A treatise of civil policy

QUEST. XXXI. Whether self-defence by opposing violence to unjust violence be lawful, by the Law of God, and Nature? Affirm. p. 326, 327. Self-defence in man natural, but Modus, the way must be rational and just. p. 327. The method of self-defence. ibid. Violent re-offending in self-defence the last remedy. p. 328. Its Physically unpossible for a Nation to fly in the case of persecution for Religion, and so they may resist in their own self-defence. p. 328. Tutela Vitae proxima▪ and remota. p. 329. In a remote posture of self-defence, we are not to take us to re-offending, as David was not to kill Saul when he was sleeping, or in the Cave, for the same cause, ibid. David would not kill Saul, because he was the Lords Anointed, p. 330. The King not Lord of chastity, name, conscience, and so may be resisted, p. 331. By universal and particular nature, self-defence lawful, proved by divers Arguments, p. 330. And made good by the testimony of Jurists, p. 331. The love of our selves the measure of the love of our neighbour, and enforceth self-defence, p. 332. Nature maketh a private man his own Judge and Magistrate when the Magistrate is absent, and violence is offered to his life, as the Law saith, p. 334 335. Self-defence how lawful it is, p. 333, 334, 335. What presumption is from the Kings carriage to the two Kingdoms, are in Law sufficient grounds of defensive wars, p. 336, 337. Offensive and defensive wars differ in the event and intentions of men, but not in nature and species, nor Physically. p. 336, 337, 338. Davids case in not killing Saul, nor his men, no rule to us, not in our ⟨image 19⟩lawful defence, to kill the Kings Emissaries, the cases far different, p. 338, 339.

QUEST. XXXI. Whether selfe-defence by opposing violence to unjust violence be lawfull, by the Law of God, and Nature? Affirm. p. 326, 327. Self-defence in man naturall, but Modus, the way must be rationall and just. p. 327. The method of selfe-defence. ibid. Violent re-offending in selfe-defence the last remedy. p. 328. Its Physically unpossible for a Nation to fly in the case of persecution for Religion, and so they may resist in their owne self-defence. p. 328. Tutela Vitae proxima▪ and remota. p. 329. In a remote posture of selfe-defence, we are not to take us to re-offending, as David was not to kill Saul when he was sleeping, or in the Cave, for the same cause, ibid. David would not kill Saul, because he was the Lords Anoynted, p. 330. The King not Lord of chastity, name, conscience, and so may be resisted, p. 331. By universall and particular nature, selfe-defence lawfull, proved by divers Arguments, p. 330. And made good by the testimony of Iurists, p. 331. The love of our selves the measure of the love of our neighbour, and inforceth selfe-defence, p. 332. Nature maketh a private man his owne Iudge and Magistrate when the Magistrate is absent, and violence is offered to his life, as the Law saith, p. 334 335. Selfe-defence how lawfull it is, p. 333, 334, 335. What presumption is from the Kings carriage to the two Kingdomes, are in Law sufficient grounds of defensive warrs, p. 336, 337. Offensive and defensive warrs differ in the event and intentions of men, but not in nature and spece, nor Physically. p. 336, 337, 338. Davids case in not killing Saul, nor his men, no rule to us, not in our