A COMMONWEALTH is said to be instituted when a multitude of men do agree,and covenant,every one with every one,that to whatsoever man,or assembly of men,shall be given by the major part the right to present the person of them all,that is to say,to be their representative;every one,as well he that voted for it as he that voted against it,shall authorize all the actions and judgements of that man,or assembly of men,in the same manner as if they were his own,to the end to live peaceably amongst themselves,and be protected against other men.
From this institution of a Commonwealth are derived all the rights and faculties of him,or them,on whom the sovereign power is conferred by the consent of the people assembled.
First,because they covenant,it is to be understood they are not obliged by former covenant to anything repugnant hereunto.And consequently they that have already instituted a Commonwealth,being thereby bound by covenant to own the actions and judgements of one,cannot lawfully make a new covenant amongst themselves to be obedient to any other,in anything whatsoever,without his permission.
And therefore,they that are subjects to a monarch cannot without his leave cast off monarchy and return to the confusion of a disunited multitude;nor transfer their person from him that beareth it to another man,other assembly of men:for they are bound,every man to every man,to own and be reputed author of all that already is their sovereign shall do and judge fit to be done;so that any one man dissenting,all the rest should break their covenant made to that man,which is injustice:and they have also every man given the sovereignty to him that beareth their person;and therefore if they depose him,they take from him that which is his own,and so again it is injustice.Besides,if he that attempteth to depose his sovereign be killed or punished by him for such attempt,he is author of his own punishment,as being,by the institution,author of all his sovereign shall do;and because it is injustice for a man to do anything for which he may be punished by his own authority,he is also upon that title unjust.And whereas some men have pretended for their disobedience to their sovereign a new covenant,made,not with men but with God,this also is unjust:for there is no covenant with God but by mediation of somebody that representeth God's person,which none doth but God's lieutenant who hath the sovereignty under God.But this pretence of covenant with God is so evident a lie,even in the pretenders'own consciences,that it is not only an act of an unjust,but also of a vile and unmanly disposition.
Secondly,because the right of bearing the person of them all is given to him they make sovereign,by covenant only of one to another,and not of him to any of them,there can happen no breach of covenant on the part of the sovereign;and consequently none of his subjects,by any pretence of forfeiture,can be freed from his subjection.That he which is made sovereign maketh no covenant with his subjects before hand is manifest;because either he must make it with the whole multitude,as one party to the covenant,or he must make a several covenant with every man.With the whole,as one party,it is impossible,because as they are not one person:and if he make so many several covenants as there be men,those covenants after he hath the sovereignty are void;because what act soever can be pretended by any one of them for breach thereof is the act both of himself,and of all the rest,because done in the person,and by the right of every one of them in particular.Besides,if any one or more of them pretend a breach of the covenant made by the sovereign at his institution,and others or one other of his subjects,or himself alone,pretend there was no such breach,there is in this case no judge to decide the controversy:it returns therefore to the sword again;and every man recovereth the right of protecting himself by his own strength,contrary to the design they had in the institution.It is therefore in vain to grant sovereignty by way of precedent covenant.The opinion that any monarch receiveth his power by covenant,that is to say,on condition,proceedeth from want of understanding this easy truth:that covenants being but words,and breath,have no force to oblige,contain,constrain,or protect any man,but what it has from the public sword;that is,from the untied hands of that man,or assembly of men,that hath the sovereignty,and whose actions are avouched by them all,and performed by the strength of them all,in him united.But when an assembly of men is made sovereign,then no man imagineth any such covenant to have passed in the institution:for no man is so dull as to say,for example,the people of Rome made a covenant with the Romans to hold the sovereignty on such or such conditions;which not performed,the Romans might lawfully depose the Roman people.That men see not the reason to be alike in a monarchy and in a popular government proceedeth from the ambition of some that are kinder to the government of an assembly,whereof they may hope to participate,than of monarchy,which they despair to enjoy.
Thirdly,because the major part hath by consenting voices declared a sovereign,he that dissented must now consent with the rest;that is,be contented to avow all the actions he shall do,or else justly be destroyed by the rest.For if he voluntarily entered into the congregation of them that were assembled,he sufficiently declared thereby his will,and therefore tacitly covenanted,to stand to what the major part should ordain:and therefore if he refuse to stand thereto,or make protestation against any of their decrees,he does contrary to his covenant,and therefore unjustly.And whether he be of the congregation or not,and whether his consent be asked or not,he must either submit to their decrees or be left in the condition of war he was in before;wherein he might without injustice be destroyed by any man whatsoever.
