Part II, Chapter XXX, 1

OF THE OFFICE OF THE SOVEREIGN REPRESENTATIVE

The OFFICE of the Sovereign, whether monarch or assembly, consists in fulfilling the end for which sovereign power was entrusted to him: securing the safety of the people. The Law of Nature binds him to this duty, and he must answer for it to God, the author of that law, and to no one else. By safety I mean not mere preservation but all the other satisfactions of life that each person can acquire by lawful industry, without danger or injury to the Common-wealth.

This end is to be pursued not by caring for individuals, beyond protecting them against injuries when they complain, but by a general providence: public instruction in doctrine and example, and the making and enforcement of good laws, which individuals can apply to their own cases.

If the essential rights of sovereignty, described earlier in the eighteenth Chapter, are taken away, the Common-wealth is dissolved and each person returns to the condition and calamity of war with everyone else, the greatest evil that can happen in this life. The Sovereign's office is therefore to preserve these rights intact. First, it is against his duty to transfer any of them to another or to surrender them. For whoever abandons the means abandons the end. A Sovereign abandons the means if he acknowledges himself subject to civil laws; renounces the power of final judgment; gives up his own authority to make war or peace, to judge the needs of the Common-wealth, or to levy money and soldiers whenever and in whatever numbers his conscience finds necessary; or relinquishes the power to appoint officers and ministers for war and peace, or to appoint teachers and examine which doctrines further or oppose the defense, peace, and good of the people. Second, it is against his duty to allow the people to remain ignorant or misinformed about the grounds and reasons for these essential rights. Otherwise they can readily be led astray and drawn into resisting him when the needs of the Common-wealth call for those rights to be exercised.

These grounds must be taught all the more diligently and truthfully because no civil law or threat of legal punishment can secure them. A civil law forbidding rebellion—and any resistance to the essential rights of sovereignty is rebellion—binds people not in virtue of being a civil law, but only through the Law of Nature forbidding breach of faith. If people do not know of this natural obligation, they cannot understand the rightful authority of any law the Sovereign makes. As for punishment, they will regard it merely as an act of hostility, which they will try to escape by hostile acts whenever they think themselves strong enough.

I have heard some say that justice is a word without substance and that whatever anyone can acquire by force or cunning belongs to him, not only in a state of war but within a Common-wealth. I have already shown this to be false. There are also those who maintain that no rational grounds or principles support the essential rights that make sovereignty absolute: if such grounds existed, they say, they would have been discovered somewhere, whereas no Common-wealth yet has recognized or claimed these rights. This is as poor an argument as it would be for the indigenous peoples of America to deny that rational principles for building a house to last as long as its materials exist, merely because they have never seen one built so well. Time and industry yield new knowledge every day. The art of sound building derives from rational principles discovered by industrious people who studied the nature of materials and the varied effects of shape and proportion, long after humanity had begun to build, however poorly. So, long after men began forming imperfect Common-wealths, liable to fall back into disorder, diligent reflection may uncover rational principles for their construction. Whether anyone makes use of them or neglects them matters very little to my personal interest today. But even supposing my principles are not principles of reason, I am sure they derive from the authority of Scripture, as I shall show when I come to speak of the Kingdome of God, administered by Moses over the Jews, his chosen people by Covenant.

Some reply that, even if the principles are right, ordinary people cannot be made to understand them. I wish that the rich and powerful subjects of a kingdom, or those reputed most learned, were no less capable of understanding than ordinary people. Everyone knows that the obstacles to teaching this doctrine arise less from its difficulty than from the interests of those who are meant to learn it. Powerful men have trouble digesting anything that establishes a power able to restrain their desires, and learned men anything that exposes their errors and thus diminishes their authority. The minds of ordinary people, unless tainted by dependence on the powerful or covered with the opinions of their teachers, are like clean paper, ready to receive what public authority prints upon them. Can whole nations be brought to accept the great mysteries of Christianity, which transcend reason, and millions made to believe that the same body can be in innumerable places at one and the same time, which contradicts reason? And yet cannot people, by teaching and preaching protected by law, be brought to accept something so consonant with reason that anyone free from prejudice needs only to hear it in order to learn it? I conclude, therefore, that while a Sovereign retains his full power, any difficulty in instructing the people in the essential rights of sovereignty, which are its natural and fundamental laws, arises from his own fault or from the fault of those he entrusts with governing the Common-wealth. It is consequently his duty to have the people instructed in them; and it serves his own benefit and security against the danger rebellion may bring to him personally.

To descend to particulars, the people must be taught, first, not to love any form of government they see in neighboring nations more than their own, nor to desire change, whatever prosperity they observe in nations governed differently. The prosperity of a people ruled by an aristocratic or democratic assembly comes not from aristocracy or democracy, but from the obedience and harmony of the subjects. Nor do people flourish under monarchy because one man possesses the right to rule them, but because they obey him. Take obedience away from any kind of state, and with it the harmony of the people, and they will not flourish but soon dissolve. Those who try by disobedience merely to reform the Common-wealth will find that they destroy it, like the foolish daughters of Peleus in the fable. Wishing to restore their aged father to youth, they followed Medea's advice, cut him to pieces, and boiled him with strange herbs, but made no new man of him. This desire for change resembles the breaking of God's first Commandment. There God says, Non Habebis Deos Alienos—“You shall not have the gods of other nations”; and elsewhere he says of kings that they are gods.

Second, they must be taught not to be so captivated by admiration for the virtue of a fellow subject, however high his station or conspicuous his splendor in the Common-wealth, or by admiration for any assembly other than the Sovereign assembly, that they give him or it the obedience or honor owed only to the Sovereign, whom such persons represent in their respective offices. Nor should they receive any influence from them except what they convey from sovereign authority. A Sovereign cannot be thought to love his people as he ought if he is not vigilant over them, but lets popular men flatter them away from their loyalty. This has often happened not just secretly but openly, with preachers proclaiming a marriage to these men In Facie Ecclesiae, and publicizing it in the streets. It may fittingly be compared with a breach of the second of the ten Commandments.

Nor Dispute the Sovereign Power

Third, it follows that they must be informed how grave a fault it is to speak ill of the sovereign representative, whether a man or an assembly; to question or dispute his power; or to speak of him irreverently in any way. Such conduct can bring him into contempt among his people and weaken the obedience on which the safety of the Common-wealth depends. By analogy, the third Commandment points to this teaching.

Fourth, the people cannot be taught these things, remember them once taught, or even know after a generation has passed where sovereign power lies, unless certain times are set apart from their ordinary work for them to attend appointed instructors. It is therefore necessary to establish times when they can gather and, after praying to and praising God, the Sovereign of sovereigns, hear their duties explained and the positive laws that concern everyone read and expounded, and be reminded of the authority that makes them laws. For this purpose the Jews had a Sabbath every seventh day, when the Law was read and expounded. Its observance reminded them that God was their King: he had created the world in six days and rested on the seventh; and their rest from labor reminded them that the God who was their King had delivered them from their painful servitude in Egypt and given them time, after rejoicing in God, to enjoy themselves through lawful recreation. Thus the whole first Table of the Commandments sets forth the sum of God's absolute power, not only as God but as King by agreement over the Jews in particular. It can therefore show those on whom men have conferred sovereign power what doctrine they ought to teach their subjects.

Because children's earliest instruction depends on the care of their parents, they must obey them while under their guidance. And afterward, as gratitude requires, they must acknowledge the benefit of their upbringing by outward signs of honor. To this end they should be taught that originally every person's father was also his sovereign lord, with power over his life and death; and that when fathers of families instituted a Common-wealth and surrendered that absolute power, they never meant to lose the honor owed them for raising their children. Surrendering such a right was not necessary to establish sovereign power. Nor would anyone have reason to want children, or to take the trouble to nourish and teach them, if afterward he could expect no more benefit from them than from anyone else. This agrees with the fifth Commandment.

ON THE DUTY OF THE SOVEREIGN REPRESENTATIVE

The Sovereign's duty, whether the Sovereign is a monarch or an assembly, follows from the purpose for which sovereign power was entrusted to it: securing the safety of the people. The Law of Nature binds the Sovereign to do this, and the Sovereign must account for it to God, the author of that law, and to no one else. Safety here does not mean mere survival. It also includes all the other comforts of life that each person can obtain through lawful work without endangering or harming the Common-wealth.

This safety is not to be secured by looking after individuals, except by protecting them from injuries when they complain. It is to be secured through general oversight: public instruction in both teaching and example, and the making and enforcement of good laws that individuals can apply to their own cases.

As I explained in Chapter eighteenth, taking away the essential rights of sovereignty dissolves the Common-wealth. Everyone then returns to the condition and misery of war against everyone else, the worst thing that can happen in this life. The Sovereign must therefore preserve those rights intact. First, it is against his duty to transfer any of them to another or give any up. Anyone who abandons the means abandons the ends. A Sovereign abandons the means if he acknowledges that he is subject to civil laws, or gives up supreme authority to judge cases, make war or peace on his own authority, or judge the Common-wealth's needs. The same is true if he gives up the power to raise money and soldiers whenever, and in whatever amounts, his conscience judges necessary; to appoint officials and servants for war and peace; or to appoint teachers and examine which doctrines support or oppose the people's defense, peace, and welfare. Second, the Sovereign fails in his duty if he allows people to remain ignorant or misinformed about the basis and reasons for these essential rights. Otherwise, they can easily be led into resisting him when the Common-wealth needs him to exercise those rights.

The basis of these rights must be taught carefully and truthfully because neither civil law nor fear of legal punishment can uphold them. A civil law forbidding rebellion, which includes any resistance to the essential rights of sovereignty, binds people not simply because it is a civil law. It binds them only through the Law of Nature against breaking one's promise. If people do not understand that natural obligation, they cannot understand the authority of any law the Sovereign makes. They regard punishment as an act of war. When they think themselves strong enough, they will try to avoid it through acts of war.

I have heard some people say that justice is only an empty word. They say that anything someone can gain through force or cleverness belongs to him, not only in a state of war but also in a Common-wealth. I have already shown that this is false. Others similarly claim that no rational grounds or principles support the essential rights that make sovereignty absolute. They argue that, if there were such principles, someone would have discovered them somewhere. Yet, they say, no Common-wealth has ever recognized or claimed those rights. This is as bad an argument as it would be for the native peoples of America to deny that sound principles for building a house lasting as long as its materials exist, simply because they have never seen one so well built. Time and effort produce new knowledge every day. The art of sound building comes from rational principles found by diligent people who long studied materials and the effects of shape and proportion. These principles were found long after humans had begun to build, however poorly. Likewise, long after people began to create imperfect Common-wealths liable to fall back into disorder, diligent thought can discover rational principles for governing them. Whether people use these principles or neglect them matters very little to my personal interests today. But even if the principles I have stated are not principles of reason, I am sure that Scripture gives them authority. I will show this when I discuss the Kingdom of God, which Moses administered over the Jews, God's special people by covenant.

Some object that even if these principles are right, ordinary people cannot understand them. I would be glad if the wealthy and powerful subjects of a kingdom, and those considered its most learned subjects, were no less able to understand them. But everyone knows that what prevents people from learning this teaching is not so much its difficulty as the interests of the learners. Powerful people have trouble accepting anything that gives another power control over their desires. Learned people have trouble accepting anything that exposes their mistakes and reduces their authority. Ordinary people's minds, by contrast, are like clean paper ready for whatever public authority writes on them, unless they have been corrupted by dependence on the powerful or covered with their teachers' opinions. Entire nations can be brought to accept the great mysteries of Christianity, which are beyond reason. Millions can be made to believe that the same body can be in countless places at once, which goes against reason. Why, then, could teachers and preachers protected by law not teach something so consistent with reason that any unprejudiced person needs only to hear it to learn it? I conclude that, while a Sovereign retains his full power, any difficulty in teaching people the essential rights of sovereignty, which are its natural and fundamental laws, comes from his own failure or that of the people to whom he entrusts the administration of the Common-wealth. He therefore has a duty to have people taught these rights. It is also to his own advantage and protects him as a person from the danger of rebellion.

To be specific, people should first be taught not to prefer any form of government they see in neighboring nations to their own, and not to seek change, whatever prosperity they see in nations governed differently. If people governed by an aristocratic or democratic assembly prosper, their prosperity does not come from aristocracy or democracy. It comes from the subjects' obedience and harmony. Likewise, people do not prosper under a monarchy simply because one man has the right to govern them; they prosper because they obey him. Take away obedience, and therefore harmony, from any kind of state. Its people will not prosper, and the state will soon dissolve. Those who try to reform a Common-wealth through disobedience will find that they destroy it instead. They resemble the foolish daughters of Peleus in the fable. They wanted to restore their aging father's youth, and on Medea's advice cut him into pieces and boiled him with strange herbs. They did not make him a new man. This wish for change resembles a breach of God's first Commandment. There God says, Non Habebis Deos Alienos, "You shall not have the gods of other nations." Elsewhere, speaking of kings, he calls them gods.

Second, people should be taught not to admire any fellow subject's virtue, however high his rank or prominent his position in the Common-wealth, so much that they give him the obedience or honor owed only to the Sovereign. The same applies to any assembly other than the sovereign assembly. People in such positions represent the Sovereign in their particular roles. Subjects should accept only the direction they convey from sovereign authority, not direction originating with them. A Sovereign cannot be thought to love his people as he should if he fails to watch over their loyalty and lets popular men flatter them into disloyalty. This has often happened not merely in secret but openly. Preachers have even proclaimed the people's union with these men like a marriage before the church, In Facie Ecclesiae, and it has been announced in the open streets. It can aptly be compared to breaking the second of the ten Commandments.

Nor Should They Dispute the Sovereign Power

Third, it follows that people should be told how wrong it is to speak badly of the sovereign representative, whether a person or an assembly; to question or dispute his power; or to use his name disrespectfully in any way. Doing so may make the people despise him and weaken the obedience on which the Common-wealth's safety depends. The third Commandment points by analogy to this teaching.

Fourth, people cannot learn this teaching, remember it, or even know where sovereign power lies after a generation has passed unless they set aside certain times from their ordinary work to listen to appointed teachers. Such times must therefore be fixed. People should gather then to pray to and praise God, the Sovereign of Sovereigns, and hear an account of their duties. Laws made by human authority that concern everyone should be read and explained to them, and they should be reminded of the authority that makes those rules laws. For this purpose the Jews had a Sabbath every seventh day, when the law was read and explained. Its observance reminded them that God was their King: he created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. Resting from their work also reminded them that the God who was their King freed them from painful slave labor in Egypt. After celebrating God, they had time to enjoy lawful recreation themselves. Thus the entire first table of the Commandments sets out the extent of God's absolute power, not only as God but also as King of the Jews in particular by covenant. It can therefore show those who receive sovereign power by human consent what they ought to teach their subjects.

Because children's first education depends on their parents' care, children must obey them while under their guidance. Afterwards, gratitude requires them to recognize the benefit of that education through outward signs of honor. They should therefore be taught that each person's father was originally also his sovereign lord, with power of life and death over him. When the fathers of families established a Common-wealth, they gave up that absolute power, but they never meant to lose the honor owed to them for raising their children. Giving up that right to honor was not necessary for establishing sovereign power. Nor would anyone have reason to want children, feed them, and teach them if they would later bring him no more benefit than strangers did. This agrees with the fifth Commandment.