Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T02:11:11.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

God and Thomas Hobbes*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Willis B. Glover
Willis B. Glover
Affiliation:
Mercer University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Atheists were even rarer and more obscure in seventeenth-century England than communists are in the modern United States. The scarcity of atheists, however, rather enhanced than restricted the term as an expression of loathsomeness and evil beyond accurate description. Those who seemed obviously wrong-headed on matters of the most serious import, and who were yet exasperatingly hard to prove wrong, must be in the power of some unnatural evil. Thus Thomas Hobbes was denounced as an atheist; and the accusation was as honest and almost as irrational as the accusation heard recently in many parts of the Southeast that the NAACP is communistic.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , September 1960 , pp. 275 - 297
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Watkins, J. W. N., “The Posthumous Career of Thomas Hobbes,” Review of Politics, XIX (1957), 356.Google Scholar Mr. Watkins was not referring directly to the religion of Hobbes in the phrase quoted.

2. See, for example: Strauss, Leo, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes, tr. Sinclair, Elsa M. (Chicago, 1952), 74–75 (First published, Oxford 1936).Google ScholarPolin, Raymond, Politique et philosophie chez Thomas Hobbes (Paris, 1953), xv–xvi and 140.Google ScholarBowle, John, Hobbes and His Critics (New York, 1952), 13–14 and 42–46.Google ScholarWilley, Basil, The Seventeenth Century Background (London, 1934), 101, 111–115, and 120.Google ScholarTrevor-Roper, H. R., “Books in General,” New Statesman and Nation, XXX (19–45), 61Google Scholar (Reprinted in Trevor-Roper, 's Men and Events, New York, 1957, p. 235.)Google ScholarLindsey, A. D. in his Introduction to the Everyman edition of Leviathan (New York, 1950)Google Scholar and Lamprecht, Sterling P. in “Hobbes and Hobbism,” The American Political Science Review, XXXIV (1940), 31–53,CrossRefGoogle Scholar seem also to assume that Hobbes was virtually, if not explicitly, an atheist.

3. Warrender, Howard, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: His Theory of Obligation (Oxford, 1957)Google Scholar; Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan, ed. with an Introduction by Michael, Oakeshott (Oxford, 1957).Google Scholar

4. Hobbes, Thomas, Of Liberty and Necessity, The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, ed. Sir Molesworth, William (London, 1839–1845), IV, 249–250Google Scholar; Questions concerning Liberty, Necessity, and Chance, E. W., V, 12–13 and 213.Google Scholar

5. Cf. Taylor, A. E., “The Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes,” Philosophy, XIII (1938), 422–423.Google Scholar

6. Watkins, loc. cit., 353–354.

7. Westfall, Richard S., Science and Religion in Seventeenth-Century England (New Haven, 1958), 20 and 106–110.Google Scholar

8. Hobbes, Thomas, De Cive, ed. Lamprecht, Sterling P. (New York, 1949), 183.Google Scholar Except where otherwise noted, references to Dc Cive will be to this edition.

9. Hobbes, Thomas, An Answer to a Book Published by Dr. Bramhall, late Bishop of Derry, E. W., IV, 310Google Scholar; Questions concerning Liberty, E. W., V, 246Google Scholar. Cf. Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 440–441 (chap. 46).Google Scholar

10. Tillich, Paul, Systematic Theology, I (Chicago, 1951), 237.Google ScholarRandall, John H. Jr, quips in response: “But if, as he likes to assert paradoxically, belief in the existence of God is the worst form of atheism, I am least free of atheism in that form.” The Theology of Paul Tillich, ed. Kegley, Charles W. and Bretall, Robert W. (New York, 1956), 136.Google Scholar

11. Hobbes, , Answer to Dr. Bramhall, E. W., IV, 383–384.Google Scholar

12. All three of these alleged motives are used as explanations by Leo Strauss, op. cit., 71 and 76.

13. Stephen, Leslie, Hobbes (London, 19–28), 152 and 157.Google Scholar

14. Plamenatz, John, “Mr. Warrender's Hobbes,” Political Studies, V (1957), 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 73–77 (chap. 12).Google Scholar

16. De Cive, 15.

17. Quoted by Leslie Stephen, op. cit., 30.

18. It is unfortunate, for example, that Professor Lamprecht has marred his otherwise admirable edition of De Cive by deleting four chapters which deal with Biblical and theological arguments.

19. Oakeshott, loc. cit., lii-liii.

20. Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 306 (chap. 39). Cf. De Give, 194.Google Scholar

21. Hobbes, Thomas, The Elements of Law, ed. F., Tönnies (Cambridge, 1928), 142.Google Scholar Cf. De Cive, 142–143, 194–195, and 207–208. The same position may be clearly inferred from the Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, by comparing pages 219 and 227 (chap. 30) with pages 290–291 (chap. 37–38) and page 306 (chap. 39).

22. De Cive, 195–196; Elements, ed. Tönnies, 76, 122–123Google Scholar; Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 385 (chap. 43).Google Scholar

23. This does not contradict the argument of Mr. Warrender that obligation to fulfill contracts precedes and is the source of the obligation to obey the sovereign. But once social contract has been entered into, obedience to the sovereign becomes the essential means of preserving a situation in which obligations under the law of nature, including the obligation to fulfill contracts, is valid.

24. Elements, ed. Tönnies, 125;Google ScholarDe Cive, 194–195 and 204–205; Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 384–388Google Scholar (chap. 43); Answer to Bishop Bramhall, E. W., IV, 367.Google Scholar

25. De Cive, 197–199.

26. Elements, ed. Tönnies, 124;Google ScholarDe Cive, 200–201 and 208–209; Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 394–395 (chap. 43).Google Scholar

27. Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 348 (chap. 43).

28. De Cive, 201 note. Cf. Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 392–393 (chap. 43).

29. Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 305 (chap. 39).

30. De Cive, 204. The argument here is based on Galatians 1:8, which Hobbes quotes.

31. Ibid., 208.

32. Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 327–329 (chap. 42) and 395 (chap. 43).

33. Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 7–13, 27, and 53 (chap. 1, 2, 5, and 9); Hobbes, Human Nature, chap. 2, recently reproduced in The Metaphysical System of Hobbes, ed. Mary W. Calkins (La Salle, Illinois, 1948), 157–162Google Scholar; Questions Concerning Liberty, E. W., V, 399. See also Woodbridge, F. J. E., Hobbes: Selections (New York, 1930), xxiv,Google Scholar and an excellent discussion in Oakeshott, loc. cit., xx-xxvii.

34. Oakeshott. loc. cit., xxvii.

35. Elements, ed. Tönnies, 46; De Cive, 199.

36. Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 77 (chap. 12).

37. Hobbes, , Concerning Body, B. W., I, 412–414.Google Scholar

38. Elements, ed. Tönnies, 42; De Cive, 184–185; Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 238 (chap. 31).

39. Gilson, Etienne, The Unity of Philosophical Experience (New York, 1937), 108.Google Scholar

40. Raymond Polin draws this conclusion in “Le bien et le mal dans la philosophie de Hobbes,” Revue philosophique de la France, CXXXVII (19- 46), 309Google Scholar; and Plamenatz, loc. cit., 302, reluctantly refrains from drawing it.

41. Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 68–69 (chap. 11).

42. Hobbes, , Answer to Bishop Bramhall, E. W., IV, 293Google Scholar; De Cive, 41 and 206–207.

43. Ibid., 176; Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 233 (chap. 31).Google Scholar

44. Ibid., 73–76 (chap. 12).

45. Elements, ed. Tönnies, 72. The corresponding passage in De Cive, 59, specifies that the laws of nature are known as laws when commanded in holy Scriptures. But that Hobbes does not intend to deny a natural knowledge of God as the author of natural law is indicated by his use of the term “word of God” in Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 105 (chap. 15) and his definition of the word of God to include our knowledge of God's laws by “the dictates of natural reason”. Ibid., 233 (chap. 31.)

46. Warrender, op. cit., 97–100.

47. De Cive, 167–169.

48. Ibid., 168. See also Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 233 (chap. 31).

49. Ibid., 73 (chap. 12).

50. De Cive, 168n.

51. Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 25–26 (chap. 5) and 40–41 (chap. 7).

52. De Cive, E. W., II, 227.Google Scholar

53. Hobbes, , Answer to Bishop Bramhall, E. W., IV, 292.Google Scholar

54. Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 35–36 (chap. 6).

55. De Cive, 168n; Answer to Bishop Bramhall, B. W., IV, 292–293.Google Scholar

56. Hobbes, Questions concerning Liberty,

57. A good introduction to the radical contradiction between the two theisms is Nygren, Anders, Agape and Eros, tr. Watson, Philip S. (Philadelphia, 1953).Google Scholar Nygren deals with only one aspect of the problem but treats it in depth.

58. Hobbes, , Questions concerning Liberty, E. W., V, 246.Google Scholar

59. Hobbes, , Concerning Body, E. W., I, 94ff.Google Scholar

60. Hobbes, , Answer to Bishop Bramhall, E. W., IV, 298–300Google Scholar; Questions concerning Liberty, E. W., V, 343Google Scholar; Liberty and Necessity, E. W., IV, 271.Google Scholar

61. Hobbes, , Liberty and Necessity, E. W., IV, 250.Google Scholar

62. Hobbes, , Liberty and Necessity, E. W., IV, 249–250.Google Scholar

63. De Cive, E. W., II, 228;Google Scholar cf.Taylor, A. E., “The Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes”, Philosophy, XIII (1938), 423.Google Scholar

64. Elements, ed. Tönnies, 142; De Cive, 142; Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 219 and 227 (chap. 30).

65. M. Raymond Polin's efforts to interpret the sovereign in Hobbes as exercising a Promethean freedom are not convincing. Polin, Raymond, “Le bien et le mal dans la philosophie de Hobbes”, Revue philosophique de la France, CXXXVII (1946), 307–311.Google Scholar

66. Cf. Warrender, op. cit., 299–300.

67. Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, 237 (chap. 31); De Cive, 183: Questions concerning Liberty, E. W., V, 210–211.Google Scholar

68. Aubrey, John, ‘Brief Lives’, Chiefly of Contemporaries, Set Down by John Aubrey between the Years 1669 and 1696, ed. Clark, Andrew (Oxford, 18–98), I, 353–354 and 357.Google Scholar

69. Oakeshott. loc cit., xxxv and liv-lv.

70. Cf. Stewart, H. L., “Personality of Thomas Hobbes”, Hibbert Journal, XLVII (1949), 127–128.Google Scholar

71. Willey, op. cit., 100–106 and 154–155.

72. Conklin, George Newton, Biblical Criticism and Heresy in Milton (New York, 1949), 75–84.Google Scholar

73. Henry, Nathaniel H., “Milton and Hobbes: Mortalism and the Intermediate State,” Studies in Philology, XLVIII (1951), 241–244.Google Scholar This is an excellent article of the sort that is needed in order to arrive at a clearer picture of the religious views of Hobbes.

74. Henry, loc. cit., 249.

75. Oakeshott, loc. cit., liii. Omission of the fourteenth-century thelogians from this statement is hard to explain.