OF THE FUNCTIONS OF SUPREME AUTHORITIES.

THAT the right of the supreme authorities is limited by their power, we
showed in the last chapter, and saw that the most important part of that
right is, that they are, as it were, the mind of the dominion, whereby
all ought to be guided; and accordingly, that such authorities alone
have the right of deciding what is good, evil, equitable, or iniquitous,
that is, what must be done or left undone by the subjects severally or
collectively. And, accordingly, we saw that they have the sole right of
laying down laws, and of interpreting the same, whenever their meaning
is disputed, and of deciding whether a given case is in conformity with
or violation of the law (Chap. III. Secs. 3-5); and, lastly, of waging
war, and of drawing up and offering propositions for peace, or of
accepting such when offered (Chap. III. Secs. 12, 13).

2. As all these functions, and also the means required to execute them,
are matters which regard the whole body of the dominion, that is, are
affairs of state, it follows, that affairs of state depend on the
direction of him only, who holds supreme dominion. And hence it follows,
that it is the right of the supreme authority alone to judge the deeds
of every individual, and demand of him an account of the same; to punish
criminals, and decide questions of law between citizens, or appoint
jurists acquainted with the existing laws, to administer these matters
on its behalf; and, further, to use and order all means to war and
peace, as to found and fortify cities, levy soldiers, assign military
posts, and order what it would have done, and, with a view to peace, to
send and give audience to ambassadors; and, finally, to levy the costs
of all this.

3. Since, then, it is the right of the supreme authority alone to handle
public matters, or choose officials to do so, it follows, that that
subject is a pretender to the dominion, who, without the supreme
council's knowledge, enters upon any public matter, although he believe
that his design will be to the best interest of the commonwealth.

4. But it is often asked, whether the supreme authority is bound by
laws, and, consequently, whether it can do wrong. Now as the words "law"
and "wrong-doing" often refer not merely to the laws of a commonwealth,
but also to the general rules which concern all natural things, and
especially to the general rules of reason, we cannot, without
qualification, say that the commonwealth is bound by no laws, or can do
no wrong. For were the commonwealth bound by no laws or rules, which
removed, the commonwealth were no commonwealth, we should have to regard
it not as a natural thing, but as a chimera. A commonwealth then does
wrong, when it does, or suffers to be done, things which may be the
cause of its own ruin; and we can say that it then does wrong, in the
sense in which philosophers or doctors say that nature does wrong; and
in this sense we can say, that a commonwealth does wrong, when it acts
against the dictate of reason. For a commonwealth is most independent
when it acts according to the dictate of reason (Chap. III. Sec. 7); so
far, then, as it acts against reason, it fails itself, or does wrong.
And we shall be able more easily to understand this if we reflect, that
when we say, that a man can do what he will with his own, this authority
must be limited not only by the power of the agent, but by the capacity
of the object. If, for instance, I say that I can rightfully do what I
will with this table, I do not certainly mean, that I have the right to
make it eat grass. So, too, though we say, that men depend not on
themselves, but on the commonwealth, we do not mean, that men lose their
human nature and put on another; nor yet that the commonwealth has the
right to make men wish for this or that, or (what is just as impossible)
regard with honour things which excite ridicule or disgust. But it is
implied, that there are certain intervening circumstances, which
supposed, one likewise supposes the reverence and fear of the subjects
towards the commonwealth, and which abstracted, one makes abstraction
likewise of that fear and reverence, and therewith of the commonwealth
itself. The commonwealth, then, to maintain its independence, is bound
to preserve the causes of fear and reverence, otherwise it ceases to be
a commonwealth. For the person or persons that hold dominion, can no
more combine with the keeping up of majesty the running with harlots
drunk or naked about the streets, or the performances of a stage-player,
or the open violation or contempt of laws passed by themselves, than
they can combine existence with non-existence. But to proceed to slay
and rob subjects, ravish maidens, and the like, turns fear into
indignation and the civil state into a state of enmity.

5. We see, then, in what sense we may say, that a commonwealth is bound
by laws and can do wrong. But if by "law" we understand civil law, and
by "wrong" that which, by civil law, is forbidden to be done, that is,
if these words be taken in their proper sense, we cannot at all say,
that a commonwealth is bound by laws, or can do wrong. For the maxims
and motives of fear and reverence, which a commonwealth is bound to
observe in its own interest, pertain not to civil jurisprudence, but to
the law of nature, since (Sec. 4) they cannot be vindicated by the civil
law, but by the law of war. And a commonwealth is bound by them in no
other sense than that in which in the state of nature a man is bound to
take heed, that he preserve his independence and be not his own enemy,
lest he should destroy himself; and in this taking heed lies not the
subjection, but the liberty of human nature. But civil jurisprudence
depends on the mere decree of the commonwealth, which is not bound to
please any but itself, nor to hold anything to be good or bad, but what
it judges to be such for itself. And, accordingly, it has not merely the
right to avenge itself, or to lay down and interpret laws, but also to
abolish the same, and to pardon any guilty person out of the fullness of
its power.

6. Contracts or laws, whereby the multitude transfers its right to one
council or man, should without doubt be broken, when it is expedient for
the general welfare to do so. But to decide this point, whether, that
is, it be expedient for the general welfare to break them or not, is
within the right of no private person, but of him only who holds