What powers must the sovereign have, and may subjects ever resist the sovereign?

Translation: quotations from Thomas Hobbes are quoted in the 1651 English version of De Cive (Philosophical Rudiments), attributed to Hobbes himself, not his original words.

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (undated; quoted in the 1651 English version of De Cive (Philosophical Rudiments), attributed to Hobbes himself): Thomas Hobbes argues that subjects have no greater liberty in a popular state than in a monarchical state, and that when private men or subjects demand liberty, they are not asking for liberty but dominion. He believes that subjects cannot have true liberty if they are not bound, as this would return society to the natural state, which is worse than civil subjection. Therefore, subjects may not resist the sovereign, as liberty in a civil state is not about having dominion but about being subject to the sovereign's laws. [1]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Hobbes believed that subjects must obey the sovereign in all things, even if the sovereign is a Christian or an infidel, and that ministers of Christ have no right to command contrary to the sovereign's will. This is grounded in his interpretation of biblical passages that emphasize obedience to princes and magistrates as ordained by God. (key quote above) [2]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Hobbes argues that subjects have no liberty to resist the sword of the commonwealth in defense of another, as it is destructive of government. However, if many men have already resisted the sovereign unjustly or committed a capital crime and expect death, they have the liberty to join together and defend one another, as they are defending their lives. The offer of pardon removes the plea of self-defense, making further resistance unlawful. "To resist the sword of the commonwealth, in defence of another man, guilty, or innocent, no man hath liberty; because such liberty, takes away from the sovereign, the means of protecting us; and is therefore destructive of the very essence of government." [3]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Hobbes believed that the sovereign must have essential rights including supreme judicature, the power to make war and peace, levy money and soldiers, appoint officers and ministers, and appoint teachers and examine doctrines. He also believed that subjects may not resist the sovereign, as resistance to the sovereign's essential rights is rebellion and cannot be justified. (key quote above) [4]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Hobbes believed that the sovereign must have the authority to punish in this world, and that the kingdom of Christ does not involve such authority. He argues that Christ's magistrates do not derive authority to punish from Christ, and that using the sword to defend Christ's kingdom would lead to destruction by the sword, implying that resistance to sovereign authority is not justified in this context. [5]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Hobbes believed that subjects may resist the sovereign only in certain cases, such as when the command is against their conscience or when the sovereign is not performing his duty according to the laws. He argues that the sovereign power is not subject to the same obligations as the subjects in these cases. "One is, when the command is against their conscience, and they believe it is unlawful for a subject at the command of the sovereign power to do any action, which he thinketh in his own conscience not lawful for him to do, or to omit any action, which he thinketh not lawful for him to omit." [6]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Hobbes believed that the sovereign's commands define what is just or unjust, and that civil laws are the verbal commands of the sovereign. He argued that what is good or bad is determined by the sovereign's commands, not by higher moral laws. (key quote above) [7]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Hobbes believed that in order for a commonwealth to be established, subjects must transfer their right of resistance to a sovereign with coercive power. He argued that without such power, covenants would not be secure and would leave people in a state of nature. Subjects may not resist the sovereign to whom they have transferred the power of coercion, as resistance would violate the covenant of security. "It followeth therefore, that no man in any commonwealth whatsoever, hath right to resist him, or them, to whom they have transferred this power coercive, or (as men use to call it) the sword of justice, supposing the not-resistance possible." [8]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Hobbes believed that subjects may not oppose or resist the sovereign's laws, except by prayers and tears, and at most by flight. He argued that breaking a law is equivalent to opposing it, and that subjects must acquiesce even if they consider the law erroneous or unjust. [9]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Hobbes believed that sovereigns must suppress opinions that justify rebellion, including the belief that subjects may resist the sovereign under the name of a tyrant. He argued that such opinions must be removed through time and education, as they are rooted in teachings that promote popular government. "that there is any authority of subjects, whose negative may hinder the affirmative of the sovereign power; that any subject hath a propriety distinct from the dominion of the commonwealth; ... and that any lawful sovereign may be resisted under the name of a tyrant; which opinions are they, which, Part II. chap. VIII. sect. 5-10, have been declared to dispose men to rebellion." [10]

What cuts against it

• ACTION (undated): Thomas Hobbes argued that if many men have already resisted the sovereign unjustly or committed a capital crime and expect death, they have the liberty to join together and defend one another, as they are defending their lives. "Certainly they have: for they but defend their lives, which the guilty man may as well do, as the innocent." [3] (This implies a limited form of resistance in self-defense, which cuts against the claim that subjects may never resist.)

• ACTION (undated): Thomas Hobbes believed that subjects may disobey the sovereign's commands if they are inconsistent with sovereignty, but resisting a public minister in the execution of such commands is a crime. "if he not only disobey, but also resist a public minister in the execution of it, then it is a crime." [11] (This implies that disobedience is possible, but resistance is not, which complicates the claim that subjects may never resist.)

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. Thomas Hobbes argued that the sovereign must have essential rights, including supreme judicature, the power to make war and peace, levy money and soldiers, appoint officers and ministers, and appoint teachers and examine doctrines. (key quote above) [4]

2. He believed that subjects may not resist the sovereign, as resistance to the sovereign's essential rights is rebellion and cannot be justified. (key quote above) [4]

3. Hobbes argued that the sovereign may commit iniquity but not injustice, and that no man with sovereign power can justly be punished by his subjects. "Fourthly, because every subject is by this institution author of all the actions, and judgments of the sovereign instituted; it follows, that whatsoever he doth, it can be no injury to any of his subjects; nor ought he to be by any of them accused of injustice." [12]

4. He believed that the sovereign's commands define what is just or unjust, and that civil laws are the verbal commands of the sovereign. (key quote above) [7]

5. Hobbes argued that subjects must obey the sovereign in all things, even if the sovereign is a Christian or an infidel, and that ministers of Christ have no right to command contrary to the sovereign's will. (key quote above) [2]

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: PARTIAL

The record is silent on whether subjects may resist the sovereign in cases of tyranny or when the sovereign violates natural law. However, Hobbes's stated principles suggest that resistance is only permissible in limited circumstances, such as when the command is against one's conscience or when the sovereign is not performing his duty according to the laws.

Extrapolation: Thomas Hobbes believed that the sovereign must have essential rights, including supreme judicature, the power to make war and peace, levy money and soldiers, appoint officers and ministers, and appoint teachers and examine doctrines. He argued that subjects may not resist the sovereign, as resistance to the sovereign's essential rights is rebellion and cannot be justified. However, he allowed for limited forms of resistance in self-defense or when the command is against one's conscience.

Competing readings: One reading is that Hobbes believed in absolute obedience to the sovereign, with no exceptions. Another reading is that he allowed for limited forms of resistance in specific circumstances, such as when the command is against one's conscience or when the sovereign is not performing his duty according to the laws. The record itself states the latter, but the former is an inference.

Confidence: Moderate

The evidence is moderate because Hobbes's views on resistance are nuanced and conditional. While he generally advocated for absolute obedience, he allowed for limited forms of resistance in specific circumstances. The record supports both readings, but the latter is more directly stated.