§ I. On the General Principles of Right

God alone is truly and absolutely Lord of all things.

Printed pages 478-479 are wanting in the copy of the 1884 edition we translate (its scan passes from p. 477 to p. 480). From the head of Article III to "It is clear from" in n. 526 the text is translated from the 1866 edition (Internet Archive, compendiumtheo01gury), read against its page images.

522. • The matter is evident. For God alone is truly and absolutely Lord of all things, since from Him alone all things have their being, existence, action, conservation, and perfection. Hence it is said in Ps. 23. 1: "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and all who dwell therein."

Hence 1. no created being can be truly proprietor with respect to God, since no created being is independent from God, and whatever it is and has, it must seek from God alone.

2. Therefore no created being can use any thing whatever as absolutely its own; for a created being is not a principle of existing toward another created being, but all things belong absolutely to God alone.

3. Consequently the right of property cannot be in a created being except from God alone; this follows from what has been said. For otherwise a created being could have something from another being independent of God, which is absolutely repugnant. - Lugo, disp. 2, n. 5.¹

¹ The Author dwells upon these things with somewhat greater labor on account of the special necessities of France brought on by the madness of the communists.

Man can be proprietor toward another man.

523. • Proof. Man can be proprietor with respect to others, if nothing stands in the way either on the part of the man himself, or on the part of the objects to be possessed, or on the part of God. But these things are certain. Therefore...

1. On the part of man. For any man is metaphysically independent from another man; for any individual receives and can receive his absolute being from God alone; and therefore he depends on no other by reason of his absolute being. Therefore he can be impeded by no other from becoming proprietor.

2. On the part of the objects. Because there are given objects: 1. of themselves apt for providing either for necessities or for the just pleasures of life, such as goods of fortune, honor, etc.; 2. free from another's right, such as goods not yet possessed or abandoned, or obtained by the cession of another's right.

3. On the part of God. Not only has God not forbidden man to make earthly things his own, but on the contrary He has Himself ordered them so that they should be subjected to man's dominion, as is clear from the nature of those goods, from the need of man, and also from positive divine right. Thus, for example, it is said in Gen. 1. 28: "Have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the birds of the air, and all living things which move upon the earth."

Hence from the beginning of the world primitive men could, at their own will, apply external goods to their own uses, as is clear from Sacred Scripture. Hence the first division of goods was not made by the law of nations, as several wish. Besides, the consent of all to the division of the earth is something merely gratuitous, not historical.

If any man has legitimately made certain goods his own, he has acquired in them a right inviolable of itself.

524. • Proof. Man could not make external goods his own, except by God so ordering it for the relief of the indigence of human nature, as is clear from what has been said. But God could not so order, or bestow upon man a right of possessing one's own, without at the same time establishing that the aforesaid right could not be violated, as also follows from what has been said. Therefore...

525. • Hence 1. there is given a natural precept, promulgated and sanctioned by God Himself, forbidding that another's right be injured, and commanding that, if ever it has been injured, it be restored to integrity. For from what has been said, the right of the proprietor is of itself inviolable and has God as its natural author and sponsor. But this inviolability would be overthrown, nor would God be considered its natural author and sponsor, unless He Himself imposed and sanctioned a natural precept commanding it to be preserved and forbidding it to be disturbed. Therefore...

2. He who unjustly usurps another's thing becomes guilty both toward his neighbor and toward God: 1. indeed toward his neighbor, because he injures the neighbor's natural independence, necessarily inviolable in goods possessed by a just title; 2. toward God, by violating the divine right communicated to the neighbor, and at the same time the natural precept commanding that aforesaid right to be observed.

Questions:

526. • Q. 1. How was the first division of goods made?

Resp. It is certain that goods were common in the first origin of things. For God granted the earth to Adam and his children without any division. It is likewise established that the division was made from the first age, so that the goods of one were not the goods of another. It is clear from

Gen. chap. 4, where it is said that Abel offered to God of the first-born of his flock.

But how the division of goods was made, various persons have devised various systems about this. For some derive this division from paternal authority; others from a convention made among men, or from the law of nations; others from civil authority; finally, others more commonly from the simple occupation of common things, that is, things not yet occupied. This last appears altogether more likely. For that mode of division of goods, namely by occupation, seems very natural and very easy, while the others are subject to not a few difficulties. Especially the mutual convention of assembled men seems chimerical and morally impossible. But civil legislation and the law of nations followed after the division had already been accomplished at least in greatest part.

Whatever may be true concerning the origin of property, it is certain that the right of dominion exists of itself inviolable: 1. by natural right, for when it is taken away society would be subverted; 2. by divine right, as is clear from the seventh and tenth precept of the Decalogue: "You shall not steal." - "You shall not covet your neighbor's house..." Exod. 20. 17, etc.; 3. from ecclesiastical and civil law, as is proved from the legislation of both forums.

527. • Q. 2. What must be thought concerning the system of the communists or socialists, concerning the division of goods?

Resp. That system is impious, supremely harmful to society, and in itself most absurd.

1. It is impious, because it utterly takes away the most wise order of things established and sanctioned by God, radically subverts the sweet economy of divine Providence, and arrogantly determines that provision has been badly made for men.

2. It is supremely harmful to society. For it brings in its total subversion, while it takes away from the midst the right of property, without which human society cannot stand.

528. • 3. It is in itself most absurd. For a perfect division of goods among men is altogether impossible, and therefore it is a foolish and ridiculous invention. For what is more absurd and more impossible than that equal distribution of things among all, and especially its stability? For grant that it has been carried out; how long, I ask, will it endure? Will not idleness, gambling, drunken revelry, prodigality, lack of skill, dullness, or, on the contrary, ambition, industry, or rapacity, good or bad success, destroy that equality as soon as it has been established?

529. • But certain ones say: Let no division of goods be made, and let no one be owner; let the Republic alone possess all goods, and let citizens be workers. But what incentive will be present for those laboring? Who will assign the kind of labor to individuals? How will daily sustenance and clothing be supplied to all? Will not a legion of overseers be required? But then not all, therefore, will be assigned to hard labors. But to whom will the office of overseers or subjects fall? What about the sick, the infirm, old men, children? What about the family? What about mutual duties between parents and children? How will the truly infirm, unfit for labor, be discerned from the innumerable who will feign incapacity? What about commerce? About the arts? About letters? About sciences necessary in society, for example, law, medicine, etc.? What, therefore, is more absurd than that utopia? Is this not to be held a heap of absurdities? Therefore what must be said of communism? That which the Poet said of another portent: "A horrible monster, formless, huge, to whom light was taken away."

530. • The communists object: The earth produces its fruits for all. Therefore... Thus Rousseau.

Resp. Certainly the earth produces its fruits for all, and in reality all from the beginning of the world have lived from the fruits of the earth. But fruits of this sort must be acquired by some legitimate title, for example, by purchase, exchange, and above all by labor and the sweat of the brow. But before all things the divine law must be kept: "You shall not steal."

531. • Among the most ardent patrons of the doctrine of the socialists Proudhon stands out, very famous for this astounding saying: "Property is theft" (la propriete c'est le vol).