grieved by their enemies, the prince may justly in their defense make war, and vim vi repellere. This is much better than that the individual should himself avenge the wrong; for the individual can lawfully defend himself and his property only in continente, as Sylvester declares (Bellum, 2 § 3), but he may not avenge past wrongs, nec sua repetere save by recourse to his judge and superior.[1] Whatever goes beyond that is contrary to law and good government and, as Cajetan says, is extra moderamen tutelæ,[2] it being an essential condition of the right vim vi repellere that it be done cum moderamine. But the prince and the state have the same authority with respect to their enemies at whose hands they have suffered injury, which they have with regard to their own subjects; and hence not only may they defend themselves lest either they or their subjects suffer injury, but they may avenge injuries by inflicting punishment, exact satisfaction for damage done, and take the enemies' lives, if so the quiet and safety of their subjects require. Under this head come the many wars waged by King David against the Philistines, mentioned in the Scriptures; as also the war of the Machabee captains against the kings Antiochus and Demetrius.
The third cause and ground is rebellion and disobedience of subjects. This was the ground of David's war with Sheba, son of Bichri, who raised a revolt, as you may read in II Sam. 20;[3] and this is
- ↑ In continente, "on the spot;" that is, at the actual time of the assault or other wrong. Nec sua repetere, "nor recover his own" (by force or violence is implied). Silvester is cited in the Theologia moralis of Alphonso Maria de Liguori.—Joseph FitzGerald.
- ↑ "Beyond the due limits of [lawful self-] defense."
- ↑ The Spanish writer cites "II Kings." But the books desig-
