nationality even when the sufferers belong to distant nations. Whilst our indigent compatriots are generally recognised to have a greater claim on our pity than needy strangers, a great calamity in one country readily calls forth a charitable response in other nations. Mr. Pike believes that the contribution of one hundred thousand pounds sterling which England, in the year 1755, when Lisbon was laid in ruins by an earthquake, sent for the relief of the sufferers, inaugurated this new era of international charitableness. “Compassion.” he observes, “was at last shown by Englishmen, not simply for Englishmen and Protestants, but for foreigners professing a different religion; pity, for once, triumphed over intolerance and national prejudice.”[253] And in war, in the case of enemies rendered harmless by wounds or disease, the growth of human feeling has passed beyond the simple requirement that they shall not be killed or ill-used, and has cast upon belligerents the duty of tending them so far as is consistent with the primary duty to their own wounded.[254] However, it must not be imagined that this humane principle, which has only lately been recognised in Europe, is a unique outcome of Christian civilisation at its height. It is said in the Mahabharata that, when a quarrel arises among good men, a wounded enemy is to be cured in the conqueror’s own country, or to be conveyed to his home.[255] Strangely enough, even from the savage world we hear of something like an anticipation of the Geneva Convention. Among certain tribes in New South Wales, as soon as the fight is concluded, “both parties seem perfectly reconciled, and jointly assist in tending the wounded men.”[256]
[242] Monrad, op. cit. p. 4.
[243] Nansen, Eskimo Life, p. 159.
[244] Doughty, Arabia Deserta, i. 368 sq.
[245] Amélineau, op. cit. p. 354.
[246] Geiger, op. cit. i. 165.