Christian or Atheist: An Inquiry into Hobbes's Identity | Marxism Research Network

In Hobbes’s view, the wisdom required for human existence is primarily provided by reason and faith, and the meaning and value of human existence are likewise assessed through reason or faith. Furthermore, between faith and reason, Hobbes possesses a greater degree of fideism. That is to say, on the choice between reason and faith, Hobbes has already provided his answer: faith is the foundation that provides the meaning and value of existence; specifically, faith in a transcendent being is the source of the meaning and value of life. In Leviathan, Hobbes spares no effort in criticizing the Protestant doctrine of "justification by faith alone"; he endows "Leviathan"—the sovereign—with the supreme authority to interpret the Bible and the responsibility of serving as the vehicle for salvation. Even so, Hobbes still requires that the sovereign be a Christian; "Leviathan" remains a "mortal God" existing in the presence of God. In other words, man needs to live facing God and needs to be a person of faith in God; the subjects of Leviathan can only be saved by relying on Leviathan. The same applies to "Leviathan" as man’s creation and imitator. Only in this way can man and man’s imitation—Leviathan—possess a basis, meaning, and value for existence. Regarding this choice, Hobbes offers no further defense because, in his view, faith in God transcends the scope of human rational capacity. Consequently, researchers of Hobbes focus more on discussing whether his self-professed faith is sincere and reliable, rather than analyzing the reasons for his inclination toward faith.

So, is Hobbes’s self-professed faith trustworthy? Historians of Hobbesian scholarship differ greatly on this point. Broadly speaking, there are two interpretative models: first, the secularizing interpretative model, in which scholars believe Hobbes’s professions of faith are dishonest and untrustworthy; second, the faith-based interpretative model, in which scholars hold that his faith is pious and trustworthy.

For a long time, Hobbes was generally considered an atheist, yet he never once called himself one. To the contrary, he claimed to be a Christian who believed "Jesus is the Christ." So, were those who considered Hobbes an atheist misunderstanding him? How should we approach Hobbes’s profession of faith? A major reason Hobbes was considered an atheist is that his contemporaries called him such. However, according to Wittgenstein’s "language game theory," although the term "atheism" shares a "family resemblance," its true connotation must be endowed by people in specific use across different eras and cultural backgrounds. When we mention "atheism" in China today, its meaning primarily refers to having no religious beliefs and not believing in the existence of any transcendent god; an atheist refers to a person who holds this view. But when a 17th-century Englishman was considered an "atheist," did the true meaning really signify a person without religious belief who did not believe in a transcendent God? Perhaps such a conclusion fits our current usage habits and psychological expectations. However, matters are often not so simple and clear-cut; the meaning a term intends to express in a specific context can be poles apart from our habitual usage. Therefore, what we need to know is: what exactly did "atheism" and "atheist" signify in Hobbes’s time?

According to A.P. Martinich’s research, the word "atheist" in the 17th century was more often used as "a term of abuse"; it could also refer to someone whose philosophical or religious principles inherited an atheistic critical stance. Meanwhile, the term "atheist" in the 17th century also possessed the characteristics of a "quasi-political term," used by various parties with differing political ideas and stances to accuse one another. For instance, both Queen Elizabeth and James I were dubbed "atheists" by their opponents. It is evident from this that the meaning of "atheist" in 17th-century England differed markedly from the modern sense, and the gap is especially vast when compared to the meaning endowed by domestic Chinese scholars.

Martinich’s vindication of Hobbes is significant. He not only allows us to see through the "historical mist" to the original face of the title "atheist," but also argues that Hobbes was "a sincere and relatively orthodox Christian." This is because he believes that although Hobbes was accused of being an atheist in his time, his proof for "the existence of God" used relatively traditional methods. Furthermore, after being accused of atheism by John Bramhall, Hobbes did not remain silent but actively defended himself to prove his innocence in matters of religious faith.

In fact, Martinich’s vindication of Hobbes is merely a recent link in a long chain of effort; before him, countless thinkers worked hard to clear Hobbes of the label of atheist. In the famous "Introduction to Leviathan" published in 1946, Michael Oakeshott argued that Hobbes’s Leviathan is the greatest, perhaps even unique, masterpiece of political philosophy written in English. It was precisely due to Hobbes’s work that the second mode of reflection on politics in European intellectual history—one dominated by the concepts of "will" and "artifact"—reached its pinnacle. Moreover, Hobbes’s Leviathan is a subtle explanation of the human predicament and its means of rescue. Regarding the human predicament and its resolution, beyond external conditions of survival, the need for inner peace and a sense of certainty in the social order leads humanity to need to trust in an ultimate purpose and value; God is the ultimate purpose and value of this world. Therefore, in Oakeshott’s view, Hobbes followed exactly this line of thought to explicate the human predicament and its rescue, and his mode of thinking was of "medieval extraction." Thus, Hobbes’s Christian faith is sincere and trustworthy.

Howard Warrender held a similar position. He argued that in Leviathan, Hobbes discussed different types of obligations, such as physical obligation, political obligation, and moral obligation; all these obligations, in the final analysis, are obligations to God. Warrender’s book, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: His Theory of Obligation, focuses precisely on expounding this idea. Thus, in Warrender’s view, Hobbes’s self-profession of Christian faith is also trustworthy.

George Wright believed that Hobbes was quite wronged, often misunderstood or even intentionally distorted by modern scholars. He pointed out that some modern scholars, when editing Leviathan, even deleted the entirety of Part IV and the main contents of Part III because they held no meaning for "modernist" conceptions. He stated: "On the path to clarifying the historical understanding of Hobbes’s intentions and contributions, there is a stumbling block, which is the self-evident and self-guaranteed concept of modernity. As an 'early modern thinker,' Hobbes has from time to time been subject to an interpretative back-projection." In fact, Hobbes was a firm supporter of the Protestant tradition, for he commented on major issues associated with the rise of Protestant doctrine and provided answers to them; these answers were primarily formed within the terminology provided by the cultural and foundational conditions of Protestant doctrine itself. Wright even called Hobbes a "Puritan theologian." So, how did Hobbes profess his own Christian faith? And after being accused of being an atheist, how did he defend himself?

In the 1668 Latin edition of Leviathan, the content included an appendix not found in the 1651 English edition. In the third chapter of the Appendix, Hobbes defended himself against accusations of atheism. Looking at the defense throughout the chapter, one can say it touches upon all aspects. From some of the main concepts of Leviathan to Christian theological doctrines like the Church, angels, the Kingdom of God, the soul, eternal life, salvation, and the Trinity, Hobbes provided clear explanations and defenses. To our eyes, the key lies in two points: first, the defense regarding "God as a body," and second, the defense of the doctrine of the "Trinity."

First, in Leviathan, Hobbes argued that the universe is the aggregate of all bodies, so no real part of it can fail to be a body; since God exists, according to Hobbes’s logic, God is a body—that is, God is corporeal. To many of his contemporaries, this was simply sacrilege and a typical atheistic view. In response to this accusation, Hobbes argued in the Appendix to Leviathan: "To assert that God is a body—before him [Hobbes], Tertullian ^[1], in an argument against Apelles and other heretics of his time, had already asserted the same proposition... and none of the first four Ecumenical Councils condemned this doctrine."

Moreover, in Hobbes’s view, although there were differences among the Church Fathers, the Council of Nicaea itself did not explicitly state that God is incorporeal; they did not want to introduce the word "incorporeal" into the Creed because the word cannot be found in the Bible. Furthermore, God's incorporeality cannot be deduced from the word "co-essential" (consubstantial). Therefore, saying "God is a body" does not violate the Bible. To the contrary, admitting "God is a body" is the only true way to acknowledge God’s existence. Because in Hobbes’s view, only that which has body truly exists; God truly exists, therefore God is a body. He said: "To say God is an incorporeal existence is equivalent to saying God does not exist at all." And this body of God is that in which "the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily."

Secondly, in Leviathan, there is a passage stating that the true God can also be represented by humans. Initially, God was represented by Moses; the Israelites governed by Moses were not his own subjects but God's. He did not govern in his own name using phrases like "Moses says," but in God's name using phrases like "God says." Secondly, God was represented by His own son, our holy Savior Jesus Christ, the Son of Man who descended to earth to educate the Jews and lead all nations back to the kingdom of the Father; Christ did not come of himself but was sent by the Father. Thirdly, He was represented by the Holy Spirit or Paraclete ^[2] who spoke through and moved the Apostles; this Holy Spirit was not a Paraclete who descended to earth of his own accord, but was sent simultaneously by both the Father and the Son.

This passage was also denounced as an atheistic utterance. How are we to understand these words? Regarding this, the author (referring to Hobbes—Ed.) appears to intend an explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity, though he does not call it by that name: it is a pious wish, but the explanation is erroneous. This is because, just as with all Christian monarchs, since Moses bore the person of God in a specific manner, he would seem here to constitute one person within a Trinity. Hobbes admits he committed an error here due to haste. However, he immediately adds: "If the author had said that God in His own person created the world; in the person of the Son, He redeemed humanity; and in the person of the Holy Spirit, He sanctified the Church; then the author would have said nothing except what the Church says in its dogmatic responses."

What does this mean? After admitting his original haste, Hobbes quickly adds an explanation of what he fundamentally intended to express—namely, the doctrine of the Trinity. His understanding of the Trinity never exceeded the scope of the Church's interpretation; he merely repeated it for the Church. This is what Hobbes meant by "said nothing except what the Church says." From this perspective, Hobbes believed his understanding of the Trinity conformed to traditional ecclesiastical dogma.

In truth, whether Hobbes's profession of Christian faith was sincere and whether his defense of his own innocence is trustworthy is a question that warrants perpetual discussion; perhaps it is fundamentally insoluble. In a sense, this remains a matter of "confessional" interpretation by Hobbes scholars, who interpret his faith based on their own prior assumption of whether he was a Christian or an atheist. That is to say, it is a circular argument: first a conclusion is determined, and then proof is sought for that conclusion.

However, if we measure this by Hobbes’s own standard for judging atheism, the conclusion that his profession of faith was sincere and reliable holds ground. In response to the question "By what acts can atheism be proven?", Hobbes argued that whether through the spoken word or the written pen, a person can only be judged an atheist based on what is said, and not based on their actions. In Hobbes's view, actions can be feigned. Therefore, only those who directly deny the existence of God or openly declare they have doubts about God's existence can be identified as atheists. Furthermore, Hobbes believed that those judged to be atheists should be subject to severe punishment. If Hobbes is judged by this standard, he is certainly not an atheist. As Martinich stated previously, throughout his life Hobbes never openly proclaimed himself an atheist as Nietzsche and others did; moreover, when accused of atheism, he actively defended himself. The same is true of the Latin appendix to Leviathan. In George Wright’s words: throughout the appendix to Leviathan, the problem Hobbes sought to resolve was "to attest to the correctness of a concept of faith rooted in history, establishing the foundation of faith upon the supreme status of the Bible... Hobbes also wished to show that such a historically rooted concept of faith was consistent with the authority of the secular sovereign over matters such as the Book of Common Prayer and public professions of faith."

At the end of the appendix to Leviathan, Hobbes’s concluding remarks perhaps allow us to sense the sincerity of his Christian faith even more. He says: "In these examples you (referring to a fictional interlocutor—Ed.) have cited, I find nothing contrary to the faith of our Church, though several of these examples defeat the teachings of unofficial theologians." Therefore, we believe: Hobbes’s self-profession of faith was sincere and trustworthy.

III

When faced with the choice between "reason" and "faith," Hobbes resolutely expressed his "faith" and his identity as a Christian. As Carl Schmitt noted, although posterity has continually misunderstood his piety, Hobbes remained a devout Christian. Perhaps we can perceive something deeper within Hobbes’s "faith."

In an era undergoing secularization, where the power of reason was increasingly manifest and robust, and where the image of Man grew taller while God receded, Hobbes allows us to see once more: in an age of reason and calculation, without God, humanity will live in a chaotic and meaningless "state of nature"; without God, the obedience of man to man might be a mere ephemeral dream, while the reality remains a "war of all against all."

Seventeenth-century England, plagued by incessant civil wars, was a realm devoid of existential meaning and value. Facing an England torn by internal conflict and the strife of sects and dogmas, Hobbes saw the misfortune and sorrow of the people living through it. This touched Hobbes's sensitive and fragile soul. With his steadfast Christian faith, he used his "Leviathan"—under the guardianship of a sublime God—to seek a peaceful and tranquil earthly life. He hoped even more that through Leviathan, people in suffering could find the "Promised Land"—the direction and the foundation for trust in the Kingdom of God. Hobbes endowed Leviathan with absolute authority, hoping it could bolster the courage to survive for those who were distressed, struggling, and weak in the earthly world. Yet Leviathan is also extremely fragile; its duties and its nature as a created thing dictate that it must inevitably submit to and serve a higher existence—God.

In Hobbes and his Leviathan, we see a kind of "courage to be" and hope, because it overcomes the fear of the most terrifying thing in the earthly world—violent death. This allows the meaning and value of "living" people to endure, and allows them to live within an ineffable yet infinitely wonderful hope. Perhaps, in Hobbes's Leviathan, man not only obtains justice for a brief earthly existence but can further obtain eternal "righteousness," because Leviathan can enable people to be "saved" and become subjects of the Heavenly Kingdom. In short, Hobbes exerted every effort within Leviathan to seek a sense of meaning and value for human existence; even more, he used Leviathan to defend a certain kind of "hope."

Hobbes did not only hope to use his "Leviathan" to maintain peace and reshape the meaning and value of survival; he also expected his teachings on "reason and faith" to reconstruct faith in a transcendent, ultimate God within an increasingly "rationalized" age. For he believed only faith—faith in an existence higher than man—could give meaning and value to human life. He believed that possessing reason was not enough to make a man human, and the truths provided by reason were insufficient to bring peace and tranquility. Therefore, when faced with the choice between reason and faith, Hobbes embodied more of the latter—or rather, he chose faith and continually defended this choice.