Part II, Chapter XX, 2

In sum, the rights and consequences of both paternal and despotic dominion are exactly the same as those of a sovereign by institution, and for the same reasons, which were set out in the preceding chapter. Suppose a man is monarch of several nations, holding sovereignty in one by institution through the people assembled, and in another by conquest—that is, through the submission of each individual to escape death or imprisonment. To demand more from one nation than from the other on the grounds that it is a conquered nation betrays ignorance of the rights of sovereignty. For the sovereign has absolute power over both alike, or else there is no sovereignty at all, and every man may lawfully defend himself with his own sword, if he can: that is the condition of war.

It appears from this that a large family, if it belongs to no Common-wealth, is itself a little monarchy as regards the rights of sovereignty, whether the family consists of a man and his children, a man and his servants, or a man with both children and servants; the father or master is its sovereign. Yet a family is not properly a Common-wealth unless its numbers, or some other advantage, give it enough power that it cannot be subdued without the hazard of war. Where a group is plainly too weak to defend itself even when united, each member may use his own reason in time of danger to save his life, whether by flight or by submitting to the enemy, as he thinks best. So a very small company of soldiers surprised by an army may lay down its arms and ask for quarter, or flee, rather than be put to the sword. This will suffice for what I find, by reflection and deduction, concerning sovereign rights derived from the nature, needs, and designs of men in establishing Common-wealths and placing themselves under monarchs or assemblies entrusted with sufficient power to protect them.

Let us now consider what Scripture teaches on this point. The children of Israel say to Moses (Exod. 20. 19): “Speak to us, and we will hear you; but do not let God speak to us, lest we die.” This is absolute obedience to Moses. Concerning the right of kings, God himself says through Samuel (1 Sam. 8. 11, 12, &c.): “This shall be the right of the king you wish to reign over you. He shall take your sons and set them to drive his chariots, to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and to gather in his harvest, and to make his engines of war and the equipment of his chariots. He shall take your daughters to make perfumes and to be his cooks and bakers. He shall take your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves and give them to his servants. He shall take the tithe of your grain and wine and give it to the men of his chamber and to his other servants. He shall take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and employ them in his business. He shall take the tithe of your flocks; and you shall be his servants.” This is absolute power, summed up in the final words: “you shall be his servants.” Again, when the people had heard what power their king would have, they nevertheless consented to it, saying (Verse. 19 &c.): “We will be like all other nations, and our king shall judge our causes and go before us to lead our wars.” Here the sovereign's right both to command the military and to exercise all judicial authority is confirmed, comprising as absolute a power as one man can possibly transfer to another. Again, King Solomon prayed to God as follows (1 Kings 3. 9): “Give your servant understanding to judge your people and to discern between good and evil.” It therefore belongs to the sovereign to judge and to prescribe the rules for discerning good and evil. Those rules are laws; the legislative power therefore lies with him. Saul sought David's life, yet when David had the power to kill Saul and his servants would have done so, he forbade them, saying (1 Sam. 24. 9): “God forbid that I should act against my lord, God's anointed.” Concerning the obedience of servants, St. Paul says (Coll. 3. 20): “Servants, obey your masters in all things,” and (Verse. 22): “Children, obey your parents in all things.” Those subject to paternal or despotic dominion owe unqualified obedience. Again (Math. 23. 2,3): “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' chair; therefore observe and do all that they bid you observe.” Here again is unqualified obedience. And St. Paul (Tit. 3. 2): “Remind them to submit to princes and those in authority, and to obey them.” This obedience too is unqualified. Lastly, our Savior himself acknowledges that men ought to pay the taxes imposed by kings, saying, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar's”; and he paid such taxes himself. He acknowledges too that a king's word suffices to take anything from a subject when it is needed, and that the king judges that need. For as king of the Jews he himself commanded his disciples to take the donkey and her colt to carry him into Jerusalem, saying (Mat. 21. 2,3): “Go into the village opposite you, and you shall find a female donkey tied up, with her colt; untie them and bring them to me. And if anyone asks what you mean by it, say the Lord needs them, and they will let them go.” They will not ask whether his need provides sufficient title, or whether he is the judge of that need, but will accept the Lord's will.

To these passages may be added the passage in Genesis (Gen. 3. 5): “You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil”; and verse 11: “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” For knowledge and judgment of good and evil were forbidden under the name of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, as a test of Adam's obedience. The Devil, to inflame the woman's ambition when the fruit already seemed beautiful to her, told her that by tasting it they would be as gods, knowing good and evil. Having both eaten it, they did indeed assume God's office, that of judging good and evil, but gained no new ability to distinguish rightly between them. And when it is said that after eating they saw they were naked, no one has understood this to mean that they had previously been blind and could not see their own skin. Its meaning is plain: only then did they first judge their nakedness, in which God had chosen to create them, to be unseemly; by feeling shame they silently censured God himself. God therefore says, “Have you eaten, &c.,” as if to say: Do you, who owe me obedience, presume to judge my commandments? This clearly signifies, though allegorically, that subjects must neither censure nor dispute the commands of those who have the right to command.

Thus it seems plain to me, both from reason and from Scripture, that sovereign power, whether placed in one man, as in a monarchy, or in one assembly, as in popular and aristocratic Common-wealths, is as great as men can possibly be imagined to make it. Men may imagine many evil consequences of a power so unlimited, yet the consequences of lacking it—the perpetual war of every man against his neighbor—are much worse. The condition of man in this life will never be without hardships; but no great hardship occurs in any Common-wealth except through the subjects' disobedience and breach of the Covenants from which the Common-wealth arose. Anyone who thinks sovereign power too great and seeks to diminish it must subject himself to the power that can limit it—that is, to a greater power.

The strongest objection is one drawn from practice: men ask where and when subjects have acknowledged such power. But one may ask them in return when or where a kingdom has long remained free from sedition and civil war. In nations whose Common-wealths have endured for a long time and were destroyed only by foreign war, subjects never disputed sovereign power. In any case, an argument drawn from the practice of men who have not probed to the bottom or weighed with precise reasoning the causes and nature of Common-wealths, and who suffer daily the miseries arising from their ignorance, is invalid. Even if men everywhere in the world laid the foundations of their houses on sand, it would not follow that they ought to do so. The skill of making and preserving Common-wealths consists in certain rules, as arithmetic and geometry do, and does not rest on practice alone, as tennis does. The poor have no leisure to discover these rules; and those who have had the leisure have until now lacked the curiosity or the method.

CHAPTER XXI. OF THE LIBERTY OF SUBJECTS

In short, parental rule and masterly rule have exactly the same rights and consequences as sovereignty established by agreement, for the reasons given in the previous chapter. Suppose a monarch rules several nations. In one, an assembled people appointed him sovereign; in another, he gained sovereignty by conquest when each person submitted to avoid death or imprisonment. It would show ignorance of sovereign rights to demand more from the conquered nation simply because it was conquered. The sovereign has equally complete power over both. Otherwise there is no sovereignty at all, and each person may lawfully defend himself with his own sword if he can. That is the condition of war.

It follows that a large family outside any commonwealth is itself a small monarchy as far as sovereign rights are concerned. The family may consist of a man and his children, a man and his servants, or all of them together. The father or master is sovereign over it. But a family is not properly a commonwealth unless its numbers or other advantages make it strong enough that it cannot be subdued without the risks of war. When a group is clearly too weak to defend itself together, each person may use his own judgment in danger to save his life, by fleeing or submitting to the enemy as he thinks best. Similarly, a very small company of soldiers surprised by an army may lay down its weapons and ask for quarter, or run away, rather than be killed. That is enough about what I can work out through reasoning from people's nature, needs, and purposes when they establish commonwealths and put themselves under monarchs or assemblies with enough power to protect them.

Now consider what Scripture teaches about the same matter. The children of Israel say to Moses, (Exod. 20. 19) "Speak to us yourself, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, or we will die." This is complete obedience to Moses. On the rights of kings, God himself says through Samuel, (1 Sam. 8. 11, 12, &c.) "This will be the right of the king you want to rule over you. He will take your sons and put them to work driving his chariots, riding as his horsemen, running before his chariots, gathering his harvest, and making his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to make perfumes and to be his cooks and bakers. He will take your fields, vineyards, and olive groves and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and wine and give it to his household officers and other servants. He will take your male and female servants and your finest young people and put them to work for him. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you will be his servants." This is unlimited power, summed up in the last words, "you will be his servants." Even after hearing what power their king would have, the people agreed. They said, (Verse. 19 &c.) "We will be like all the other nations. Our king will judge our cases, go before us, and lead us in our wars." This confirms the sovereign's right to command the armed forces and to judge all cases. Together those rights amount to as much power as one person can possibly hand to another. King Solomon also prayed to God, (1 Kings 3. 9) "Give your servant understanding to judge your people and tell good from evil." So the sovereign is responsible for judging and setting the rules for telling good from evil. Those rules are laws, which means the sovereign holds legislative power. Saul sought David's life, but when David had a chance to kill Saul and his servants wanted to do it, David stopped them, saying (1 Sam. 24. 9) "God forbid that I should do such a thing against my lord, God's anointed." On servants' obedience St. Paul says, (Coll. 3. 20) "Servants, obey your masters in all things," and, (Verse. 22) "Children, obey your parents in all things." People under parental or masterly rule owe complete obedience. Again, (Math. 23. 2,3) "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, so observe and do everything they tell you to observe." Here too obedience is complete. And St. Paul says, (Tit. 3. 2) "Remind them to submit to rulers and those in authority, and to obey them." Again, that obedience is complete. Finally, our Savior himself recognizes that people should pay the taxes kings impose when he says, "Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar." He paid such taxes himself. He also shows that a king's word is enough to take anything from a subject when it is needed, and that the king judges that need. As King of the Jews, he told his disciples to take a donkey and its colt so he could ride into Jerusalem, saying, (Mat. 21. 2,3) "Go into the village opposite you. You will find a female donkey tied there, with her colt. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone asks what you are doing, say the Lord needs them, and they will let them go." They will not ask whether his need gives him a sufficient claim or whether he can judge that need. They will accept the Lord's will.

We can add these words from Genesis, (Gen. 3. 5) "You will be like gods, knowing good and evil," and verse 11, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree I commanded you not to eat from?" God forbade Adam to claim the power to judge good and evil, represented by the name of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. That command tested Adam's obedience. The devil stirred up the woman's ambition. The fruit already looked beautiful to her, and he told her that eating it would make them like gods, knowing good and evil. After they both ate, they really did take on God's role of judging good and evil. But they gained no new ability to tell them apart correctly. Scripture says that after eating they saw they were naked. Nobody has taken this to mean they had been blind before and could not see their own skin. Clearly, this was the first time they judged their nakedness, in which God had chosen to create them, to be improper. By feeling shame they silently criticized God himself. So God asks, "Have you eaten, and so on?" It is as if he said, "You owe me obedience. Are you taking it upon yourself to judge my commands?" The allegory clearly means that subjects must not criticize or dispute the commands of those who have the right to command them.

In my view, both reason and Scripture clearly show that sovereign power is as great as people could possibly make it. This is true whether sovereignty belongs to one person in a monarchy or to an assembly in a democratic or aristocratic commonwealth. People may imagine many bad results from such unlimited power. Yet the results of lacking it are much worse: endless war between neighbors. Human life will never be free of difficulties. But no serious difficulty arises in a commonwealth except from subjects disobeying and breaking the covenants that created it. Anyone who thinks sovereign power too great and tries to reduce it must submit to a power able to limit it. That means submitting to an even greater power.

The strongest objection concerns actual practice. People ask where and when subjects have ever acknowledged this kind of power. But one could ask them when and where a kingdom has long remained free from rebellion and civil war. In nations whose commonwealths have lasted a long time and have been destroyed only by foreign war, subjects have never disputed sovereign power. In any case, the practice of people who have not examined commonwealths thoroughly or carefully reasoned about their causes and nature proves nothing. Those people suffer every day from their ignorance of the subject. Even if everyone in the world built houses on sand, that would not prove they should do so. Making and maintaining commonwealths depends on definite rules, like arithmetic and geometry. It does not depend only on practice, as playing tennis does. Poor people have no time to discover these rules. Those who have had time have so far lacked the curiosity or the method to find them.

CHAPTER XXI. ON THE FREEDOM OF SUBJECTS