(2a 2æ, q. 40, art. 1),[1] that a private person cannot lawfully make war; for, if he is aggrieved, he should resort to his superior for satisfaction; and it is as little within the right of a private individual to collect such a body of men as is requisite to carry on a war. The difficulty is to understand what is meant by "public person" or "prince;" for it is plain that it is not lawful for every prince or judge whatsoever to wage war. The solution of this difficulty, according to St. Thomas (ubi supra), and Cajetanus (ibi and in Summa, ch. Bellum), and Castro (De justa hæreticorum punitione lib. 2, c. 4), is that by "public person" in the present case is understood the one who in his government depends not on another; such are the kings of Spain and France, also some free commonwealths, as Venice, Florence, and Ferrara: these have authority, without recourse to another, to wage war. But those princes and states whose government is not sovereign may not levy war without authority from their superior; and so the lords of Castilla and the viceroys and governors appointed by our king Philippus may not without a warrant make war.
What is said applies not when war is waged for defense against enemies, but in other circumstances; for if it is for defense, such war is permitted to any governor or king, as the authors say, because vim vi repellere licet;"[2] and thus the viceroys and governors of the Indias have authority to levy war against dis-
- ↑ The quotation from St. Augustine is cited in Gratian's "Decretum," in Corpus juris canonici; it reads thus, in English: "The natural order, fitted to promote peace among mortals, demands that the power to wage war, and the direction of it, rest in the sovereign." The other citation is from St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa theologica, part ii, div. ii, qu. 40, art. i.—Joseph Fitzgerald.
- ↑ "One may repel force with force."
