The Authority of Parents and Masters

A Common-wealth by Acquisition, is that, where the Soveraign Power is acquired by Force; And it is acquired by force, when men singly, or many together by plurality of voyces, for fear of death, or bonds, do authorise all the actions of that Man, or Assembly, that hath their lives and liberty in his Power.

A commonwealth by acquisition is one in which sovereign power is gained by force. Power is gained this way when people, individually or together by majority vote, authorize all actions of a man or assembly out of fear of death or imprisonment. That man or assembly has control over their lives and freedom.

And this kind of Dominion, or Soveraignty, differeth from Soveraignty by Institution, onely in this, That men who choose their Soveraign, do it for fear of one another, and not of him whom they Institute: But in this case, they subject themselves, to him they are afraid of. In both cases they do it for fear: which is to be noted by them, that hold all such Covenants, as proceed from fear of death, or violence, voyd: which if it were true, no man, in any kind of Common-wealth, could be obliged to Obedience. It is true, that in a Common-wealth once Instituted, or acquired, Promises proceeding from fear of death, or violence, are no Covenants, nor obliging, when the thing promised is contrary to the Lawes; But the reason is not, because it was made upon fear, but because he that promiseth, hath no right in the thing promised. Also, when he may lawfully performe, and doth not, it is not the Invalidity of the Covenant, that absolveth him, but the Sentence of the Soveraign. Otherwise, whensoever a man lawfully promiseth, he unlawfully breaketh: But when the Soveraign, who is the Actor, acquitteth him, then he is acquitted by him that exorted the promise, as by the Author of such absolution.

This kind of rule, or sovereignty, differs from sovereignty established by agreement in only one respect. People who choose their sovereign do so out of fear of one another, not of the sovereign they appoint. But in this case, people submit to the person they fear. In both cases, people act out of fear. Those who consider all covenants made from fear of death or violence invalid should note this. If that view were true, no one in any kind of commonwealth could be bound to obey. It is true that, once a commonwealth is established or acquired, some promises made under such threats are not binding covenants. This applies when the promised action is against the law. But the reason is not that the promise was made out of fear. The reason is that the person making the promise has no right to do what he promises. Also, when someone can lawfully keep a promise but does not, the covenant’s invalidity does not release him. Rather, the sovereign’s judgment releases him. Otherwise, whenever someone lawfully makes a promise, breaking that promise is unlawful. But when the sovereign, acting as a representative, acquits him, the person who forced the promise also acquits him. That person is the one who authorizes the release.

But the Rights, and Consequences of Soveraignty, are the same in both. His Power cannot, without his consent, be Transferred to another: He cannot Forfeit it: He cannot be Accused by any of his Subjects, of Injury: He cannot be Punished by them: He is Judge of what is necessary for Peace; and Judge of Doctrines: He is Sole Legislator; and Supreme Judge of Controversies; and of the Times, and Occasions of Warre, and Peace: to him it belongeth to choose Magistrates, Counsellours, Commanders, and all other Officers, and Ministers; and to determine of Rewards, and punishments, Honour, and Order. The reasons whereof, are the same which are alledged in the precedent Chapter, for the same Rights, and Consequences of Soveraignty by Institution.

But the rights and consequences of sovereignty are the same in both cases. The sovereign’s power cannot be transferred to another without his consent. He cannot forfeit his power. None of his subjects can accuse him of wronging them. They cannot punish him. He judges what is necessary for peace and decides which doctrines are acceptable. He alone makes laws and is the highest judge in disputes. He decides when and under what circumstances to make war and peace. He chooses magistrates, advisers, commanders, and all other officers and ministers. He also determines rewards, punishments, honors, and rank. The reasons for these rights and consequences are the same as those given in the previous chapter for sovereignty by institution.

Dominion is acquired two wayes; By Generation, and by Conquest. The right of Dominion by Generation, is that, which the Parent hath over his Children; and is called PATERNALL. And is not so derived from the Generation, as if therefore the Parent had Dominion over his Child because he begat him; but from the Childs Consent, either expresse, or by other sufficient arguments declared. For as to the Generation, God hath ordained to man a helper; and there be alwayes two that are equally Parents: the Dominion therefore over the Child, should belong equally to both; and he be equally subject to both, which is impossible; for no man can obey two Masters. And whereas some have attributed the Dominion to the Man onely, as being of the more excellent Sex; they misreckon in it. For there is not always that difference of strength or prudence between the man and the woman, as that the right can be determined without War. In Common-wealths, this controversie is decided by the Civill Law: and for the most part, (but not alwayes) the sentence is in favour of the Father; because for the most part Common-wealths have been erected by the Fathers, not by the Mothers of families. But the question lyeth now in the state of meer Nature; where there are supposed no lawes of Matrimony; no lawes for the Education of Children; but the Law of Nature, and the naturall inclination of the Sexes, one to another, and to their children. In this condition of meer Nature, either the Parents between themselves dispose of the dominion over the Child by Contract; or do not dispose thereof at all. If they dispose thereof, the right passeth according to the Contract. We find in History that the Amazons Contracted with the Men of the neighbouring Countries, to whom they had recourse for issue, that the issue Male should be sent back, but the Female remain with themselves: so that the dominion of the Females was in the Mother.

Dominion is acquired in two ways: through parenthood and through conquest. The right of dominion through parenthood is the authority a parent has over their children. This authority is called PATERNAL. It does not come from the act of procreation, as if a parent ruled a child simply by begetting them. Instead, it comes from the child’s consent, expressed directly or shown by other sufficient evidence. For God has given man a helper in procreation, and there are always two people who are equally parents. Dominion over the child should therefore belong equally to both parents, and the child should be equally subject to both. But this is impossible, because no one can obey two masters. Some have assigned dominion to the man alone, on the grounds that his sex is superior. But they are mistaken. Men and women do not always differ enough in strength or wisdom to settle this right without war. In commonwealths, civil law settles this dispute. The decision usually, but not always, favors the father. This is because commonwealths have mostly been established by the fathers of families, not the mothers. But the question here concerns the pure state of nature. In that state, we assume there are no marriage laws or laws governing the upbringing of children. There is only the law of nature, together with the sexes’ natural affection for each other and their children. In this pure state of nature, parents either agree by contract who will have dominion over the child, or do not. If they make such an agreement, the right passes according to the contract. History tells us that the Amazons made contracts with men from neighboring countries, whom they approached to have children. The contracts required sons to be sent back to the men, while daughters remained with the Amazons. So dominion over the daughters belonged to the mother.

If there be no Contract, the Dominion is in the Mother. For in the condition of Meer Nature, where there are no Matrimoniall lawes, it cannot be known who is the Father, unlesse it be declared by the Mother: and therefore the right of Dominion over the Child dependeth on her will, and is consequently hers. Again, seeing the Infant is first in the power of the Mother; so as she may either nourish, or expose it, if she nourish it, it oweth its life to the Mother; and is therefore obliged to obey her, rather than any other; and by consequence the Dominion over it is hers. But if she expose it, and another find, and nourish it, the Dominion is in him that nourisheth it. For it ought to obey him by whom it is preserved; because preservation of life being the end, for which one man becomes subject to another, every man is supposed to promise obedience, to him, in whose power it is to save, or destroy him.

If there is no contract, authority over the child belongs to the mother. For in the state of nature, where there are no marriage laws, only the mother can identify the father. Therefore, the right to rule over the child depends on her will and consequently belongs to her. Also, the infant is first in the mother’s power, so she may either feed the child or abandon the child. If she feeds the child, the child owes its life to her. The child is therefore obliged to obey her rather than anyone else. Consequently, authority over the child belongs to her. But if she abandons the child, and someone else finds and feeds the child, authority belongs to that person. For the child ought to obey the person who keeps the child alive. This is because preserving life is the purpose for which one person becomes subject to another. Everyone is therefore assumed to promise obedience to whoever has the power to save or destroy them.

If the Mother be the Fathers subject, the Child, is in the Fathers power: and if the Father be the Mothers subject, (as when a Soveraign Queen marrieth one of her subjects,) the Child is subject to the Mother; because the Father also is her subject.

If the mother is the father’s subject, the child is under the father’s authority. If the father is the mother’s subject, the child is subject to the mother, because the father is also her subject. This happens, for example, when a ruling queen marries one of her subjects.

If a man and a woman, Monarches of two severall Kingdomes, have a Child, and contract concerning who shall have the Dominion of him, the Right of the Dominion passeth by the Contract. If they contract not, the Dominion followeth the Dominion of the place of his residence. For the Soveraign of each Country hath Dominion over all that reside therein.

If a man and a woman who rule separate kingdoms have a child, they may agree who will rule him. If the parents make such an agreement, the right to rule the child passes according to that agreement. If the parents make no agreement, the right belongs to the ruler of the country where the child lives. For the ruler of each country has authority over everyone who lives there.

He that hath the Dominion over the Child, hath Dominion also over their Childrens Children. For he that hath Dominion over the person of a man, hath Dominion over all that is his; without which, Dominion were but a Title, without the effect.

Whoever has authority over a child also has authority over that child’s children and grandchildren. For whoever has authority over a person has authority over everything that person owns. Without authority over those possessions, authority over the person would be only a title, with no real effect.

The Right of Succession to Paternall dominion, proceedeth in the same manner, as doth the Right of Succession to Monarchy; of which I have already sufficiently spoken in the precedent chapter.

The right to inherit paternal authority follows the same rules as the right to inherit a monarchy. I have already discussed succession to monarchy in enough detail in the previous chapter.

Dominion acquired by Conquest, or Victory in war, is that which some Writers call DESPOTICALL, from Despotes, which signifieth a Lord, or Master; and is the Dominion of the Master over his Servant. And this Dominion is then acquired to the Victor, when the Vanquished, to avoyd the present stroke of death, covenanteth either in expresse words, or by other sufficient signes of the Will, that so long as his life, and the liberty of his body is allowed him, the Victor shall have the use thereof, at his pleasure. And after such Covenant made, the Vanquished is a SERVANT, and not before: for by the word Servant (whether it be derived from Servire, to Serve, or from Servare, to Save, which I leave to Grammarians to dispute) is not meant a Captive, which is kept in prison, or bonds, till the owner of him that took him, or bought him of one that did, shall consider what to do with him: (for such men, (commonly called Slaves,) have no obligation at all; but may break their bonds, or the prison; and kill, or carry away captive their Master, justly:) but one, that being taken, hath corporall liberty allowed him; and upon promise not to run away, nor to do violence to his Master, is trusted by him.

Rule acquired through conquest, or victory in war, is what some writers call DESPOTICALL. The term comes from Despotes, meaning a lord or master. It is the rule of a master over his servant. The victor acquires this rule when the defeated person makes an agreement to avoid immediate death. The defeated person expresses this agreement either in words or through other sufficient signs of his will. He agrees that the victor may use his life and body as the victor pleases, so long as he is allowed to live and move freely. Only after this agreement does the defeated person become a SERVANT, and not before. The word servant may come from Servire, meaning to serve, or from Servare, meaning to save. I leave grammarians to debate that question. But a servant does not mean a captive kept in prison or chains while his owner decides what to do with him. The owner may have captured him or bought him from someone who did. Such captives, commonly called slaves, have no obligation at all. They may rightfully break their chains or escape from prison, and kill their master or take him captive. A servant, instead, is someone who has been captured but is allowed to move freely. His master trusts him on his promise not to run away or use violence against his master.

It is not therefore the Victory, that giveth the right of Dominion over the Vanquished, but his own Covenant. Nor is he obliged because he is Conquered; that is to say, beaten, and taken, or put to flight; but because he commeth in, and submitteth to the Victor; Nor is the Victor obliged by an enemies rendring himselfe, (without promise of life,) to spare him for this his yeelding to discretion; which obliges not the Victor longer, than in his own discretion hee shall think fit.

Victory, therefore, does not give the victor the right to rule the defeated person. That right comes from the defeated person’s own agreement. Nor is the defeated person bound to obey because he has been conquered, meaning beaten, captured, or driven away. Rather, he is bound because he comes forward and submits to the victor. Nor must the victor spare an enemy who surrenders without a promise that his life will be spared. Such an enemy leaves his fate to the victor’s judgment. His surrender binds the victor no longer than the victor himself sees fit.

And that men do, when they demand (as it is now called) Quarter, (which the Greeks called Zogria, taking alive,) is to evade the present fury of the Victor, by Submission, and to compound for their life, with Ransome, or Service: and therefore he that hath Quarter, hath not his life given, but deferred till farther deliberation; For it is not an yeelding on condition of life, but to discretion. And then onely is his life in security, and his service due, when the Victor hath trusted him with his corporall liberty. For Slaves that work in Prisons, or Fetters, do it not of duty, but to avoyd the cruelty of their task-masters.

When men ask for what is now called quarter, they submit to escape the victor’s immediate fury. The Greeks called this Zogria (taking alive). They bargain for their lives by offering ransom or service. So a man granted quarter has not been given his life. His death has only been postponed until the victor considers the matter further. For he has surrendered at the victor’s discretion, not on condition that his life be spared. His life is secure, and his service owed, only when the victor trusts him with physical freedom. For slaves who work in prisons or chains do not work out of duty, but to avoid their taskmasters’ cruelty.

The Master of the Servant, is Master also of all he hath; and may exact the use thereof; that is to say, of his goods, of his labour, of his servants, and of his children, as often as he shall think fit. For he holdeth his life of his Master, by the covenant of obedience; that is, of owning, and authorising whatsoever the Master shall do. And in case the Master, if he refuse, kill him, or cast him into bonds, or otherwise punish him for his disobedience, he is himselfe the author of the same; and cannot accuse him of injury.

A servant’s master is also master of everything the servant has, and may demand its use whenever he sees fit. This includes the servant’s goods, labor, servants, and children. For the servant owes his life to his master under their agreement of obedience. Under this agreement, the servant accepts responsibility for and authorizes whatever the master does. If the servant disobeys and the master kills, imprisons, or otherwise punishes him, the servant himself has authorized the punishment. He therefore cannot accuse his master of wronging him.

In summe the Rights and Consequences of both Paternall and Despoticall Dominion, are the very same with those of a Soveraign by Institution; and for the same reasons: which reasons are set down in the precedent chapter. So that for a man that is Monarch of divers Nations, whereof he hath, in one the Soveraignty by Institution of the people assembled, and in another by Conquest, that is by the Submission of each particular, to avoyd death or bonds; to demand of one Nation more than of the other, from the title of Conquest, as being a Conquered Nation, is an act of ignorance of the Rights of Soveraignty. For the Soveraign is absolute over both alike; or else there is no Soveraignty at all; and so every man may Lawfully protect himselfe, if he can, with his own sword, which is the condition of war.

In short, paternal and despotic rule carry exactly the same rights and consequences as sovereignty established by agreement. The reasons are also the same, as explained in the previous chapter. So consider a monarch who rules several nations. In one, his sovereignty comes from the agreement of the people gathered together. In another, his sovereignty comes from conquest, through each individual’s submission to avoid death or imprisonment. If he demands more from one nation because he conquered it, he shows ignorance of the rights of sovereignty. For the sovereign’s power is equally absolute over both nations, or there is no sovereignty at all. Without sovereignty, every person may lawfully defend himself with his own sword, if he can. That is the condition of war.

By this it appears, that a great Family if it be not part of some Common-wealth, is of it self, as to the Rights of Soveraignty, a little Monarchy; whether that Family consist of a man and his children; or of a man and his servants; or of a man, and his children, and servants together: wherein the Father of Master is the Soveraign. But yet a Family is not properly a Common-wealth; unlesse it be of that power by its own number, or by other opportunities, as not to be subdued without the hazard of war. For where a number of men are manifestly too weak to defend themselves united, every one may use his own reason in time of danger, to save his own life, either by flight, or by submission to the enemy, as hee shall think best; in the same manner as a very small company of souldiers, surprised by an army, may cast down their armes, and demand quarter, or run away, rather than be put to the sword. And thus much shall suffice; concerning what I find by speculation, and deduction, of Soveraign Rights, from the nature, need, and designes of men, in erecting of Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Monarchs, or Assemblies, entrusted with power enough for their protection.

This shows that a large household, if independent of any commonwealth, is itself a small monarchy in its sovereign rights. The household may consist of a man and his children, a man and his servants, or all three together. In each case, the father or master is sovereign. Yet a household is not properly a commonwealth unless its numbers or other advantages give it sufficient strength. It must be strong enough that subduing it would involve the risks of war. For when people are clearly too weak to defend themselves even together, each may use his own judgment in danger. Each may save his own life by fleeing or submitting to the enemy, as he thinks best. In the same way, a very small group of soldiers surprised by an army may throw down their weapons. They may ask to be spared or run away rather than be killed. This will suffice for what I have concluded through reasoning and deduction about sovereign rights. I have derived these rights from human nature, needs, and purposes in establishing commonwealths. People place themselves under monarchs or assemblies entrusted with enough power to protect them.

Let us now consider what the Scripture teacheth in the same point. To Moses, the children of Israel say thus. (Exod. 20. 19) “Speak thou to us, and we will heare thee; but let not God speak to us, lest we dye.” This is absolute obedience to Moses. Concerning the Right of Kings, God himself by the mouth of Samuel, saith, (1 Sam. 8. 11, 12, &c.) “This shall be the Right of the King you will have to reigne over you. He shall take your sons, and set them to drive his Chariots, and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and gather in his harvest; and to make his engines of War, and Instruments of his chariots; and shall take your daughters to make perfumes, to be his Cookes, and Bakers. He shall take your fields, your vine-yards, and your olive-yards, and give them to his servants. He shall take the tyth of your corne and wine, and give it to the men of his chamber, and to his other servants. He shall take your man-servants, and your maid-servants, and the choice of your youth, and employ them in his businesse. He shall take the tyth of your flocks; and you shall be his servants.” This is absolute power, and summed up in the last words, “you shall be his servants.” Againe, when the people heard what power their King was to have, yet they consented thereto, and say thus, (Verse. 19 &c.) “We will be as all other nations, and our King shall judge our causes, and goe before us, to conduct our wars.” Here is confirmed the Right that Soveraigns have, both to the Militia, and to all Judicature; in which is conteined as absolute power, as one man can possibly transferre to another. Again, the prayer of King Salomon to God, was this. (1 Kings 3. 9) “Give to thy servant understanding, to judge thy people, and to discerne between Good and Evill.” It belongeth therefore to the Soveraigne to bee Judge, and to praescribe the Rules of Discerning Good and Evill; which Rules are Lawes; and therefore in him is the Legislative Power. Saul sought the life of David; yet when it was in his power to slay Saul, and his Servants would have done it, David forbad them, saying (1 Sam. 24. 9) “God forbid I should do such an act against my Lord, the anoynted of God.” For obedience of servants St. Paul saith, (Coll. 3. 20) “Servants obey your masters in All things,” and, (Verse. 22) “Children obey your Parents in All things.” There is simple obedience in those that are subject to Paternall, or Despoticall Dominion. Again, (Math. 23. 2,3) “The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chayre and therefore All that they shall bid you observe, that observe and do.” There again is simple obedience. And St. Paul, (Tit. 3. 2) “Warn them that they subject themselves to Princes, and to those that are in Authority, & obey them.” This obedience is also simple. Lastly, our Saviour himselfe acknowledges, that men ought to pay such taxes as are by Kings imposed, where he sayes, “Give to Caesar that which is Caesars;” and payed such taxes himselfe. And that the Kings word, is sufficient to take any thing from any subject, when there is need; and that the King is Judge of that need: For he himselfe, as King of the Jewes, commanded his Disciples to take the Asse, and Asses Colt to carry him into Jerusalem, saying, (Mat. 21. 2,3) “Go into the Village over against you, and you shall find a shee Asse tyed, and her Colt with her, unty them, and bring them to me. And if any man ask you, what you mean by it, Say the Lord hath need of them: And they will let them go.” They will not ask whether his necessity be a sufficient title; nor whether he be judge of that necessity; but acquiesce in the will of the Lord.

Let us now consider what Scripture teaches on the same point. The children of Israel say to Moses (Exod. 20. 19), “Speak to us, and we will listen. But do not let God speak to us, or we will die.” This is absolute obedience to Moses. Concerning the rights of kings, God himself speaks through Samuel (1 Sam. 8. 11, 12, etc.): “These shall be the rights of the king you choose to rule over you. He shall take your sons to drive his chariots, serve as his horsemen, and run before his chariots. He shall also make them gather his harvest and build his war machines and equipment for his chariots. He shall take your daughters to make perfumes and serve as his cooks and bakers. He shall take your fields, vineyards, and olive groves and give them to his servants. He shall take a tenth of your grain and wine and give it to his attendants and other servants. He shall take your male and female servants and the best of your young people, and put them to work. He shall take a tenth 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, although the people heard what power their king would have, they still agreed to it. They said (verse 19, etc.), “We will be like all other nations. Our king shall judge our disputes and go before us to lead us in war.” These words confirm sovereigns’ rights to control both the armed forces and the administration of justice. These rights contain power as absolute as one person can possibly transfer to another. Again, King Salomon prayed to God (1 Kings 3. 9), “Give your servant understanding to judge your people and distinguish good from evil.” It therefore belongs to the sovereign to judge and establish the rules for distinguishing good from evil. Those rules are laws, so the sovereign holds the power to make laws. Saul sought David’s life. Yet when David had the power to kill Saul, and David’s servants wanted to do so, David forbade them. He said (1 Sam. 24. 9), “God forbid that I should do such a thing against my lord, God’s anointed.” On the obedience of servants, St. Paul says (Col. 3. 20), “Servants, obey your masters in all things.” He also says (verse 22), “Children, obey your parents in all things.” Those under parental authority or the authority of a master owe unconditional obedience. Again (Matt. 23. 2, 3), “The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore, observe and do everything they tell you to observe.” Here again is unconditional obedience. And St. Paul says (Tit. 3. 2), “Remind them to submit to princes and those in authority, and to obey them.” This obedience is also unconditional. Lastly, our Saviour himself acknowledges that people ought to pay whatever taxes kings impose. He says, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar,” and paid such taxes himself. He also acknowledges that a king’s command is enough to take anything from any subject when there is a need. And the king is the judge of that need. For he himself, as King of the Jews, commanded his disciples to take the donkey and her colt. They were to carry him into Jerusalem. He said (Matt. 21. 2, 3), “Go into the village opposite you. You will find a female donkey tied there, with her colt beside her. 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 sufficient right to take the animals. Nor will they ask whether he is the judge of that need. Instead, they will accept the Lord’s will.

To these places may be added also that of Genesis, (Gen. 3. 5) “You shall be as Gods, knowing Good and Evill.” and verse 11. “Who told thee that thou wast naked? hast thou eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee thou shouldest not eat?” For the Cognisance of Judicature of Good and Evill, being forbidden by the name of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge, as a triall of Adams obedience; The Divell to enflame the Ambition of the woman, to whom that fruit already seemed beautifull, told her that by tasting it, they should be as Gods, knowing Good and Evill. Whereupon having both eaten, they did indeed take upon them Gods office, which is Judicature of Good and Evill; but acquired no new ability to distinguish between them aright. And whereas it is sayd, that having eaten, they saw they were naked; no man hath so interpreted that place, as if they had formerly blind, as saw not their own skins: the meaning is plain, that it was then they first judged their nakednesse (wherein it was Gods will to create them) to be uncomely; and by being ashamed, did tacitely censure God himselfe. And thereupon God saith, “Hast thou eaten, &c.” as if he should say, doest thou that owest me obedience, take upon thee to judge of my Commandements? Whereby it is cleerly, (though Allegorically,) signified, that the Commands of them that have the right to command, are not by their Subjects to be censured, nor disputed.

To these passages we may also add Genesis (Gen. 3. 5): “You shall 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 judging good and evil, represented by the fruit of the tree of Knowledge, to test Adam’s obedience. The fruit already looked beautiful to the woman. To inflame her ambition, the Devil told her that tasting it would make them like gods, knowing good and evil. So, after both had eaten, they did indeed take on God’s role of judging good and evil. But they gained no new ability to distinguish correctly between good and evil. The passage says that after eating, they saw they were naked. No one has interpreted this passage to mean they had previously been blind and unable to see their own skin. The meaning is plain. Only then did they first judge their nakedness to be improper, although God had chosen to create them naked. By feeling ashamed, they silently passed judgment on God himself. God then says, “Have you eaten, etc.” It is as if he were saying: Do you, who owe me obedience, take it upon yourself to judge my commands? This clearly shows, though through allegory, that subjects must neither criticize nor dispute the commands of those entitled to command them.

So it appeareth plainly, to my understanding, both from Reason, and Scripture, that the Soveraign Power, whether placed in One Man, as in Monarchy, or in one Assembly of men, as in Popular, and Aristocraticall Common-wealths, is as great, as possibly men can be imagined to make it. And though of so unlimited a Power, men may fancy many evill consequences, yet the consequences of the want of it, which is perpetuall warre of every man against his neighbour, are much worse. The condition of man in this life shall never be without Inconveniences; but there happeneth in no Common-wealth any great Inconvenience, but what proceeds from the Subjects disobedience, and breach of those Covenants, from which the Common-wealth had its being. And whosoever thinking Soveraign Power too great, will seek to make it lesse; must subject himselfe, to the Power, that can limit it; that is to say, to a greater.

So, to my understanding, both reason and Scripture clearly show that sovereign power is as great as people could possibly make it. This holds whether one man holds power, as in a monarchy, or an assembly holds power, as in democratic and aristocratic states. Although people may imagine many harmful consequences of such unlimited power, the consequences of lacking that power are much worse. Without sovereign power, everyone is constantly at war with their neighbors. Human life will never be free of difficulties. But no great difficulty arises in any state except through subjects’ disobedience and violation of the agreements that created the state. And anyone who thinks sovereign power is too great and seeks to reduce that power must submit to another power. That other power must be able to limit sovereign power, and must therefore be greater.

The greatest objection is, that of the Practise; when men ask, where, and when, such Power has by Subjects been acknowledged. But one may ask them again, when, or where has there been a Kingdome long free from Sedition and Civill Warre. In those Nations, whose Common-wealths have been long-lived, and not been destroyed, but by forraign warre, the Subjects never did dispute of the Soveraign Power. But howsoever, an argument for the Practise of men, that have not sifted to the bottom, and with exact reason weighed the causes, and nature of Common-wealths, and suffer daily those miseries, that proceed from the ignorance thereof, is invalid. For though in all places of the world, men should lay the foundation of their houses on the sand, it could not thence be inferred, that so it ought to be. The skill of making, and maintaining Common-wealths, consisteth in certain Rules, as doth Arithmetique and Geometry; not (as Tennis-play) on Practise onely: which Rules, neither poor men have the leisure, nor men that have had the leisure, have hitherto had the curiosity, or the method to find out.

The strongest objection concerns actual practice. People ask where and when subjects have ever acknowledged such power. But we may ask them in return: where or when has a kingdom long remained free from rebellion and civil war? In nations whose states lasted a long time and were destroyed only by foreign war, subjects never disputed sovereign power. But in any case, an argument based on people’s practice is invalid when those people have not thoroughly examined states. They have not carefully reasoned through the causes and nature of states. And they suffer daily from the miseries caused by their ignorance. For even if people everywhere built their houses on sand, we could not conclude that they ought to do so. The skill of creating and maintaining states depends on definite rules, just as arithmetic and geometry do. Unlike tennis, this skill does not depend on practice alone. Poor people lack the leisure to discover these rules. And those with leisure have so far lacked either the curiosity or the method to discover them.