Question II: Whether it is lawful to have private dominion over things

Note, then, that Right in a thing, as I showed in disp. 23. quaest. 1. de Iustitia, is twofold: of Jurisdiction, and of Property. The dominion of jurisdiction is a certain power of superiority, or the force of governing subjects. The dominion of property is a certain right of disposing of some thing as one's own and for one's own advantage.

The Dominion of Jurisdiction is one thing Divine, or Uncreated; another human, or created. Created dominion is one thing Ecclesiastical proper, namely of the Prelates of the Church, for the spiritual good; another is Political, or temporal, for the public peace. Such is the power of Kings and of the Emperor.

Temporal dominion is either pure or mixed. Pure is the power, or right of the sword, for punishing malefactors. Mixed imperium is a simple power of jurisdiction joined with a slight right of coercion, joined by law, as is seen in Bullonius, and in Tannerus disp. 4. quaest. 1. dub. 2.

Nor is far from this division that partition of dominion into High and Low. The High is divided, according to the variety of regimes, into Democracy, Aristocracy, and Monarchy.

Dominion of property, on the side of the object, is one thing perfect, or full, which embraces the thing and all its advantages; another imperfect, which is content either with the mere ownership of the thing without its advantages, or with the mere use, or advantages, of the thing. This is called the Useful dominion; that one, indeed, the Direct dominion.

Some have asserted the dominion of things to be so lawful that they would altogether condemn Religious Expropriation; yet these the Seraphic Doctor refutes most elegantly and most forcefully in the Apology for Poverty.

The dominion granted to all men in more universal fashion appears from Gen. 1: Have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures. And Deut. 15: You shall be lord over many nations, and no one shall be lord over you, as the Holy Doctor shows in p. 1 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy through three chapters.

Thus he subjects women to the dominion of men, Gen. 3: You shall be under the power of the husband, and he shall have dominion over you. Thus also he subjected the nations to Kings, etc. See D. Bonav. loc. cit., where he treats of the dominion and subjection of men, which is nevertheless not proper dominion, according to the definition handed down, because subjects cannot use, sell, kill, etc. everything at their pleasure.

Now, whether it is lawful for men, especially those professing the law of Christ, to hold peculiar dominion over external things, I shall weigh.

There were indeed divisions of goods from the time they were made by the law of nations, approved by all up to Christ; only Plato and Socrates stood against them, wanting all things to be common, even wives, against whom Aristotle argues in 2 Polit. from ch. 2.

But in the time of grace there were certain heretics saying that all things ought to be common, even wives, as S. August. reports of heresy 40, and Epiph. of heresy 32, attributing it to Carpocrates.

Soon, however, some of the Pelagians condemned the abundance of goods among Christians. S. August. reports them in lib. 2 de gratia Christi, cap. 15, and epist. 160. Moreover this error was condemned in the Palestinian Council, at which S. Augustine was present.

Afterwards other heretics called Vadiani, and Anthropomorphitae, by the testimony of August. heresy 50, denied that it was lawful, at least for Ecclesiastics, to have anything of their own. The Wicleffites and Anabaptists followed these; which error was condemned in the Council of Constance, session 8.

I assert, therefore, that dominion and the division of things is lawful for all, even Ecclesiastics and Religious, according to the institute of each order.

This assertion is infallible to all Catholics, and the Holy Doctor rather supposes it than proves it in the Apologies for Poverty, and he strove only to prove that even the religious renunciation of things is licit, which presupposes their dominion.

The assertion is proved, therefore, by the Holy Doctor from Jos. 10, where the Priests and Levites of the old Law had possessions and lands by God's constitution. S. Bonav. pursues this at length in cap. 3 of the third response in the Apology for the Poor. There, however, he strenuously shows that some have drawn badly, together with the heretic Vigilantius, from the old testament even the summity of Evangelical perfection requiring possessions and dominions; and consequently that expropriated religious orders are superstitious, inasmuch as they were not figured in the old testament, for those Levites were most distant shadows; for they had even wives and children, although in the Gospel Castity and Poverty are urged by Christ in Matthew 19. The former while it is said: There are Eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He who can take it, let him take it. Poverty, however: If you wish to be perfect, go, sell all that you have, and give to the poor. Weighing which passage, D. Bonavent. in cap. 3 of the first response admonishes that there is a threefold state of perfection, which arises in charity.

The FIRST is of necessity, and consists in the observance of the precepts. The second is of counsel, and stands in fulfilling the evangelical counsels. Therefore Christ, when he had first opened that state: If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments. Soon he urges the higher perfection: If you wish to be perfect, go, sell all that you have; and give to the poor, so that the expropriation of things is not a precept, although it is a proposal. The third state of perfection, the Holy Doctor says, is in the fatherland, of which Prov. 4: The path of the just, as a shining light, goes forward and grows even to the perfect day. Of this D. August. in the first Soliloquy cap. 6: Truly perfect virtue is reason arriving at that end which blessed life attains; and then charity is consummated.

It is PROVED secondly by the Holy Doctor in cap. 1 of the first response; for even the Apostolic college had purses, in order to show condescension toward the imperfect, as Hugh says in Psalm. 91. cap. 64. The same Holy Doctor explains this also at that place Ioan. 12., and on the poverty of Christ, against Guillelmus, art. 1., from the Gloss on that Ps. 103: He bringeth forth hay for the cattle; and from D. Jerome at that place, where he says they had purses for other poor men.

The same S. Bonav. proves in cap. 1 of the second response of the Apol. of the poor, from the immense riches given by God to Solomon, that he might enrich the Temple and the Priests.

The SAME he proves in cap. 3 of the third response, from Genes. 12., where the Lord indeed commanded Abraham to go out of his land, but obeying God: Abraham went out, as the Lord commanded him: He took Sara his wife, and Lot the son of his brother, and all the substance which they possessed in Haran. Behold, the dominion of Abraham's goods is left to him by God, even in the state of the old perfection.

The Holy Doctor proves THE SAME THING by examples of the friends of God, Jacob, Joseph, David, Job, who possessed the most ample riches. Whence he observes that the goods of Job were restored multiplied.

He ADDS, however, with D. Bernard, in the sermon on that: Behold we have left all things, that those rich men of old were not at the summit of perfection while they were most wealthy.

It is PROVED secondly in the same Apologies from the Holy Fathers, asserting that it is perfection, not precept, to relinquish the dominion of things.

S. AUGUST. de bono coniug. cap. 8: They did good who ministered necessaries to Christ and his disciples from their substance; but better those who left all their substance, that they might follow the same Lord more unimpeded.

GREGORY, homil. 26. in Ezech.: When one vows to God something of his own, and does not vow something, it is a sacrifice; but when he has vowed all to God, it is a holocaust.

The same is held by Ioan. Chrysostom in the book Quod nemo laeditur, nisi a seipso. And D. Bernard. epist. 42.

D. PROSPER de vita contemplativa lib. 2. cap. 9. praises Paulinus and Hilarian, because of their own accord they bestowed on the poor, although by reason of the Episcopal office they afterwards dispensed the goods of the Church, as is had in dist. 12. quaest. 1. Expedit: It is fitting that the faculties of the Church be possessed, and one's own goods be contemned for love of perfection. The Holy Doctor reports the same also ad cap. sextum Regulae.

The GLOSS on that 1 Timot. 6: Habentes alimenta, etc. Although we have brought nothing into this world, nevertheless these temporal things are not to be cast away. It adds, however, that it would be better that they be cast away for Christ's sake.

Likewise the Gloss on those words, 2 Cor. 8: Let your abundance supply their want, reports many other authorities of the Saints, in the first response cap. 3, and of the third response cap. 1 and 2.

It is PROVED thirdly by D. Bonav. from arguments taken from 2 Polit. cap. 3., indeed from the Scriptures; for first violent poverty induces to sins; as is said Ecclus. 27: Through poverty many have sinned.

SALOMON indeed said Prouerb. 30: Give me neither riches nor poverty; but grant only the necessaries to my sustenance, lest compelled by need I be mad, and swear by the name of my God. These things, to be sure, were said in the time of the old law, as Chrysost. notes homil. 18. in epist. ad Hebraeos. Therefore it is said in Ecclus. 17: Wisdom is more useful with riches.

INDEED, if we look at the ordinary natural and civil life, we shall surely find that individuals need the particular helps of the family goods, that each one may not be anxious over many things, and may live peacefully.

They OBJECT first from Luke 14: Unless one renounce all that he possesses, he cannot be my disciple. Now the disciple of Christ and the Christian are the same: Therefore a rich man cannot be a Christian.

The Holy Doctor answers in opusc. de paupertate Christi, cap. 1. from the Gloss, that Christ wished his disciples to renounce, that is, in affection, so that they should so use the worldly things they possess, that nevertheless in mind they tend toward God; and this befits all the disciples of Christ, that is, Christians; but to leave all things befits only the perfect, Matth. 19. Therefore to the Apostles, who had chosen the perfect state of the counsels, he urged: Matth. 10. Do not possess gold. And that they carry nothing, Matth. 6. Thus also Valentia puncto secundo.

They OBJECT also many holy Fathers who reprehend the ownership of things. Clemens I. epist. 5. and it is reported 12. quaest. 1. C. dilectissimis. Basilius serm. ad diuites avaros, around that passage of Luke 12: I will gather together all things that are born to me. Ambrosius serm. 81. and it is reported cap. sicut II, dist. 47. Hence Aristotle says 2. Polit. cap. 3: All things ought to be common among friends.

The Holy Doctor answers, loc. citat. de paupertate Christi, art. 1. from the Fathers Ambrosius l. 2. offic., Chrysostomo loc. cit. and others, that the sense is that riches afford no aid toward the blessed life, which Christ openly testifies saying, Matth. 5. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven; for they are occasions of sins; on which account they are called: Mammona of iniquity, because, as is said Ecclus. 11: If you be rich, you will not be free from sin, as S. Bonav. pursues at length at that place Lucae 16.

TO the same point about friends, I say with Valentia that all things ought to be common in necessity, except those things which induce turpitude, as wives, which were never common, as Tertullianus proves in the Apologeticum contra gentes, cap. 39.

But WHEN this division of things was made, it is easily dispatched that it was made from the nations united by the law of nations. But if it had been made by the law of nature, the communion of things would be against nature, which plainly appears false from the usage of the primitive Church, and of the diverse Religious orders now, among whom ownership is renounced. But now the division of all things, or jurisdiction, if it is made anew, is made by the civil, or positive law, as D. Thom. says art. 2. ad 1., and it is plain in ff. de legibus, et Constit. Principum, l. 1. Whence rightly D. August. tract. 6. in Ioan., and it is reported in dist. 8. cap. Quo iure: Take away (he says) the laws of the Emperors, and no one will dare to say: this villa is mine.

Now all jurisdictions are so appropriated and divided that no private person is not the subject of someone, dist. 99. C. Nullus, and 25. quaest. 2. C. de Ecclesiasticis.

Now here, concerning the dominion of jurisdictions, it is to be noted by the certain and common opinion of all that Princes, whether Ecclesiastical or secular, are by no means lords of things, nor even of persons, but only of a certain power over subjects, which is called jurisdiction, as Valentia notes disp. 5. quaest. 10. punct. 2. ad finem, and it is called the High dominion, which however he can use only for the pressing public good.

Nor does that stand in the way which is said in 1 Reg. 8: This will be the right of the king: He will take your sons, and your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive yards, etc. For "right" signifies also the usurped one, by which Samuel wished to terrify the Jews.

As for other things, not all are divided, as is plain in the Institutions on the division of things, where it is had that rivers, hunting, fishing, and things of this kind remained common.

It is disputed here: in how many ways are dominions acquired.

Now they are acquired in two ways. First by Invention and occupation, without the dominion being transferred from another. Second by the legitimate translation of dominion from one into another.

As for the acquisition of dominion by invention, I have discussed sufficiently in disp. 24.

As for the translation of dominion, it can be made either by the Divine will, expounded by the natural law, or by positive divine law. Thus God transferred the dominion of the treasures of the Egyptians to the Jews, Exodi 12., as S. Bonav. notes, 2. dist. 40. dub. 2.

Secondly it can be made by the will of the possessor, provided he does it spontaneously, not deceived, nor hindered by any law.

Thirdly it can be made by human positive laws.

Fourthly by the sentence of the Governor intervening: Now the voluntary renunciation can be made for the common good; for sometimes some transfer dominion perversely, squandering their goods.

In what manner dominion is transferred through play, I have said in the disp. de restit. In what manner also through contracts, I shall say in disputation 1 of the Treatise on Contracts.

From these you have also the division of dominion into the dominion proper to individual persons, and the dominion of some community, of which the Holy Doctor treats in the Apology of the Poor, of the third response cap. 1. Whence it comes about that the renunciation of dominion is also twofold, especially in Religion. See the Seraphic Doctor in the place cited.

Moreover there are as many kinds of Dominions as there are orders of Laws granting it, as the Natural, the Divine, etc.