i'.• ""ir", G<.t.,,,

\

CHAPTER SEVEN *Scriptures and Sovereigns

!: '

I THE SUBORDINATION OF PROPHECY

The Kingdom of God

HOBI3ES IDENTIf'IES rhe Christian mythology of rhe irn-mortal soul and rhe belief in conjurntion, enchanr mcnt ,

and magic as rwo of rhe rnost widespread and dangerolls of allmisinterpretations of Christian doccrine. But the "greatesr , andrnain abuse of Scripture ," he argues , flows from a rnisinterpre-rar ion of irs frequent references to rhe kingJom of God.' Thekingdom of God is commonly thought to consist of an existingchurch , or of rhe body of al! Chr ist ians living in t he presenr , orof all Christ ians , iiving and dead. Al! these views , according toHobbes, derive from a basic rnisunderstanding of the text , Likethe mythology of rhe soul and beliefs in magic and conternpo-rary prophecy, rhey also have extrernely dangerous political irn-plications.

In chapter 31 of Leviathan, "O/ tbe KINGDOME OF GOD BY

NATURE," Hobbes discusses three distinct meanings of thisphrasc.? The ornniporence of God makes him ruler of rhe ent ireuniverse. In this sense the whole world is somet irnes called

I Leuiatban, ch. 44, p. 629 (3,4], and pp. 630-639 f335-340)2 Pp. 395-397 [ 186- 187].

Ui1

.,.

THE SI'/lORDINATION OF PROPHECY

God's kingdom. Bur this firsr use of the phrase is rnerely rner-aphorical. To reignin rhe proper sense, Hobbes argues, is togovern men by commands backed by the promise of rewardsand the rhreat of punishments. Neither inanirnate bodies noranirnals can be God's subjects in this sense; nor, indeed, canarheists , since they take no heed of God's words. In rhis propersense, God has rwo different kingdoms on earth. One of rheseis his killgdom by nature, which God rules rhrough those nat-ural laws by which he makes his will known to alJ those whowil! take the trouble ro discern them. The orher is his prophetickingdom, in which he rules his chosen people by positive lawsas well as the natural dictares of reason.

This lasr meaning is rhe one ordinarily carried by this phrasein Scripture.3 The kingdom of God was a real, worldly king-dom consrituted by a covenant between God and his chosenpeople. On some rare occasions in the New Testamenc thephrase is used metaphorically to denote God's dominion oversin. TI! is usage, howevcr , is exceprional and secondary; rhe pri-mary sense is rhe most literal one.

This sense, Hobbes points out, is quite different from thatwhich is cornrnonly adopted in the writings and sermons of di-vines. They routinely idenrify the kingdom ofGod wirh a con-dition 01' cternal felicity in heaven. I3ut this meaning is neverrellene. I in Scr iptural usag«. The original kingdom ofGod wasesrublished br a covenanr berween.God and Abraham , and wasintended to apply ro all of Abraharn's descendanrs." In ir Abra-ham prornised rhar he and his posreriry would always obeyGod, and God promised Abraham everlasting possession of theland of Canaan. God did nor ar this time cal! himself a king,nor his dominion over Abraham a kingdom; but rhe effect wasto esrablish God as sovereign over Abraham and all his descend-anrs.

ihis original coverianr wás renewed by Mosesiar Mount

.\ Leuiatban, ch. 35, p. 442 (216).,1 Leviatlmn, ch. 55, pp. tjtj3-tjl¡f! [216-220}.

165

i": I

;¡ .

SCRIPTURES AND SOVEREIGNS

Sinai. By mutual consenr theJews insriruted a civil govern- .ment co regulate their relarions toward one anorher, rowardother narions, and roward God. The cornrnonwealth rhey cre-ated in doing so was a kingdom, wirh God as irs sovereign and

with Mases, and afrer him the high priests, as his lieutenants.

When rhe ]ews Iater rejected God, ir was their desire for anearthly sovereign rhat led them to do so.

Still Iarer Jesus was senr to ee-establish this earthly kingdomover God's chosen people. That his mission was an earrhly asweIJ as spiritual one is preved, Hobbes argues, by several pas-sages in Scripture., The angel Gabriel said of Jesus thar hewould sir upon "tbe tbrone o/ bis Fatber Daoid." His cross carriedrhe inscri ption , "King o/ the jews." His persecution and dearhflowed from his c1aim ro be their king , which the Roman rulerstook ro be a threat to their own power; and according ro onetext , his disciples refused to recognize Roman decrees, "sayil1gthere W~J another King, onef esus" AII these places in Scriptureprove char Jesus was sent ro renew (he sovereignry of God overhis chosen people, first esrablished by his covenant with Abra-ham and later revived by Moses. 5

Thus, Hobbes concludes, the kingdom of God, asrhis phraseis used in borh the Old and New Tcsramenr , is to he undcrstoodas a real, eanhly kingdom. It is nor merely a metaphorical as-sertion of Gocl's omnipotence. Otherwise, he asks, what sensewould it make ro pray "Tby Kingdnme come," as we do in rheLords Prayér? We could not pray for rhe coming of God's king-dom if by thar phrase we meant nothing more than the rule healways exercises over the enrire world by virtue of his ornnipo-tence. Itis plain, then, that the kingdom referred ro in thatprayer is God's earrhly kingdom over his chosen people. Tharkingdom was overthrown when the Jews revolred agaínst rhecommonwealrh insrirured by their ancestors through Abraham

'Let'ialh,m, ch. 35, p. 447[218-219].

1(,6

11 '1,

THE SlJ130RDINATION OF PROPHECY

and Moses; it will rerurn when rhey accept God's sovereigllty,wirh Christ as his lieutenant , once again.

Hobbess textual evidence for rhis literal inte~pretarion is ac-tually far from decisive. Ir is true rhat rhe rexts hepresenes showthar the kingclom of Gad referred ro in the Bible cannor simplybe a metaphorical express ion for God's omnipotence. Bur thismetaphorical interpretation was nor the one about which he wasrnosr concerned. Perhaps his central poinr is rhat the kingdomof God is an earthly commonwealth rarher rhan a spiritualunity. This latrer view was prevalene in Christian thoughr, andhad been a basic tener of Catholic orthodoxy Ior cenruries.None of the texts Hobbes cites, taken on their own, disproveit. I3ehind his argument lies a tacit premise: that the Old Tes-tarnent lays down a pattern or model by which we are to inter-prer the New. Thus, he argues, one of tbe Old Tesramentprophecies concerning Christ was thar he would be like Moses.6Moses chose rwelve princes, one from each of the Hebrewcribes, to rule under hirn; Chr isr likewise chose rwelve apostlesro do the sarne Moses chose sevenry elders to assisr in rhe spir-itual guidance of his people; Chrisr ordained seventy disciplesafrer the sarne parrern. Moses insrirured rhe rite of circumcisionand rhe sacramenr ol Passover: Christ imitated rhese in the newrire of bapt isrn and rhe new sacrarnenr of rhe Lords Supper. Byrhus ioverring the usual Christian view rhat rhe New Testa-menr completes, perfects, and hence is superior in authorirv to(he Old, Hobbes was able ro argue that Christ's "office" orfunction was also dicrared by the pacrern esrablished by Mosesand his successors.

Indeed, Hobbes takes the roles of Abraham and Moses to beparadigmatic in an even wider sense.? In principIe both wereGods viceroys or lieutenants. God was sovereign over his cho-sen people, and his authoriry was strictlyanalogous to rh.u nI

r. Ler.úlhan, ch. tí 1, pp' 517-521 [264-2661.7 Le/Jidlhan, ch. 40.

167

.: :

SCRIPTURES ANO SOVEREIGNS

any mortal sovereign. In pracrice , however, he cxcrcixcc] rhissovereigntyexclusively through his sole lieurcn.uu . Abrahamwas sovereign over the ]ewish people beforc his convcnanr withGod, and the covenanr through which God's sovereignty overthern was established was made with Abraharn , as their aurhor-

I

ized representative, rarher than wirh the Jewish people di-. '. rectly. Moses, likewise, was sovereign of rhe Jews when they

renewed their covenant with God. His aurhority derived orig-· inally from rheir consenr , nor from God's appointrnent. For rheJewish people, obedience ro hirn was obedience to God. Borh

· Abraham and Moses were sovereigns in rheir own right beforebecorning God's Iieutenanrs, and for all practical purposes theyremained sovereigns afterward.

Hobbes draws three general lessons from the exarnples ofAbraham and Moses. The first is rhat al! subjects to whom Godhas nor spoken directly rnust receive his commands through rhe

. intermediary of their sovereign, whoever he may be. God didnot speak to the Jewish people as a whole, Hobbes claims, burto Abraham alone in his time, and to Moses alone in his. Like-wise, he does not ofren speak to prívate subjects in other corn-monwealrhs. In the absence of any supernarutal revelation rothe contrary, such subjects must take the word of their sover-eign to be that, of God. Second, no subject can be exempted

i from punishrnenr for disobedience by claiming a private reve-· larion or vis ion from God. Neirher Abraham nor Moses granred

such exemptions, and other sovereigns are not bound to do so. either. Third, no member of a Christian commonwealth is en-

titled to interprer God's word against his sovereign. God spokeonly tO Abraham, who alone had the right ro inrerpret Gcd'sword; other sovereigns have the sarne exclusive rights thar

· Abraham enjoyed.i Thus Hobbes presenrs the parrern laid down by Abraham!; and Moses as a model for al! sovereigns as well as for the rule of

Christ over theJews. There is no textuaLevidence to support hisview rhat their rule should be adopted as such a model. But the

[68

TIII' SIII\()IUlINATION 01' I'ltOl'llECY

purpose of rhis aJoption, as a part of the argument of Leuiatban,was [he same as rhar which lay behind his inrerpreration of thekingdom ofGod. Hobbes's insiscence that the kingdom ofGodwas a real, earrhly kingdom was designed to burrress a generalconclusion of his political rheory: that. in any cornrnonwealrh,or ar the very leasr any Christian commonwealth, suprerne au-rhoriry in religious marrers must reside in rhe civil sovereign .By arguing that (he kingdom of God described in Scripture wasa kingdom in the literal sense, Hobbes could claim thar 00 di-vision berween spiritual and civil aurhority had exisred in Bib-lical times:

To condude; from the first institurion ofGodsKingdome,tO thc Captivity, the Supremacy of Religion, was in thesame hand wirh thar of the Civill Soveraignty; and rhePriesrs office afrer rhe e leer ion of Saul , was nor Magisre-rial l , but Minisceriall."

By racitly assuming rhar the forms of governrnenr insrirured byAbraham and Moses provided a model for all subsequenr corn-monweal ths to imirate,? Hobbes implied that 00 such divisionshould ever be made.

One principal targer of these argurnenrs was , of course, theCatholic church. The disrinction berween spirirual or ecclesi-astical power on the one hand and civil power 00 the orher hadserved thar church admirably. Ir provided the leverage bymeans of which successive popes had gradually established rheirascendancy over civil sovereigns throughout Chrisrendom. Thisascendancy was rhe product of a nurnber oE doctrines and prac-tices thar had become instirurionalized over the course of time.The distincrion between c1ergy and laity, which had been ab-

R Leoiatbnn, ch. 40, p. 509 [254-255J.9 )01'1 Schwarrz argues. by conrrasr , thar rhe ancienr Hebrew "kingdorn of

God' was not a modcl for Hobbes, while rhe '"kingdom of GocI ro come" is a"Hobbcsian uropia." For chis interescing iffar-fecched view, see "Hobbes andrhe Two Kingdoins of God,'" Polily 18 nss». pp. 7-21.

169

.,

SCRIPTURES AND SOVEREIGNS

sent from rhe prirnitive Chriscianchurches , wasone of the firstof chese docrrines co achieve general recognicion. The practiceof coronacion by bishops, which could be interpreted as irnply-ing clerical superioricy over civil rulers and was cherefore re-sisred by Charlernagne, was a la ter addirion. The establishmentof canon law as a vital framework for dispensing justice as dis-t inct from rhe civillaw, completed in the twelfrh century withthe general acceptance of Gratian's Decreta, was another. Ei-nally, benefir of clergy, which exernpted clerics from the juris-dicr ion of civil courts even for such extreme crimes as murder,completed the immunization of church personnel, at leasc incheory, from control by their civil sovereigns.!? But al! thesedocrrines and pracriccs were roored ult irnately in rwo funda-me lita I argumcnrs: rhar spiritual powd is cssl'lI!ially dis(illl(from rhe temporal power exercised by civil sovereigns, and thart he Roman popes are the legitimate holders of spir itual powerrhroughout t~le Christian world. The Carholic church, accord-ing ro this argument, is the existing kingdom of God, a bodyconsr itu t<:d hy t hc spi ri rual union nI' all he! ievcrs.

Hobbcs's rcjccrion of these argumc:nrs wus absoluto. Powcr,he asserred , is power, whatever men may choose to call ir:

For rhis distinction ofTemporall, and Spirituall Power isbut words. Power is as really divideJ, and as Jangerouslyto al! purposes, by sharing wirh another lndirect Power, aswith a Direct one. 11

The Catholic distincrion berween temporal and spirirual pow-ers is mere verbiage. Irs purpose has always been ro camouflagerhe church's strenuous efforts ro subject the civil sovereigns ofChristendom ro its control. This consideration alone can ex-plain 'the facr that Hobbes's inrerpretation of this doctrine hasnot hitherro achieved universal acceprance:

'" Leuiatban, ch. 14, pp. 630-633 [335-337]." Leviathan, ch. 42, p. 600 [315].

170

TIH SUUOROINATION OF PROPHECY

There be so many orher places rhat confirm this inrcrprc-tarion , that it were a wonder there is no greater noticetaken of it , but char ic gives toa much light to ChristianKings to see their right of Ecclesiaseicall Government. 12

The view that the kingdorn of God referred to in Scripture wasa merely spirituaI kingdom is so obviously false rhat no orherexplanation for it is possible. Ir is a deliberately conrrived mis-interprerarion , one designed to conceal from Christian kingsrhe true extent of their sovereign rights.

The second rarger of rhese argumenrs was the Calvinisr viewthat rhe kingdom of God had begun again with Chrisr's resur-recr ion. Hobbes agreed wirh rhe Calvinisrs that the kingdom ofCod is a real, c:Jrthly kingt\ol11, in which spirirunl and temporalI'0WCfS ¡Ire (olllbillCd ill (lile authorirv. Uulil«: hirn , howevcr,they insisred t har rhar aur hor irv was not the civil sovereign, butrhe presbytery.

This inrerpreration was far more difficulr for Hobbes tO rebutrhan rhc Catholic view. The key text had been identified byTll('odorc ¡\eza, Ctlvin's successor ar Geneva. Th is rcxt is a

srarcmcnr by Jc:sus to his apost les: "Verily 1 Jet)' 111110 yOff, tb.utbere ¡Jf some 01 tbem tbat stand bere, lt'hú/) shallllrll Itfl/lI/rlCdlh, t il!tbey bare seeue tbe Kiugdome 01 Goe! come Il'ith JNI/I'('/". ,,' \ " [()hlw\ adrnirs thar , undcrsrood lirerally, this texr irnpl ics (:ir!1C1' rh.tr 111<'

kingdom of God exisrs in rhe present or rhar somc nl ¡hose: 11]('11

to whorn Chrisr was speaking remain alive, scill awairill,l; 11]('

coming of thar kingdom. The latrer possibility is ahsurd; heurcrhe former seerns inescapable. But, he poinrs Out, rherc areorher places in Scripture that contradict this conc1usion. Irn-mediately before his ascension, Christ speaks of the restoration

11 tmi,lllJan, ch. 35, p. 447 [219]. Hobbcs develops his argl/l11enr ar,ainsc

rhe papa] clairn (O suprerne ecclesiasrical power CVCn fllrrll<'l i" a 1"ul:rJ,y "udin~cnious polernir againsc Cardinal Bellarmine in/./'t'ld,h'Il1.' 1, ,1.'.1'1' .) /1,(Í09 L'>~)()-.120].

11 Le~ialban, ch. 44. p. 640 (341); [he P"";;'J:" j., 1,0," 1\1.111. ') I

I 7 (

.1 SCRIPTURES AND SOVERE1GNS

of the kingdom ofGod as an event rhat will occur in rhe Iurure ;:. the speech is inconsistenr wirh the viewthat this event had al-: ready taken place at rhe resurrecrion. Sr. Paul speaksof waiting

for Christ to come to restore his kingdorn. And that [amousphrase in rhe Lord's Prayer, one of Hobbes's Iavorire Scripturaltcxrs , in which worshippers supplicate God ro lcr ""h)' Killg-dome come;' implies rhat the coming of God's kingdom rcrnainsan event of the future. With all this evidence againsc it, the

:, rnost obvious interpretar ion of jesus' words, Hobbes argues,cannor possibly be correcto

The conjecture Hobbes offers to explain rhese words is rhatthey are to be explicarcd by reícrence to rhe evcnr rhar Iollows

. immediately afrer rhern , borh in the gospel ofSt. Mark and inthat of Se. Luke. This event was the transfiguration, in whichChrist appeared in a radianr, physically alrered stare and spokein person wirh rhe prophet Elias and wirh Mases. Three of his

.disciples witnessed this evento Hobbes conjecrurcs that it wasby way of this vis ion rhar Chrisrs promise was fulfillcd . Sorneof thc aposrlessaw the kingdom of God come w irh powcr; burrhey saw chis in a vision rather chao in its actual appearancc ouearrh ,

\\fhatever may be the true inrer prerar ion of this texr , 1Ioblx-sargues, the weight ofScriptural evidence shows that thc,killg-d0111 of God did not bcgin ar rhe resurrect ion. Ir begins w ir h

. Christs second coming, an event rhat wil! occur at sorne timein the indefinireFurure. There is no kingdom ofGod presenrlycxistent in this world. Hence the claims ofPresbyterians to rep-resent the real, earrhly kingdom of God are ill-founded. Theiratremprs to assert directly the power of their own church gov-ernrnenr over that of civil sovereigns by claimiog jurisdictionasthe keepers of Gods earrhly kingdom are ultimately no moreplausible. and no les s destrucrive , than the Catholic eíforts togain political control over sovereigns rhrough aspecious dis-tinction between temporal and spiritual powers.

. 130th Cathol ics ami Presbyrerians, then, are fundamentall y

172

TIIF SIJIIOI{DIN¡\TION 01' 1'1l0l'IIFCY

rnisraken about the nature and locus of ecclesiastical power.Catholics argüe rhar ecclesiastical power is essenrially. distinctfrorn temporal power: thar the kingdomof God is an existing ,spiritual unity of all Christians regulated by ecclesiasticalpower; and that rhc Roman pope is [he legitimatc successor rorhis power. Prcsbyrcrians arguc rhar ecclcsiastical power is notso much distinct frorn, as superior to , all temporal power; rhatrhe kingdom of God is a real, earthly kingdom, nor merely aspiritual uniry of all Chrisrians: and thar rhe presbyteries ofeach indcpendenr city or country are the righrful holders of thispower. The Presbyrerians are right ro reject the Carholic divi-sion berween ecclesiastical and temporal power, but wrong toconsider the former superior to the latrer. They are also right rorejecr rhe Cathol ic norion that rhe kingJom of Gocl is a merelyspiritual enrit y , but absolurely wrong ro claim that ir beganwirh the resurreccion and exists in rhe presento

These rnistakes and misinterprerarions are nor , Hobbes ern-phasizes , merely rhe products ofhonest rnisundersranding , andtheir conscquences are far from benign. Borh Catholic and Pres-byrerian doctr ines 00 the kingclom of God are designed to helpusurp legicimate sovereign power. Even where they have failedto ach ieve rhe ir ul t irnate airn , these attempts at usurpar ion havesucceeded in clouding rnen's undersranding and , by so doiog,havc scriously undercur the aurhority of sovereigns:

This jlOwcr Rcgalunder Chrisr , being challeoged, univer-s;dly by ¡he Pope, and in particular Cornrnon-wealths byAsscmbl ies 01' r he Pastors of the place, (when the Scripturegives ir ro 1I011C bur to Civill Soveraigns,) comes to be sopassioll;ltcly disputcd, rhat it purrerh out the Lighr of Na-rurc , and OIlSCI \¡ so grcat a Darknesse in mens under-sralldillg, r h.u t hcy scc not who ir is to whom they haveengaged t lu-ir ()hedi(OIICC. H

173

SCRIPTURES AND SOVEREIGNS

, ,

For Hobbes a "correcr' inrerpretation of the Scriptures IS, al-most by definirion, one that leads ro the conclusion that thosewho hold civil sovereignry rnust also hold the supreme powerin ecclesiastical matters. Thus he argues that to understand thetrue location of ecclesiasrical power we rnust distinguish rhetime since the ascensión of Christ into two periods: the firstrunning from the ascensión to the time when kings were con-verted to Christianiry , the second exrending from that time on-ward.l~ At the beginning of the first of these periods, ecclesi-astical power lay with the apostles , who were personally chosenby Christ to carry on his mission as a teacher. Thereafter, thispower was passed on to others ordained by them ro continuethis work. Thei~ commission to teach Chrisr's doctrine wassealed by a ceremony called the ímposition ofhands. Thus, dur-ing the first of these periods, ecclesiastical power was passedfrom Chrisr to his aposrles, and rhence te orhers ordained bythem to teach Chrisr's doctrine.P

This power was never in any sense coercive. Ir was a power to,teach , ro persuade men to believe in God and follow the exarn-pie set by Chrisr.!? Ir included no power whatsoever to punishrnen for their refusal ro follow Christ's teaching Nor did ir de-rract from every person's liberty to inrerpret rhe Scriprures inhis own way. In these days before the conversion of kings roChrisrianity , rhere was no aurhorirative. inrerprerarion of theBible. Each man was free to approve or rejecr any inrerprerationhe liked. This was true even afrer independenr churches hadcollectively decided upon the interpretations they would,preach:

When a difficulry arase, the Apostles and Elders of theChurch assernbled thernselves together, and dererrninedwhat should bee preacbed, and taught, and how they

" Leuiatban , ch. 42, p, 521 (267].If, Leuiathan . ch. 42, pp. 521-524 [267-269].17 Leoiatban, ch. 42, pp, 524-545 [269-28 L].

171

l., .'t', •.

T H E S U D O R D I N A T ION O f l' H () l' 111;e \...

should Inrerpretrhe Scripturcs to t l«: 1"'11,,1<-,IlI'I I""L 11111fram the People the liberty to rc:«] , :111.111'1"11'"'111""11 1"themselves. lB

At no time before the conversioll 01 ,ivil ·;IIv'·II·i¡',II'.1" (111j';1i 'anity did church leaders depr ivr- rh« JH'lIpk ••1 IIIC'II I",\it ri¡:ltlto rheir own privare interpretation nI 111('SI ripllltc~

The conversion of kings to ChrisI ial1il y I>lought an end tothis period of inrerprerarive anarchy :tlld ini t iarcd a new hier-

~archy in ecclesiasrical power. The gell(~tal rhcory of the COm-monwealth in part 11 of Leviatharz delIlol1Stratcs that civil sov-ereigns necessarily have the right to decide what docrrines may

, be taught in tbeir Iands. 19This principle is al! the more appli-cable ro Christian sovereigns in relation to Christian doctrinothan it is to heathen monarchs. With their conversion, Chris-tian sovereigns acquired rhe supreme ecclesiascical po \VI'r

: within their own territories. The aposrolic succession alld !ay-, ing on of hands were superseded by sovereign appoi 1l11l11'1l1nI', rninisters to preach Christian doctrine."? The tigll! 01 (:ltri:;

rians to interpret the Scriptures for thernsel ves '::lJlll' III :UI "lld,This righr became the exclusive possession o( 1111'(ivil ';OV('¡

eign. Thus, w ith rhe conversion of sovcrcigll:; 1(1(11I1\ll.IlIil y,

civil power was unired with ecclesiaseical P()w('/

The congruence between this result o( Ilol,lw\'" S, "I,IIII.tIexegesis and one of the central ronclusious 01 111:;polil,,;tI ,,111losop,hy is far from "fortuirous ," as at lcasr Ot\l' SI hol:lI J..I'. «'

cently suggested.2I Any possibiliry of collflit I is 1111,·,/'"11 L¡,

,. Lit/ia/han, ch. 42, pp. 544-545 (281).'9 Leuiathan , ch. 42, p. 567 [295J.20 Leoiathan, ch. 42, p. 569 [295-296J.21 Eisenach, TU-'o \'(IorldJ oj Liberalism , p, Gil. Ei~"'¡;1<"',; :I'}:IJI))C""re (lrvc,

thelessmuch closer to the trurh rhan rhar of I'()(o,k, \V1,o ;111:(1<"'.''',11II,r 111'.torical strucrure of authoriey which II"hl",s "ni vr-, h ••,o ';, "I"me ">1'.". '"a Christian commonwealth. in "din"n ;11\.1 pUICllli.lllv IIHIII,nlllvr 111."" .•

ence" wirh rhar st rur r ure whirh l u- dC'rivc"; 1' •• 111 ,111' IlIdllll.d l"ill"""I,I,\, IIj

rhe /irse half of Lwialhall, S('c ."li 11 11" , Ili';IO' y, .111,1l,', 11.1, "I"F. y ." l ' )""

1 7 5

s e R 1 P TU R E S A N () S o V E H E H; N s

the principies of interpretation that govern his exegesis. For rhccondusions of that political philosophy are based upon a read-íng of God's "Natural! Word," and are thus to be presupposedin any reading of the Scriptures as surely as are the conclusionsof natural philosophy. In this sense there is no more room forthe conclusions of sacred history to conflict with the prescrip-'tions of political philosophy than there is for Scriptural usage ofterrns like "spirit" and "enchantrnent" to contradict our knowl-edge of the natural world. We know what the Bible can andcannot have rneant by these terrns because we know rhat the~orld is composed of nothing but matter govemed by rnechan-icallaws of rnorion. In exactly the same way, the conclusions ofsacred history are rigidly confined within lirnits imposed by the:political knowledge we derive from "the narure ofMen, known.to us by Experience, and from Definitions ... universallyagreed en": in other words, fram "the Principies of Natureonel y :'22 Given Hobbes's first principle of Scri ptural interpre-.ration, which rules out any possibility of finding anyrhing in¡these sacred rexts contrary to "natural! reason," rhe findings of".~acred hisrory are bound from theoutset to coincide with rhose'of political phílosophy.I The central conclusion of Hobbes's reading of Biblical his-¡ tory , rheri, is that both ecclestiasrical and civilpower rnust nec-¡ essarily be united, throughout the era following the conversionof kings to Christianiry , in the hands of a single civil sovereign.Even before this era, "in all Cornrnon-wealths of the Heathen,rhe Soveraigns have had the narne of Pasrors of the People, be-cause there was no Subject that could lawfully Teach the peo-pie, but by their permission and authority." And necessarily so:

I

i' Por it is evident to the meanest capacity, that mens actionsare derived from the opinions they have of the Good, orEvill , which from those acrions redound unto themselves;and consequently, rnen that are once possessed of an opin-

22 Leuiatban , ch. 32, p. 409 [195}.

176

T 11E S 1111() IU )J N A T ION () r PRO P H E e y

ion, t liat their obedience to the Soveraign Power, will beemore hurrfull to thern , than their disobedience, will dis-obey the Laws , and thereby overrhrow the Cornrnon-wealth , and introduce confusión, and Civill war; for theavoiding whereof, all Civill Government was ordained. 23.

Ir is utterly impossible for the conclusions of sacred history robe contrary to rhose of political philosophy, for those latter con-dusions are rnerely the simple principies of sound governmenr,which tell us , among other rhings, rhat no racional cornrnon-wealth is possible-as Hobbes, evoking Plato, suggests-un-less "Kings were Pastors, or Pasrors Kings."24

The Basis of Scriptural Authority

The transfer of suprerne ecclesiastieaI power inro the hands ofChristian sovereigns gives rhern the right to determine thecomposition as well as the interpretarion of the Bible. The truesource of Scriptural authoriry, Hobbes poinrs out, is highlycontroversial:

It is a quesrion much disputed between the divers secrs ofChristian Religion, From iobence Ihe Scriplflres derive theirAttlhorúy; which quesrion is also prapounded sornet imesin orher terms, as, HOUJwee knoUJ tbem lo be tbe Word of God,or, Why tae be/eeve them lo be so. 25

The reason these questions are so difficult to answer is that theyare framed inadequately. The ultirnare source of Scriptural au-thority, 'as all sides agree, is God; henee there is no disputeabout this quesrion. No one can know the Scriptures to beGod's word except those to whom this knowledge has been

11 Leoiatban, ch. 42, pp. 567-568 [295J.H Leoiatbnn , ch. 42, p. 545 [28IJ.21 Leuiathan, ch. 33, p. 425 [205J.

177

SCRIPTURES ANO SOVEREIGNS

supernaturally revealecl; rhus rhis question is also poorly pULAs for our belief, Hobbes argues rhar t'because some are movedro beleeve for one , ancl others for other reasons, rhere can berendred no one general! answer for rhern all. "26 The explana-tions of belief are so various that no single answer is possible.The real source of contention is captured by anorher quest ion:by what auchority are the Scriptures made law?

The answer to chis quesrion is simple. No pan of rhe Scrip-tures has ever been made law except by the authority of a civilsovereign. This was true even before the New Testamem waswritten. The Ten Cornmandrnents were the first pan of Scrip-ture ever to have rhe obligatory force of law. " They were laiddown by God hirnself, and in this sense their aurhority derivesfrom him. 13ut only by the clecree of Moses, the civil sovereignof the Jews, did they acquire the full force of law. Larer, orherlaws (conrained in rhe book of Deuteronomy) were added rothese , again by rhe authority of Moses. Ar no time were rheScriptures made law by any aurhority other than rhat of the civilsovereign. This conclusion remains rrue in modern times. TheBible derives irs legal force from irs authorization by a civil sov-ereig n.:"

This conclusion is subtly but effeetively supporred hy a longdiscussion of the authorship and assembly of rhe 13ible into acomplete rext .?? At first glance rhis cliseussion seerns to havelitrle tO clo with Hobbes's condusion. If the Bible, or parrs ofir , are given legal force by rhe aurhoriry of civil sovereignsalone, why should we need to identify irs original aurhors amiassernblers? All we need is ro be able to ideneify the canonicalrext, and we can do rhis only by heeding rhe deerees of our sov-crcign. Thc initial irnpression created by rhis conclusion is rharrnost of Hobbes's discussion is pointless. Yet the real intention

lr. Leuiathan, ch. 33, p. 425 [205J." Leviathan , ch. 42, pp, 545-552 (281-2851.lR Leuiathan, ch. 33, p. 415, 426 (199, 205}." Leoiatban, ch. 33, pp. 416-425 (200-20S).

l 78

T H E S U B O R D I N A T ION O F l' H O l' 111:r . y

of rhis discussion is probahly dilf(.I(·1I1 111'11111',O·,I"""tld,· .11'".which is ro establish the anti<llli ry a lid ;11111f( 11..1"1' ,,1 111<'V.II"" •..books of the Bible. In the coursc o{ doill}', 1111';,11,,1,1"".11'1,,'.11edly calls arrent ion to the humau ori¡:ifl:, (tI 1111'lid ,l.' 111""!"I,God is irs ulrirnate aurhor , the acr un l I('XI \V.I\ WI,II"II 1,\, 111.man hands. Human beings, agaill, a:>\('(III,),·" 1111'Inl .1'.. 1whole. They had co make many r.hoiccs I () dI) "", .tI" 1,11f'·.,'IVI',,'

human choices, not necessarily gllidnll,y "Ivilll' 111"1'".11'"11The Bible , in short , is an arrifact of hlllll;11I .Inl}',1I 1\ 1,:,",1,,1artificiality, perhaps even arbitr ariucxs , 1'; l'IlIl,,,,IIr',1 1111111'cornposit ion and selection of its parrs. If 111<'lIil>¡,. 11"..11l.' •• 111artifaet in this way, ir is not surprisuu; t h.n ir, 1c-¡~.t1'''1/ ,.should be left to the artifiee of sovcreigns

Nor is this conclusion, which casts doubr "pOli t lu- ilHl,'pendent aurhor iry of the emire corpus of 1loly Wrir, t l«: II\OSI:skeptical implicatían of Hobbes's analysis. Toward the bcgill-ning of his Scriptural exegesis in pan III of Leuiatban , as wellave seen, Hobbes refuses ro say whar rhe cause of our belief in .Scriptures might be, arguing thar no single answer to rhis ques-tion is passible. In the final chaprer of rhar exegesis, however,Hobbes reverses himself. The cause of our belief is the same asrhar o! all !;tirh: narnely, "thc Hearing of those that are by rheLaw allowed and appointed to Teach us, as our Parents in theirHouses, and our Pasrors in rhe Churches ,">" The Christian faithand Scriptures are taught to rnen and wornen frorn infancy on-ward. It is hardly surprising that so ll1any people believe in thatfairh and aceept the Bible as the word of God; they have beentole! ro do so all rheir lives. Some men may be deprived of rhisfaith, since ir is ultimately a gift of God. Bur irs imrnediarecause, Hobbes emphasizes, is hurnan teaching. The cornpoxi ..tion of rhe Scriptures themselves, their legal (lln' ru a I \lit Imonwealrh , and our very belief in rhcm as dll' wIlId ,,1 (;"" :111'in this sense all artificial producrx ()I IIIIIILIII '''''''1'.11

'" Lermtha n, ch. ,1,. p (,1,11 \!·ll

179

SCRIPTURES ANO SOVEREIGNS

Neither the artificiality of Scripture nor rhat of faith itselfconsrirutes a suffieient reason tO deny the validity of [aith as away tO knowledge of God's word. Neverrheless , die implica-rions of Hobbes's analysis case serious doubt upon the thesisthar the exegetical and hisrorical arguments of the larrer half ofLeuiatban form his "conrriburion ro the study of fairh ... as asystern of revealed truth."31 Already in Tbe Elements o/ Law hehad idenrified faith as a form of opinión, the propositíons ofwhich "we are not said tO know," since rhey "are admitted by

I

trust or error."u Fairh is specifically opposed in that work roany kind of knowledge, wherher scientific or hisror ical. Thesarne sharp opposit ion between Caitb and knowIedge is aIso irn-plied in Leviatban by the omission of Iairh and sacred h istoryfrom the scheme of knowledgc sct out in chaptcr 9 oC rharwork. \\ Indccd, in leuiatha» Ilobhcs makes a poiut oí observ-illg (hal "Cluist iall mcn doe not know, bur onelv bcleevc theS,ril'(II('(' t o he t lu: \l(!md (lr God."H "Sacred hisrory" for hirnw.ix , ahovl' all, a hislOry of subrerfuge and deceprion. Gods"Prophct irull Word" was in rcnlity a docurnent of ordinary hu-man origin, and rhe motives for irs composition and assernblywcre in some instances far less pure than rhe fairhful generallybcl icvcd rhcm ro he.

This decp skcpticism abour the status of prophccy w.is in raua logical if unsrared implication oíHobbes's inference about rhehistoricity of miracles. If prophecy rnusr be validated by theperformance of miracles, as he claims, and miracles are ac tuall ynorhing more rhan artifaets of ignorance, as my analysis of hisarguments in the foregoing chapter has sought ro suggest, thenir seerns to follow t har propheey itself is a produce of ignoranceas well. Thus, insofar as the prophetic word of God conrained

" Pocock, "Time, Hisrory , and Eschatology," p. 163.\2 Elemems 1.6.6,7.\\ Pacack menrions , but offcrs no explanar ion of, rhis orn ission in "Time,

History , and Escharology," p. 160.

i· \-1 Leviatban , ch. 4.'\, p. 614 [3241. ernphasis added.

I:. 1 R (). I

, I

THE SUBORDINATION OF PROPHECY

in the Scriptures has any authoriry at all apart from that con-ferred upon it by civil sovereigns , who alone ca.Q give thoseScriptures the force of law, ir appears that aurhority is rooted inthe sarne ignorant state of rnind that nourishes belief in mira-cles. And if miracles have ceased because men have finally be-come sufficiently enlightened to see through them, might notthe same fate await rhe Christian Scriptures as well?35

Hobbes did not,of course, raise this question direcdy. Irwould havc been literally suicidal for him to do so, And in anycase, no direct challenge to the authority of Scripture was nec-essary. As a rhetorical strategy it was far more effective to acceptthat aurhority osrensibly and, byraising quest ions and irn-planr inu cloubrs in rhe minds of his readers, to turn ir towardhis own purpose. But rhat purpose was clear. Ir was to subvertman)' of rhe most central reners of Christian theology, Protes-rant as well as Catholic , and to replace rhern with Hobbes's ownrat ional ized version of Christian doctrine.

The docrr ine Hobbes envisaged was alrnosr entirely bereft ofthe rnysrical elements that had been associated with Christian-ity since early times. The established concept of the soul as amysrerious spir itual subsrance was rejected in favor of the ideat hat (he sou l , and inclccd the enrire universe , is an ordinary ma-terial (hillg. Lik e orher bodies, the soul is mortal by narure.This view had the exrrernely irnporranr eonsequence of irnply-ing that no one is 1iable to suffer eterna] torment in hell at theend ofhislife on earth. There is no hell and no purgatory; theseplaces are hctions invented by sorne men ro frighten rheir more

" Hond',· assumprion rhar Hobbcss acceptance of the aurhoriry of Scrip-

cure was wholly sincere ignores chese irnplicarions of his argument, and rests

ulrimar cly upon nothingmore than his view that it is "hisrorically more cred-

ible t har he believed 'what he wrote rhan thar he wrore with his tongue in his

check" (Dit'ine Politics, p. 253). Yer even Hood adrnirs rhar Hobbes sorne-

times made "prudenr excisions," deliberately concealed his "wholc rhoughr"

on cerrain political issues, and was occasionally "sornewhar disingenuous"

(pp. 1,248, 126).

181

SCRIPTU.RES ANO SOVEREIGNS

ignorant (ellows inro submission. Enlighcened, racional men-those . who reject these sophisticalmysteries-will not be

moved by such supersritious fears.The tradicional mystical interpretation of the Christian sac-

raments was the second major victim of Hobbes's reinterpreta-tion. The priestly view of the eucharist, baptism, and orherChristian rices is norhing more than an arrernpr ro gain powerover men by deception. These clerical c1aims ro magical powerare, if anyching, even less plausible chan rhe prerenses of theancient Egyptian enchanters. Nor were these claims, which hadbeen asserted primarily by Catholic cheologians, the only formof deception by pretense of supernatural power. Though ir hadhelped suppress the magic of Carholicisrn. the Reformation hadalso opened rhe way for many false prophets and miracles. InHobbes's view all these contemporary c1aims to prophecy werenecessarily falseo The age of prophecy and rniracles , if thesephcnornena evcr really occurr'ed, is long gone. AII rhat remainsis the prophcric word of God recorded in the Bible. And thevalidity of cvcn rhis word as a source of rruth is extrernely du-luous. Th~ world operatcs according LO srrict, mechanicallaws()f' mor ion laid down by narurc. Anyouc who prerends to haveIwrfólIlled a miracle is a liar; anyolle \'Iho believes he has seen()i 1<: is a Iool ,

Thc thirJ and final major poill( 01 t tobbes's exegesis was roprove that (he kingdom of God spokell (lf in Scripture could norbe idenrified with any exisring church , Carholic or Protesrant.Thc Catholic interpreration of thc killgdom of God as a realmof spiritual power is baseless. The kill¡;dom ofGod in Scriptureis always a real, earthly kingdom, urtcrly unlike the rnysticalunity of all believers to which (he Car\¡olics pretendo The Pres-byrerian interpretation, though more plausible, is also wrong.A careful reading of the Bible shows rhat the kingdom of Godwill not return unril Christ's second conlÍng. These arrernpts toidentify the kingdom of God with an cxisring church are sim-ply one more element in the clerical call1paign to wrest power

1HZ.,

THE SUBOROINATION OF PROPHECY

[rorn the civil sovereigns who possess ir by right. Power ispower, whether it be called spirirual or temporal. Whenit hasbeen successful, rhe asserrion of clerical power withincivil do-mains has had disastrous resulrs. Ir has given rise to cornpetingclaims for the obedience of subjects and desrroyed the founda-rions of cornmonwealrhs.

The cumulative effect of Hobbes's Scriptural argurnentationwas ro point toward what one scholar has aptly described as a"refounding" of Christ ianity.F' Bur what was the ultirnate aimof chis refounding? Was ir to turn Christianity into a civil re-ligion, compatible wirh sovereign authoriry as Hobbes con-ceived ir , but leaving man essentially whar he had been before,a bomo religiosust>' For De Cive chis interpretation is probablycorren. The principal thrust of his argumenc in that work is toexpose false undersrandings of the kingdom of God, and by sodoing ro reconcile the essential spiritual teachings of Christi-an ity wirh the requirements of absolute sovereignty. The the-ological argumentation of Leviathan, however, goes well be-yond rhat of his earlier work, and has a different center ofgravity. The arguments abour God's kingdom are deve!opedhere , too--in some respects more thoroughly than they hadbeen before. But the greater part of his exposition is designedto puncrure those beliefs about rhe soul and magic whichHobbes regarded as rhe vivid and powerful, yet essentially ir-rational, producrs of rnen's wayward imaginarions. The aim ofpart III of Leuiathan is not solely to cleanse Christianity of thosedoctrines rnost repugnant to absolure sovereignty. Rarher, ir isan atrempr ro get at the roots of superstirion, to jolt men andwomen into recognizing the irrationality of some of theirrnostdeeply held beliefs abour their own natures, and about the na-ture of the universe itself. Ir is not merely a proposal outliningrhe main tenets of a civil religion thar could be instituted by

. .~, -

.... .",.. ;~-, ~

Ir. Shcrlock , "Theology of Leviathan;" p. 47.\7 Sherlock, "Theology of Leuiatban;" pp. 46, 48.

183

SCRIPTURES AND SOVEREIGNS

i some future sovereign. Ir is a direct attempt to stirnulate atransformation of the human psyche , to change the ways inwhich !nen and women con~eive of thernselves , by dernonsrrat-

"

ing to them tbrough graphic and vivid (though not necessarily! scientific) means the untenability or absurdity of many of the

concepts and categories that make up the larger prism throughwhich they interpret their own experience. Hobbes's refound-

"ing of Christianity was an atternpt to transform rnen and¡ . wornen into the racional and predictable beings they wouldi I have to be before his vision of political society could ever be re-: alized.

184

CHAPTER EIGHT *Sovereignty at the Crossroads

THE PRESENT IN HISTORICAL

PERSPECTIVE

HOBBES ANTICIPATED thar rhe greatest objecrions to hispolitical docrrine would be based tlpon its alleged im-

pracricaliry. At no time in hisrory , critics would argue, had acomrnonwealrh like rhat envisaged by him ever existed. "Thegreatest objection is , that of the Practise; when men ask ,where , and when , such Power has by Subjects been acknowl-edgec.I.··¡ There are mornents when Hobbes himself seems onthe verge 01' accepting this objection as decisive:

And now, considering how differenr this Doctrine is, framrhe Practise of the greatest pan of rhe world, especially ofrhese Western parrs , ... I am at the point of believingthis my labour, as uselesse, as the Common-wealth ofPlato. 2

Hobbes's emphasis upan the special repugnance of his doctrineto \'V'esterr: practice is revealing , and recalls to mind the fact

I Leuiathan , ch. 20, pp. 260-26 ¡ [107).2 Leuiathan, ch. 3 L, p. 407 [[93}.

) 85