Before I infer anything from this definition, there is a question to be answered of much importance; which is, by what door the right or authority of punishing in any case came in. For by that which has been said before, no man is supposed bound by covenant, not to resist violence; and consequently it cannot be intended that he gave any right to another to lay violent hands upon his person. In the making of a commonwealth, every man giveth away the right of defending another, but not of defending himself. Also he obligeth himself to assist him that hath the sovereignty in the punishing of another; but of himself not. But to covenant to assist the sovereign in doing hurt to another, unless he that so covenanteth have a right to do it himself, is not to give him a right to punish. It is manifest therefore that the right which the commonwealth, that is, he or they that represent it, hath to punish is not grounded on any concession or gift of the subjects. But I have also showed formerly, that before the institution of commonwealth every man had a right to everything, and to do whatsoever he thought necessary to his own preservation; subduing, hurting, or killing any man in order thereunto. And this is the foundation of that right of punishing which is exercised in every commonwealth.