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.