Religion, Politics and Thomas Hobbes (International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées)

364 Pages·2010·5.16 MB·English

by  George Wright

RELIGION,POLITICSANDTHOMASHOBBES
ARCHIVESINTERNATIONALESD'HISTOIREDESIDÉES
INTERNATIONALARCHIVESOFTHEHISTORYOFIDEAS
195
RELIGION, POLITICS
AND THOMAS HOBBES
by
GEORGE WRIGHT
FoundingDirectors:
P.Dibon†(Paris)andR.H.Popkin†(WashingtonUniversity,St.Louis&UCLA)
Director:
SarahHutton(MiddlesexUniversity,UnitedKingdom)
Associate-Directors:J.E.Force(Lexington);J.C.Laursen(Riverside)
EditorialBoard:M.J.B.Allen(LosAngeles);J.R.Armogathe(Paris);A.Gabbey(NewYork);
T.Gregory(Rome);J.Henry(Edinburgh);J.D.North(Oxford);J.Popkin(Lexington);
G.A.J.Rogers(Keele);Th.Verbeek(Utrecht)
Religion, Politics
and Thomas Hobbes
by
GEORGE WRIGHT
UniversityofWisconsin-Superior
AC.I.P.CataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheLibraryofCongress.
ISBN-10 1-4020-4467-4(HB)
ISBN-13 978-1-4020-4467-0(HB)
ISBN-10 1-4020-4468-2(e-book)
ISBN-13 978-1-4020-4468-7(e-book)
PublishedbySpringer,
P.O.Box17,3300AADordrecht,TheNetherlands.
www.springer.com
Printedonacid-freepaper
AllRightsReserved
©2006Springer
Nopartofthisworkmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted
inanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,microfilming,
recordingorotherwise,withoutwrittenpermissionfromthePublisher,withthe
exceptionofanymaterialsuppliedspecificallyforthepurposeofbeingenteredand
executedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthework.
PrintedinTheNetherlands.
TomysistersJoanneandLucille
fortheirsupportandaffectionand
tomyteacherWalterBouman
CONTENTS
Preface ....................................................................... ix
Acknowledgements.......................................................... xiii
1.Introductiontothe1668Appendix ....................................... 1
AppendixtoLeviathan................................................ 35
Chapter1.OntheNiceneCreed................................... 36
Chapter2.OnHeresy.............................................. 98
Chapter3.ConcerningCertainObjectionstoLeviathan.......... 144
2.HobbesandtheEconomicTrinity ........................................ 175
3.TheHauntingofThomasHobbes......................................... 211
4.HobbesinExile ........................................................... 251
Afterword.................................................................... 311
Bibliography ................................................................. 313
IndexofSubjects............................................................. 337
IndexofNames .............................................................. 343
PREFACE
Theessaysthatcomprisethisvolumewerewrittenovertheperiodofsometen
years,fordifferentpurposesandondifferentoccasions,buttheyareunitedby
anumberoffeatures,whichthisprefacemayservetoindicate.
While the collection begins with a translation drawn from the fourth pre-
sentation of Hobbes’s political thought, namely, the Latin Leviathan of 1668,
after The Elements of Law (1640), De Cive (1642 and 1647) and the English
Leviathan of 1651, the focus of the essays is largely on the English version of
hismasterpieceofpoliticalphilosophy.Itisthecenterofgravityinthetwenty
eight years spanning his departure from England for exile in France in 1640
till the publication in 1668 of the Latin Leviathan, with its lengthy and com-
plex Appendix. The translation and introduction of the Appendix, previously
published,appearsherewithseveralrevisionsandadditions,asdoestheessay
‘ThomasHobbesandtheEconomicTrinity.’
Asecondfeaturecommontotheseessaysisthedeliberateattempttomake
senseofthereligiouselementsinHobbes’sthought,bothintheirownrightand
inrelationtohispoliticsandnaturalscience.Thesethemesarewoventogether
incomplexways.
Forinstance,objectingtotheuseofGreekphilosophiclanguageandconcepts
to interpret the doctrines of the Christian religion, he propounds what he
takes to be a more thoroughly scriptural interpretation, in pursuit of the goal
of demolishing the basis for any power in the state independent of the civil
sovereign. He is sure of the superiority of the new science over the old and
confident that the new science does not conflict with authentic Christianity as
containedinthescriptures.Heappliesrationaltechniquesofinterpretationto
thereceivedtextstoprovethat,whiletheremaybesomethingsabovereason
inreligion,thereisnothingcontrarytoit.1
HediscoverstheoriginofcertainfeaturesofWesternthoughtandtheologyin
Aristotle’stheoryoflanguage,whichherelatestothemagicalandsuperstitious
practicesfoundinGreekpopularreligion;hethenapplieshisviewsinthefield
ofWesternpolitics.2
1Seewithin,‘HobbesandtheEconomicTrinity.’
2Seewithin,‘TheHauntingofThomasHobbes.’
x Preface
Finally,hedescribestheroleofthepoliticalsovereignaspublictheologian,
resting his case on a number of distinctions which he himself is not always
able to keep straight.3 These distinctions raise the issue of ‘true religion.’ I
oncefeltandstatedthatthephrase‘truereligion’couldonlybeoxymoronicin
Hobbes’sscheme,givenhisoftenexpressedassertionthatreligionwasopinion,
not susceptible to demonstration. That now seems to me in error. While the
truths of religion cannot be demonstrated, Hobbes nonetheless gives proofs
of God’s existence as first cause, and he uses the expression ‘true religion’ in
connectionswhereitsutilityintheunfoldingargumentcannotbedoubted.
This change in conviction has in turn led me to allow for the existence and
role of natural theology in Hobbes’s political theory. In discovering God as
first cause, according to Hobbes, we inescapably reach the correct conclusion,
namely, that God exists as first cause and, as such, should be worshipped for
His irresistible power. This is true religion, elaborated in natural theology,
universallyvalidforalltimesandinallplacesandknowntotheancients.Itmust
be distinguished not only from superstition but also from revealed religion,
though, as I mentioned, Hobbes does not always succeed in maintaining this
tri-partitedivision.
A third feature is the concern to find Luther in various ways in Hobbes’s
rather eclectic thinking about religion. The purpose of this is three-fold: 1) to
show Hobbes in a context in which his ideas are not so strange, as with the
ideaofsoul-sleepormortalism,somethingbothHobbesandLutherprofessed,
for similar purposes, thoughin different ways; 2) to trace Hobbes’s belief that
ecclesiasticalauthorityhadnopowerapartfromwhatthecivilauthorityyielded
ittothepeculiarlyLutheranviewoftherelationshipbetweenchurchandstate,
atvariancewithbothCatholicdoctrineandpronouncedCalvinist/Presbyterian
tendencies, and 3) to document Hobbes’s use of Luther and Melanchthon to
repudiate Aristotelian ethics as inconsistent with the evangelical character of
Christ’smessage.
AfourthfeatureistheneedtoseeHobbesnotonlywithrespecttomedieval
antecedents but also to the tradition of the Fathers. Generally, he is far more
dubiousofthevalueofpatristictheologythanhisAnglicancontemporaries.This
movehopefullymakespossibleamoresearchinginquiryintothegreatdivision
whichHobbesputsintousebetweenAthensandJerusalem.
A word about citation style may be helpful. I quote throughout from Mac-
pherson’sfamiliareditionofLeviathan,asreportedinthePastMastersSeries
CDputoutbyFolioInfobase(1992).Thecitationformisasfollows:Leviathan
2.17.2.223meansLeviathan,part2,chapter17,paragraph2,page223inthatedi-
3Seewithin,‘HobbesinExile.’
Preface xi
tion.CitationstoHobbes’sotherworksaretotheMolesworthedition,English
Works (EW) or Opera Latina (OL). I have consulted Prof. Edwin Curley’s
learned and helpful edition, published by the Hackett Publishing Company,
Indianapolis,Indiana,in1994.