Thomas Hobbes believed that the best form of government had a king as its sovereign because he thought placing all power in the hands of a single ruler would ensure the most resolute and consistent exercise of political authority. Hobbes argued that an absolute monarchy was necessary to maintain peace and prevent civil war, as it provided a strong, central authority to keep human beings' natural impulses, which he viewed as potentially selfish and violent, in check. This king or sovereign would have the absolute power to make and enforce laws, including control over religious affairs, ensuring societal order and security. Hobbes saw this arrangement as part of a social contract where people gave up their natural rights in exchange for safety and stability, and once absolute power was given to the king, the people had no right to revolt against him. Hobbes preferred monarchy because having a single person at the apex of government, especially with fixed rules of succession, prevented disputes and divisions of power that could lead back to the chaos of the "state of nature." He was concerned that dividing power would cause internal conflict and destroy the stability of the state. Therefore, for Hobbes, a king's absolute sovereignty was the only sure way to prevent civil war and maintain civil peace and order in society.