i

'. " " i r " , G <. t.,,,

\
CHAPTER SEVEN *
Scriptures and Sovereigns
!
: '
I THE SUBORDINATION OF PROPHECY
The Kingdom of God
H
OBI3ES 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 all
misinterpretations of Christian doccrine. But the "greatesr , and
rnain abuse of Scripture ," he argues , flows from a rnisinterpre-
rar ion of irs frequent references to rhe kingJ om of God.' The
kingdom of God is commonly thought to consist of an existing
church , or of rhe body of al! Chr ist ians living in the presenr , or
of all Christ ians , iiving and dead. Al! these views , according to
Hobbes, derive from a basic rnisunderstanding of the text , Like
the mythology of rhe soul and beliefs in magic and conternpo-
rary prophecy, rhey also have extrernely dangerous political irn-
plications.
In chapter 31 of Levi athan, "O/ tbe KINGDOME OF GOD BY
NATURE," Hobbes discusses three distinct meanings of this
phrasc.? The ornniporence of God makes him ruler of rhe ent ire
universe. In this sense the whole world is somet irnes called
ILeui atban, 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 to
govern men by commands backed by the promise of rewards
and the rhreat of punishments. Neither inanirnate bodies nor
anirnals can be God's subjects in this sense; nor, indeed, can
arheists , since they take no heed of God's words. In rhis proper
sense, God has rwo different kingdoms on earth. One of rhese
is his killgdom by nature, which God rules rhrough those nat-
ural laws by which he makes his will known to alJ those who
wil! take the trouble ro discern them. The orher is his prophetic
kingdom, in which he rules his chosen people by positive laws
as well as the natural dictares of reason.
This lasr meaning is rhe one ordinarily carried by this phrase
in Scripture.
3
The kingdom of God was a real, worldly king-
dom consrituted by a covenant between God and his chosen
people. On some rare occasions in the New Testamenc the
phrase is used metaphorically to denote God's dominion over
sin. 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 that
which is cornrnonly adopted in the writings and sermons of di-
vines. They routinely idenrify the kingdom ofGod wirh acon-
dition 01' cternal felicity in heaven. I3ut this meaning is never
rellene. Iin Scr iptural usag. The original kingdom ofGod was
esrublished br acovenanr berween.God and Abraham , and was
intended to apply ro all of Abraharn's descendanrs." In ir Abra-
ham prornised rhar he and his posreriry would always obey
God, and God promised Abraham everlasting possession of the
land of Canaan. God did nor ar this time cal! himself a king,
nor his dominion over Abraham a kingdom; but rhe effect was
to esrablish God as sovereign over Abraham and all his descend-
anrs.
ihis original coverianr ws renewed by Mosesiar Mount
. \ Leui atban, ch. 35, p. 442 (216).
, 1 Levi atlmn, ch. 55, pp. tjtj3-tjlf! [216-220}.
165
i
"
:I
;
.
SCRIPTURES AND SOVEREIGNS
Sinai. By mutual consenr theJ ews insriruted a civil govern- .
ment co regulate their relarions toward one anorher, roward
other 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 an
earthly sovereign rhat led them to do so.
Still Iarer J esus was senr to ee-establish this earthly kingdom
over God's chosen people. That his mission was an earrhly as
weIJ as spiritual one is preved, Hobbes argues, by several pas-
sages in Scripture., The angel Gabriel said of J esus thar he
would sir upon "tbe tbrone o/ bis Fatber Daoid." His cross carried
rhe inscri ption , "King o/ the jews." His persecution and dearh
flowed from his c1aim ro be their king , which the Roman rulers
took ro be a threat to their own power; and according ro one
text , his disciples refused to recognize Roman decrees, "sayil1g
there W~J another King, onefesus" AII these places in Scripture
prove char J esus was sent ro renew (he sovereignry of God over
his chosen people, first esrablished by his covenant with Abra-
ham and later revived by Moses. 5
Thus, Hobbes concludes, the kingdom of God, asrhis phrase
is used in borh the Old and New Tcsramenr , is to he undcrstood
as a real, eanhly kingdom. It is nor merely a metaphorical as-
sertion of Gocl's omnipotence. Otherwise, he asks, what sense
would it make ro pray "Tby Kingdnme come," as we do in rhe
Lords Prayr? We could not pray for rhe coming of God's king-
dom if by thar phrase we meant nothing more than the rule he
always exercises over the enrire world by virtue of his ornnipo-
tence. Itis plain, then, that the kingdom referred ro in that
prayer is God's earrhly kingdom over his chosen people. Thar
kingdom was overthrown when the J ews revolred aganst rhe
commonwealrh insrirured by their ancestors through Abraham
'Let'ialh,m, ch. 35, p. 447[218-219].
1(,6
11 '1,
THE SlJ 130RDINATION 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 show
thar the kingclom of Gad referred ro in the Bible cannor simply
be a metaphorical express ion for God's omnipotence. Bur this
metaphorical interpretation was nor the one about which he was
rnosr concerned. Perhaps his central poinr is rhat the kingdom
of God is an earthly commonwealth rarher rhan a spiritual
unity. This latrer view was prevalene in Christian thoughr, and
had been a basic tener of Catholic orthodoxy Ior cenruries.
None of the texts Hobbes cites, taken on their own, disprove
it. 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 Tesrament
prophecies concerning Christ was thar he would be like Moses.6
Moses chose rwelve princes, one from each of the Hebrew
cribes, to rule under hirn; Chr isr likewise chose rwelve apostles
ro do the sarne Moses chose sevenry elders to assisr in rhe spir-
itual guidance of his people; Chrisr ordained seventy disciples
afrer the sarne parrern. Moses insrirured rhe rite of circumcision
and rhe sacramenr ol Passover: Christ imitated rhese in the new
rire of bapt isrn and rhe new sacrarnenr of rhe Lords Supper. By
rhus 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" or
function was also dicrared by the pacrern esrablished by Moses
and his successors.
Indeed, Hobbes takes the roles of Abraham and Moses to be
paradigmatic in an even wider sense.? In principIe both were
Gods viceroys or lieutenants. God was sovereign over his cho-
sen people, and his authoriry was strictlyanalogous to rh.u nI
r. Ler.lhan, ch. t 1, pp' 517-521 [264-2661.
7 Le/Jidlhan, ch. 40.
167
.: :
SCRIPTURES ANO SOVEREIGNS
any mortal sovereign. In pracrice , however, he cxcrcixcc] rhis
sovereigntyexclusively through his sole lieurcn.uu . Abraham
was sovereign over the ]ewish people beforc his convcnanr with
God, and the covenanr through which God's sovereignty over
thern was established was made with Abraharn , as their aurhor-
I
ized representative, rarher than wirh the J ewish people di-
. '. rectly. Moses, likewise, was sovereign of rhe J ews when they
renewed their covenant with God. His aurhority derived orig-
inally from rheir consenr , nor from God's appointrnent. For rhe
J ewish people, obedience ro hirn was obedience to God. Borh
Abraham and Moses were sovereigns in rheir own right before
becorning God's Iieutenanrs, and for all practical purposes they
remained sovereigns afterward.
Hobbes draws three general lessons from the exarnples of
Abraham and Moses. The first is rhat al! subjects to whom God
has nor spoken directly rnust receive his commands through rhe
. intermediary of their sovereign, whoever he may be. God did
not speak to the J ewish people as a whole, Hobbes claims, bur
to Abraham alone in his time, and to Moses alone in his. Like-
wise, he does not ofren speak to prvate subjects in other corn-
monwealrhs. In the absence of any supernarutal revelation ro
the 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 vision 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 spoke
only tO Abraham, who alone had the right ro inrerpret Gcd's
word; 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 theJ ews. There is no textuaLevidence to support his
view rhat their rule should be adopted as such a model. But the
[ 68
TIII' SIII\()IUlINATION 01' I'ltOl'llECY
purpose of rhis aJ option, as apart of the argument of Leui atban,
was [he same as rhar which lay behind his inrerpreration of the
kingdom ofGod. Hobbes's insiscence that the kingdom ofGod
was a real, earrhly kingdom was designed to burrress a general
conclusion 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 was
a kingdom in the literal sense, Hobbes could claim thar 00di-
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 the
same hand wirh thar of the Civill Soveraignty; and rhe
Priesrs office afrer rhe eleer ion of Saul , was nor Magisre-
rial l , but Minisceriall."
By racitly assuming rhar the forms of governrnenr insrirured by
Abraham and Moses provided a model for all subsequenr corn-
monweal ths to imirate,? Hobbes implied that 00such division
should ever be made.
One principal targer of these argurnenrs was , of course, the
Catholic church. The disrinction berween spirirual or ecclesi-
astical power on the one hand and civil power 00 the orher had
served thar church admirably. Ir provided the leverage by
means of which successive popes had gradually established rheir
ascendancy over civil sovereigns throughout Chrisrendom. This
ascendancy was rhe product of anurnber o E doctrines and prac-
tices thar had become instirurionalized over the course of time.
The distincrion between c1ergy and laity, which had been ab-
R Leo i atbnn, ch. 40, p. 509 [254-255J .
9 )01'1 Schwarrz argues. by conrrasr , thar rheancienr Hebrew "kingdorn of
God' was no t amodcl for Hobbes, while rhe'"kingdom of GocI rocome" isa
"Hobbcsian uropia." For chis interescing iffar-fecched view, see"Hobbes and
rhe Two Kingdoins of God,'" Po li ly 18nss. pp. 7-21.
169
.,
SCRIPTURES AND SOVEREIGNS
sent from rhe prirnitive Chriscianchurches , wasone of the first
of chese docrrines co achieve general recognicion. The practice
of coronacion by bishops, which could be interpreted as irnply-
ing clerical superioricy over civil rulers and was cherefore re-
sisred by Charlernagne, was a later addirion. The establishment
of canon law as a vital framework for dispensing justice as dis-
tinct from rhe civillaw, completed in the twelfrh century with
the 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 in
cheory, from control by their civil sovereigns.!? But al! these
docrrines and pracriccs were roored ult irnately in rwo funda-
melitaIargumcnrs: rhar spiritual powd is cssl'lI!ially dis(illl(
from rhe temporal power exercised by civil sovereigns, and thar
the Roman popes are the legitimate holders of spir itual power
rhroughout t~le Christian world. The Carholic church, accord-
ing ro this argument, is the existing kingdom of God, a body
consr itu t<:d hy thc 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 is
but words. Power is as really divideJ , and as J angerously
to al! purposes, by sharing wirh another lndirect Power, as
with a Direct one. 11
The Catholic distincrion berween temporal and spirirual pow-
ers is mere verbiage. Irs purpose has always been ro camouflage
rhe church's strenuous efforts ro subject the civil sovereigns of
Christendom ro its control. This consideration alone can ex-
plain 'the facr that Hobbes's inrerpretation of this doctrine has
not 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 notice
taken of it , but char ic gives toa much light to Christian
Kings to see their right of Ecclesiaseicall Government. 12
The view that the kingdorn of God referred to in Scripture was
a merely spirituaI kingdom is so obviously false rhat no orher
explanation for it is possible. Ir is a deliberately conrrived mis-
interprerarion , one designed to conceal from Christian kings
rhe true extent of their sovereign rights.
The second rarger of rhese argumenrs was the Calvinisr view
that rhe kingdom of God had begun again with Chrisr's resur-
recr ion. Hobbes agreed wirh rhe Calvinisrs that the kingdom of
Cod is a real, c:J rthly kingt\ol11, in which spirirunl and temporal
I'0WCfS Ire (olllbillCd ill (lile authorirv. Uulil: hirn , howevcr,
they insisred thar rhar aur hor irv was not the civil sovereign, but
rhe presbytery.
This inrerpreration was far more difficulr for Hobbes tOrebut
rhan rhc Catholic view. The key text had been identified by
Tll('odorc \eza, Ctlvin's successor ar Geneva. Th is rcxt is a
srarcmcnr by J c:sus to his apost les: "Verily 1 J et)' 111110 yOff, tb.u
tbere Jf some 01 tbem tbat stand bere, lt'h/) shallllrll Itfl/lI/rlCdlh, t il!
tbey bare seeue tbe Kiugdome 01 Goe! come Il'ith JNI/I'('/". ,,' \ " [()hlw\ ad
rnirs 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; heurc
rhe former seerns inescapable. But, he poinrs Out, rherc are
orher 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 "ud
in~cnious polernir againsc Cardinal Bellarmine in/./'t'ld,h'Il1.' 1, ,1.'.1'1' .)/1,
(09 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 [amous
phrase in rhe Lord's Prayer, one of Hobbes's Iavorire Scriptural
tcxrs , in which worshippers supplicate God ro lcr ""h)' Killg-
do me co me;' implies rhat the coming of God's kingdom rcrnains
an 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 rhat
they are to be explicarcd by recrence to rhe evcnr rhar Iollows
. immediately afrer rhern , borh in the gospel ofSt. Mark and in
that of Se. Luke. This event was the transfiguration, in which
Christ appeared in a radianr, physically alrered stare and spoke
in person wirh rhe prophet Elias and wirh Mases. Three of his
.disciples witnessed this evento Hobbes conjecrurcs that it was
by way of this vis ion rhar Chrisrs promise was fulfillcd . Sorne
of thc aposrlessaw the kingdom of God come wirh powcr; bur
rhey saw chis in a vision rather chao in its actual appearancc ou
earrh ,
\\fhatever may be the true inrer prerar ion of this texr , 1Ioblx-s
argues, the weight ofScriptural evidence shows that thc,killg-
d0111 of God did not bcgin ar rhe resurrect ion. Ir begins wirh
. Christs second coming, an event rhat wil! occur at sorne time
in the indefinireFurure. There is no kingdom ofGod presenrly
cxistent in this world. Hence the claims ofPresbyterians to rep-
resent the real, earrhly kingdom of God are ill-founded. Their
atremprs to assert directly the power of their own church gov-
ernrnenr over that of civil sovereigns by claimiog jurisdictionas
the keepers of Gods earrhly kingdom are ultimately no more
plausible. and no less destrucrive , than the Catholic eforts to
gain 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 arge rhar ecclesiastical power is essenrially. distinct
frorn temporal power: thar the kingdomof God is an existing ,
spiritual unity of all Christians regulated by ecclesiastical
power; and that rhc Roman pope is [he legitimatc successor ro
rhis power. Prcsbyrcrians arguc rhar ecclcsiastical power is not
so much distinct frorn, as superior to, all temporal power; rhat
rhe kingdom of God is a real, earthly kingdom, nor merely a
spiritual uniry of all Chrisrians: and thar rhe presbyteries of
each indcpendenr city or country are the righrful holders of this
power. The Presbyrerians are right ro reject the Carholic divi-
sion berween ecclesiastical and temporal power, but wrong to
consider the former superior to the latrer. They are also right ro
rejecr rhe Cathol ic norion that rhe kingJ om of Gocl is a merely
spiritual enrit y , but absolurely wrong ro claim that ir began
wirh the resurreccion and exists in rhe presento
These rnistakes and misinterprerarions are nor , Hobbes ern-
phasizes , merely rhe products ofhonest rnisundersranding , and
their conscquences are far from benign. Borh Catholic and Pres-
byrerian doctr ines 00 the kingclom of God are designed to help
usurp legicimate sovereign power. Even where they have failed
to ach ieve rhe ir ul tirnate airn , these attempts at usurpar ion have
succeeded 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 by
Asscmbl ies 01' rhe Pastors of the place, (when the Scripture
gives ir ro 1I011C bur to Civill Soveraigns,) comes to be so
passioll;ltcly disputcd, rhat it purrerh out the Lighr of Na-
rurc , and OIlSCI \ so grcat a Darknesse in mens under-
sralldillg, rh.u t hcy scc not who ir is to whom they have
engaged tlu-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 those
who hold civil sovereignry rnust also hold the supreme power
in ecclesiastical matters. Thus he argues that to understand the
true location of ecclesiasrical power we rnust distinguish rhe
time since the ascensin of Christ into two periods: the first
running from the ascensin 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 chosen
by Christ to carry on his mission as a teacher. Thereafter, this
power was passed on to others ordained by them ro continue
this work. Thei~ commission to teach Chrisr's doctrine was
sealed by aceremony called the mposition ofhands. Thus, dur-
ing the first of these periods, ecclesiastical power was passed
from Chrisr to his aposrles, and rhence te orhers ordained by
them 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 punish
rnen for their refusal ro follow Christ's teaching Nor did ir de-
rract from every person's liberty to inrerpret rhe Scriprures in
his own way. In these days before the conversion of kings ro
Chrisrianity , rhere was no aurhorirative. inrerprerarion of the
Bible. Each man was free to approve or rejecr any inrerpreration
he liked. This was true even afrer independenr churches had
collectively decided upon the interpretations they would
,
preach:
When a difficulry arase, the Apostles and Elders of the
Church assernbled thernselves together, and dererrnined
what 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 DO 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 11111
fram the People the liberty to rc:] , :111.111'1"11'"'111""111"
themselves. lB
At no time before the conversioll 01 ,ivil ;IIv'IIi',II'.1" (111j';1i '
anity did church leaders depr ivr- rh J H'lIpk 1 IIIC'II I",\it ri:ltl
to rheir own privare interpretation nI 111(' SI ripllltc~
The conversion of kings to ChrisI ial1il y I>lought an end to
this 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 11of 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 doctrino
than 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 1l11l11'1l1 nI'
, rninisters to preach Christian doctrine."? The tigll! 01 (:ltri:;
rians to interpret the Scriptures for thernsel ves '::lJ lll' III :UI "lld,
This righr became the exclusive possession o( 1111' (ivil ';OV('
eign. Thus, with 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.tI
exegesis and one of the central ronclusious 01 111:;polil,,;tI ,,111
losop,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'}:IJ I))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 , 1 1 1 ' IlIdllll.d l" ill" " " I,I,\, I I j
rhe /irse half of Lwialhall, S('c ."li 11 11" , Ili';IO' y, .111,1 l,', 11.1, " I" F.y." l ' )""
17 5
seR 1P TU RES A N () SoV E HE H;N s
the principies of interpretation that govern his exegesis. For rhc
condusions of that political philosophy are based upon a read-
ng of God's "Natural! Word," and are thus to be presupposed
in any reading of the Scriptures as surely as are the conclusions
of natural philosophy. In this sense there is no more room for
the conclusions of sacred history to conflict with the prescrip-
'tions of political philosophy than there is for Scriptural usage of
terrns like "spirit" and "enchantrnent" to contradict our knowl-
edge of the natural world. We know what the Bible can and
cannot 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 of
sacred 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 ... universally
agreed en": in other words, fram "the Principies of Nature
onel 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 phlosophy.
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 conversion
of kings to Christianiry , in the hands of asingle 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 isevident to the meanest capacity, that mens actions
are derived from the opinions they have of the Good, or
Evill , which from those acrions redound unto themselves;
and consequently, rnen that are once possessed of an opin-
22 Leui atban , ch. 32, p. 409 [195}.
176
T 11E S 1111() IU )J N A T ION () r PRO P H Eey
ion, tliat their obedience to the Soveraign Power, will bee
more hurrfull to thern , than their disobedience, will dis-
obey the Laws , and thereby overrhrow the Cornrnon-
wealth , and introduce confusin, and Civill war; for the
avoiding whereof, all Civill Government was ordained. 23
.
Ir is utterly impossible for the conclusions of sacred history ro
be 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 of
Christian sovereigns gives rhern the right to determine the
composition as well as the interpretarion of the Bible. The true
source of Scriptural authoriry, Hobbes poinrs out, is highly
controversial:
It is aquesrion much disputed between the divers secrs of
Christian Religion, Fr o m i o bence Ihe Scr i plflr es der i ve thei r
Attlho r y; which quesrion is also prapounded sornet imes
in orher terms, as, HOUJwee kno UJ tbem lo be tbe Wo r d o f Go d,
or, Why tae be/eeve them lo be so . 25
The reason these questions are so difficult to answer is that they
are framed inadequately. The ultirnare source of Scriptural au-
thority, 'as all sides agree, is God; henee there is no dispute
about this quesrion. No one can know the Scriptures to be
God's word except those to whom this knowledge has been
11 Leo i atban, ch. 42, pp. 567-568 [295J .
HLeo i atbnn , ch. 42, p. 545 [28IJ .
21 Leui athan, ch. 33, p. 425 [205J .
177
SCRIPTURES ANO SOVEREIGNS
supernaturally revealecl; rhus rhis question is also poorly pUL
As for our belief, Hobbes argues rhar t'because some are moved
ro beleeve for one , ancl others for other reasons, rhere can be
rendred 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 civil
sovereign. This was true even before the New Testamem was
written. The Ten Cornmandrnents were the first pan of Scrip-
ture ever to have rhe obligatory force of law. " They were laid
down by God hirnself, and in this sense their aurhority derives
from him. 13ut only by the clecree of Moses, the civil sovereign
of the J ews, did they acquire the full force of law. Larer, orher
laws (conrained in rhe book of Deuteronomy) were added ro
these , again by rhe authority of Moses. Ar no time were rhe
Scriptures made law by any aurhority other than rhat of the civil
sovereign. This conclusion remains rrue in modern times. The
Bible derives irs legal force from irs authorization by acivil sov-
ereig n.:"
This conclusion is subtly but effeetively supporred hy a long
discussion of the authorship and assembly of rhe 13ible into a
complete rext .?? At first glance rhis cliseussion seerns to have
litrle tO clo with Hobbes's condusion. If the Bible, or parrs of
ir , are given legal force by rhe aurhoriry of civil sovereigns
alone, why should we need to identify irs original aurhors ami
assernblers? All we need is ro be able to ideneify the canonical
rext, and we can do rhis only by heeding rhe deerees of our sov-
crcign. Thc initial irnpression created by rhis conclusion is rhar
rnost 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' HO l' 111:r .y
of rhis discussion is probahly dilf(.I(1I1111'11111',O,I"""tld, .11'".
which is ro establish the anti<llli ry alid ;11111 f( 11..1"1' ,,1111<' V.II"" ..
books of the Bible. In the coursc o{ doill}', 1111';,11,,1,1"".11'1,,'.11
edly calls arrent ion to the humau ori:ifl:, (tI 1111' lid ,l.' 111""!"I,
God is irs ulrirnate aurhor , the acr unl I('XI \V.I\ WI,II"II 1,\, 111.
man hands. Human beings, agaill, a:>\('(III,)," 1111'Inl .1' .. 1
whole. They had co make many r.hoiccs I() dI) " " , .tI" 1,11f'.,'IVI',,'
human choices, not necessarily gllidnll,y "Ivilll' 111"1'".11'"11
The Bible , in short , is an arrifact of hlllll;11I .Inl}',1I 1\ 1,:,",1,,1
artificiality, perhaps even arbitr ariucxs , 1'; l'IlIl,,,,IIr',1 1111111'
cornposit ion and selection of its parrs. If 111<' lIil>,. 11"..11l.' 111
artifaet 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 implicatan of Hobbes's analysis. Toward the bcgill-
ning of his Scriptural exegesis in pan III of Leuiatban , as we
llave 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 as
rhar o! all !;tirh: narnely, "thc Hearing of those that are by rhe
Law allowed and appointed to Teach us, as our Parents in their
Houses, and our Pasrors in rhe Churches ," >" The Christian faith
and Scriptures are taught to rnen and wornen frorn infancy on-
ward. It is hardly surprising that so ll1any people believe in that
fairh and aceept the Bible as the word of God; they have been
tole! ro do so all rheir lives. Some men may be deprived of rhis
faith, since ir is ultimately a gift of God. Bur irs imrnediare
cause, Hobbes emphasizes, is hurnan teaching. The cornpoxi ..
tion of rhe Scriptures themselves, their legal (lln' ru a I \lit I
monwealrh , 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 itself
consrirutes a suffieient reason tOdeny the validity of [aith as a
way tO knowledge of God's word. Neverrheless , die implica-
rions of Hobbes's analysis case serious doubt upon the thesis
thar the exegetical and hisrorical arguments of the larrer half of
Leui atban form his "conrriburion ro the study of fairh ... as a
systern of revealed truth."31 Already in Tbe E lements o / Law he
had idenrified faith as a form of opinin, the propositons of
which " we are not said tO know," since rhey "are admitted by
I
trust or error."u Fairh is specifically opposed in that work ro
any kind of knowledge, wherher scientific or hisror ical. The
sarne sharp opposit ion between Caitb and knowIedge is aIso irn-
plied in Levi atban by the omission of Iairh and sacred history
from the scheme of knowledgc sct out in chaptcr 9 oC rhar
work. \\ Indccd, in leui atha Ilobhcs makes a poiut o observ-
illg (hal "Cluist iall mcn doe not know, bur o nelv bcleevc the
S, ril'(II('(' t o he t lu: \l(!md (lr G od." H "Sacred hisrory" for hirn
w.ix , ahovl' all, a hislOry of subrerfuge and deceprion. Gods
"Prophct irull Word" was in rcnlity adocurnent of ordinary hu-
man origin, and rhe motives for irs composition and assernbly
wcre in some instances far less pure than rhe fairhful generally
bcl icvcd rhcm ro he.
This decp skcpticism abour the status of prophccy w.is in rau
alogical if unsrared implication oHobbes's inference about rhe
historicity of miracles. If prophecy rnusr be validated by the
performance of miracles, as he claims, and miracles are actuall y
norhing more rhan artifaets of ignorance, as my analysis of his
arguments in the foregoing chapter has sought ro suggest, then
ir seerns to follow thar propheey itself is aproduce of ignorance
as well. Thus, insofar as the prophetic word of God conrained
" Pocock, "Time, Hisrory , and Eschatology," p. 163.
\2 E lemems 1.6.6,7.
\\ Pacack menrions , but offcrs no explanar ion of, rhis orn ission in "Time,
History , and Escharology," p. 160.
i \-1 Levi atban , ch. 4.'\, p. 614 [3241. ernphasis added.
I
:. 1R ()
. 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.Qgive those
Scriptures the force of law, ir appears that aurhority is rooted in
the 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 not
the same fate await rhe Christian Scriptures as well?35
Hobbes did not,of course, raise this question direcdy. Ir
would havc been literally suicidal for him to do so , And in any
case, no direct challenge to the authority of Scripture was nec-
essary. As arhetorical strategy it was far more effective to accept
that aurhority osrensibly and, byraising quest ions and irn-
planr inu cloubrs in rhe minds of his readers, to turn ir toward
his own purpose. But rhat purpose was clear. Ir was to subvert
man)' of rhe most central reners of Christian theology, Protes-
rant as well as Catholic , and to replace rhern with Hobbes's own
rat ional ized version of Christian doctrine.
The docrr ine Hobbes envisaged was alrnosr entirely bereft of
the rnysrical elements that had been associated with Christian-
ity since early times. The established concept of the soul as a
mysrerious spir itual subsrance was rejected in favor of the idea
that (he soul , and inclccd the enrire universe , isan ordinary ma-
terial (hillg. Like 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 the
end ofhislife on earth. There is no hell and no purgatory; these
places 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 thar he believed 'what he wrote rhan thar he wrore with his tongue in his
check" (Di t' i ne Po li ti cs , 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 orher
Christian rices is norhing more than an arrernpr ro gain power
over men by deception. These clerical c1aims ro magical power
are, if anyching, even less plausible chan rhe prerenses of the
ancient Egyptian enchanters. Nor were these claims, which had
been asserted primarily by Catholic cheologians, the only form
of deception by pretense of supernatural power. Though ir had
helped suppress the magic of Carholicisrn. the Reformation had
also opened rhe way for many false prophets and miracles. In
Hobbes's view all these contemporary c1aims to prophecy were
necessarily falseo The age of prophecy and rniracles , if these
phcnornena evcr really occurr'ed, is long gone. AII rhat remains
is the prophcric word of God recorded in the Bible. And the
validity 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 have
IwrflIlled 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 ro
prove that (he kingdom of God spokell (lf in Scripture could nor
be idenrified with any exisring church , Carholic or Protesrant.
Thc Catholic interpreration of thc killgdom of God as a realm
of spiritual power is baseless. The kill;dom ofGod in Scripture
is always a real, earthly kingdom, urtcrly unlike the rnystical
unity 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 God
will not return unril Christ's second conlng. These arrernpts to
identify 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 is
power, whether it be called spirirual or temporal. Whenit has
been successful, rhe asserrion of clerical power withincivil do-
mains has had disastrous resulrs. Ir has given rise to cornpeting
claims for the obedience of subjects and desrroyed the founda-
rions of cornmonwealrhs.
The cumulative effect of Hobbes's Scriptural argurnentation
was ro point toward what one scholar has aptly described as a
"refounding" of Christ ianity.F' Bur what was the ultirnate aim
of 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 bo mo r eli gi o sust>' For De Ci ve chis interpretation is probably
corren. The principal thrust of his argumenc in that work is to
expose false undersrandings of the kingdom of God, and by so
doing ro reconcile the essential spiritual teachings of Christi-
anity wirh the requirements of absolute sovereignty. The the-
ological argumentation of Levi athan, however, goes well be-
yond rhat of his earlier work, and has a different center of
gravity. The arguments abour God's kingdom are deve!oped
here , too--in some respects more thoroughly than they had
been before. But the greater part of his exposition is designed
to puncrure those beliefs about rhe soul and magic which
Hobbes regarded as rhe vivid and powerful, yet essentially ir-
rational, producrs of rnen's wayward imaginarions. The aim of
part III of Leui athan is not solely to cleanse Christianity of those
doctrines rnost repugnant to absolure sovereignty. Rarher, ir is
an atrempr ro get at the roots of superstirion, to jolt men and
women into recognizing the irrationality of some of theirrnost
deeply held beliefs abour their own natures, and about the na-
ture of the universe itself. Ir is not merely aproposal outlining
rhe main tenets of a civil religion thar could be instituted by
. . ~, -
.... ." , .
. ;~-, ~
Ir. Shcrlock , "Theology of Levi athan;" p. 47.
\7 Sherlock, "Theology of Leui atban;" pp. 46, 48.
183
SCRIPTURES AND SOVEREIGNS
i some future sovereign. Ir is a direct attempt to stirnulate a
transformation of the human psyche , to change the ways in
which !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 through
which 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 would
iIhave 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
H
OBBES ANTICIPATED thar rhe greatest objecrions to his
political docrrine would be based tlpon its alleged im-
pracricaliry. At no time in hisrory , critics would argue, had a
comrnonwealrh like rhat envisaged by him ever existed. "The
greatest 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 on
the verge 01' accepting this objection as decisive:
And now, considering how differenr this Doctrine is, fram
rhe Practise of the greatest pan of rhe world, especially of
rhese Western parrs , ... Iam at the point of believing
this my labour, as uselesse, as the Common-wealth of
Plato .
2
Hobbes's emphasis upan the special repugnance of his doctrine
to \'V'esterr: practice is revealing , and recalls to mind the fact
ILeui athan , ch. 20, pp. 260- 26 [107).
2 Leui athan, ch. 3 L, p. 407 [[93}.
) 85