[danielmryan]

You could make way for restraints on a monarch's power by saying that a particular monarch chooses to accept those restraints, while noting that the choice to accept the constraints lies only with the monarch. That's consistent with Hobbes' psychological egoism and the schema in Leviathan. But, in combination with Hobbes' "war of all against all" if there be no sovereign in place, it still insinuates that there should be no outside limits to a sovereign's power.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Like I said, Leviathan (and the Bible) says that the Israelites were only supposed to have God as their king. God has no restraints...

The Leviathan also says, as does the Bible, that the Israelites rejected having God as their King, so God granted them their earthly rulers.

Restraints on a monarch's power is the hand of God and the fact that all men die.

Everything Hobbes discusses in the Leviathan is also referenced in the Bible, and this is why both the Papists and Presbyters wanted to murder him.

It was Moses who first revealed to men that their rights did not come from an earthly monarch.

God is not subject to the rule of men. God is also a monarchist and the Bible says this quite clearly. And, because men rejected the rule of God and are fallen, they die.

You can make all the arguments you want to against Leviathan, but you have yet to illustrate how anything written in Leviathan is not consistent with the Bible.

Please, if you want to criticize Leviathan, how about actually reading the Bible?