They teach further, that a man may kill another, either to secure his own person, or his Goods, or his Reputation. In defence of his person they hold it lawful to slay any one; (q)a Servant may kill his Master assaulting him unjustly, or a Monk his Abbot, or a Subject his Prince, or a Child his own Father. This is their common Doctrine, and thereby there is warranty for it, not only to secure ones life, but to avoid a wound or a blow(r). Any one may do this at any time, (s)even a Priest while he is celebrating, may kill one that invades him: and when he has shed his blood, may go on with his other Sacrifice, which will be unbloody notwithstanding. If he that (t)assails him be Frantic, or in Drink, yea or asleep, and has no sense that he offers any wrong; he may innocently kill him for all that, whoever he be, if he cannot otherwise avoid the injury; yea though the aggressor have had the highest provocations, (u)by intolerable reproaches, or the loss of ⟨p. 332⟩his Estate, or the defiling of his bed: yet in this case he that has given the occasion, and done the wrong, may kill the sufferer; the Thief may lawfully slay him whom he has Robbed; and the Adulterer may kill the Husband, after he has abused the Wife, or deflowered his Sister, or Buggered his Child. He may not only kill the aggressor, but an innocent person also to escape himself(x). As if he cannot be secured from Peter, without killing Paul, he may be the death of them both; or state it thus, and they cannot stick at it, if he cannot escape his Father without killing his Mother, he may slay both Father and Mother at once. Thus they may deprive any of life, not only when they are actually assaulted, but before any blow is given. (y)When a man perceives one coming towards him with his Weapon ready, and fears he is not able to deal with him, he may shoot him dead at a distance. Nor need he be hindered by the consideration, that killing him in such circumstances (since he is in mortal sin) will be the destruction both of Body and Soul together. Soto objects this to himself, but abates nothing of his conclusion notwithstanding. Yea he answers, that to hold it not lawful to kill in this case (with the destruction of the slain mans Soul too) is both to pervert the Law of nature, (z)and to render the sweet and easy yoke of Christ intolerable.
They teach further, that a man may kill another, either to secure his own person, or his Goods, or his Reputation. In defence of his person they hold it lawful to slay any one; (q)a Servant may kill his Master assaulting him unjustly, or a Monk his Abbot, or a Subject his Prince, or a Child his own Father. This is their common Doctrine, and thereby there is warranty for it, not only to secure ones life, but to avoid a wound or a blow(r). Any one may do this at any time, (s)even a Priest while he is celebrating, may kill one that invades him: and when he has shed his blood, may go on with his other Sacrifice, which will be unbloody notwithstanding. If he that (t)assails him be Frantick, or in Drink, yea or asleep, and has no sense that he offers any wrong; he may innocently kill him for all that, whoever he be, if he cannot otherwise avoid the injury; yea though the aggressor have had the highest provocations, (u)by intolerable reproaches, or the loss of ⟨p. 332⟩his Estate, or the defiling of his bed: yet in this case he that has given the occasion, and done the wrong, may kill the sufferer; the Thief may lawfully slay him whom he has Robbed; and the Adulterer may kill the Husband, after he has abused the Wife, or deflowred his Sister, or Buggar'd his Child. He may not only kill the aggressor, but an innocent person also to escape himself(x). As if he cannot be secured from Peter, without killing Paul, he may be the death of them both; or state it thus, and they cannot stick at it, if he cannot escape his Father without killing his Mother, he may slay both Father and Mother at once. Thus they may deprive any of life, not only when they are actually assaulted, but before any blow is given. (y)When a man perceives one coming towards him with his Weapon ready, and fears he is not able to deal with him, he may shoot him dead at a distance. Nor need he be hindred by the consideration, that killing him in such circumstances (since he is in mortal sin) will be the destruction both of Body and Soul together. Soto objects this to himself, but abates nothing of his conclusion notwithstanding. Yea he answers, that to hold it not lawful to kill in this case (with the destruction of the slain mans Soul too) is both to pervert the Law of nature,
- (q)Bonacin. ibid. punct. 8. n. 4. ubi Sylvester, Julius Clarus & alij communiter.
- (r)Si non •ossum effugere quiu me percu•ias, nisi te interficiam, licit te interficio. Angel. Sum. v. defens. n. 4. ibi Bartolus, Florianus, Navarre. cap. 15. n. 4. Lopez part 1. c. 62. Pet. a S. Joseph. ibid. p. 221. Bonacin. ibid. n. 3. & alij communiter.Si non •ossum effugere quiu me percu•ias, nisi te interficiam, licite te interficio. Angel. Sum. v. defens. n. 4. ibi Bartolus, Florianus, Navar. cap. 15. n. 4. Lopez part 1. c. 62. Pet. a S. Joseph. ibid. p. 221. Bonacin. ibid. n. 3. & alij communiter.
- (s)Angel. Sum. v. homicid. 3. n. 2. Sylvest. v. homicid. 1. n. 13. Graft. l. 2. c. 64. n. 8.Angel. Sum. v. homicid. 3. n. 2. Sylvest. v. homicid. 1. n. 13. Graff. l. 2. c. 64. n. 8.
- (t)Bonacin. ibid. n. 5. ibi. Bartolus, Gomez. & alij.
- (u)Pet. a S. Joseph. ibid. p. 222. & 230. Bonacin. ibid. n. 3. ubi Pet. Navar. Sotus, Julius Clarus, Rodriguez.
- (x)Petrus a S. Joseph. de 5. praecept. art. 2. p. 223. Pet. Navar. de restit. l. 1. c. 3. n. 147. Bonacin. ibid. punct. 7. n. 1. ubi Julius Clarus. Corduba. Cajetan. & alij.
- (y)Graft. l. 2. c. 64. n. 4. Soto de Just. & jure. l. 5, q. 1. art. 8. p. 143.Graff. l. 2. c. 64. n. 4. Soto de Just. & jure. l. 5, q. 1. art. 8. p. 143.
- (z)Ibid.
