Ghost in the Machine: Spirit and Matter in Thomas Hobbes

Antnio Martins Gomes (Universidade Nova de Lisboa CHC)

My gratitude goes to Fernando Dias Antunes, my word guru.

I. Introduction
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) lived in one of the richest and most disorderly
times in the history of England, and his book Leviathan, published in 1651, is a
consequence of this period. Fully titled Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a
Commonwealth and Civil Ecclesiasticall, it clearly explains the natural-law principles,
those values that secularized ruling and its foundations, by viewing it as not exclusive
to the realm of divine, but instead as inherent to human nature itself.
The increasing confrontation
between Empiricists and Rationalists,
Catholics and Protestants, Aristocracy
and Bourgeoisie, representatives of the
spiritual and the temporal powers,
inspired this natural-law theorist to
overcome such a moment of calamity
and turmoil, by trying to find the best
form of relationship, by means of a
social contract between all community
members.
Fascinated

by

the

new

science, and starting up from a new

social model, subject to a system of
market relations, where individual work
itself is a commodity which implies a
generalized competition between all
community members, in a struggle for
greater power, Hobbes endows his
theory with a materialistic nature by describing state, its community and members in a
mechanistic way.
First and foremost, the present work approaches on a particular community
and its sovereign as directly opposed to the clerical power, as expressed in Leviathan.

The title - Ghost in the Machine - seeks to link Hobbess ideas to the Cartesian
dualism, described by the British philosopher Gilbert Ryle: humans and civil society
regarded in a mechanistic point of view, sharing their space with soul and Catholic
Church, two strange oppressing entities trying to hold back civilization, at all cost. In
this severe struggle for power, Thomas Hobbes has no doubts about whom to assign
the decisions regarding the future of community.

II. The influence of the new science

As mentioned above, Thomas Hobbes lived in a very chaotic period in the
history of England, both at social level - the war between the King and Parliament for
the conquest of power - and religious one, with the inability of the Church to moderate
its believers restlessness, and the strict dissension within Christianity dating back to
the early 16th century.
As a central theme, Leviathan presents the social contract not only between
sovereign and subjects, but also among all citizens, the only valid and consensual way
for a social coexistence and the desired peace. This book would never have had the
clairvoyance and logical reasoning in the debate of the ideas exposed, should the
author not have the crucial influence of the new science, whose advent, announced in
the 16th century, would change the whole image of a science based on an Aristotelian
and Thomistic medieval structure.
By breaking up with a sphere where knowledge arises both from the senses
and God based reasoning, scientists like Galileo, Bacon and Descartes will surpass
significantly the Western way of thinking on metaphysics and theological speculation.
The century of Hobbes witnesses the growth of an empirical science doing its
researches on phenomena that usually belonged to the exclusive domain of faith.
Leviathan is pervaded with this new scientific spirit, in an ascendant path
dating back to the late 15th century, despite the continuing opposition from scholastic
philosophy. Leonardo da Vincis Astronomy studies, Galileo Galileis experience of
falling bodies, the concept of planet motion laws created by the Mathematics
researcher Johannes Kepler, and the discovery of blood circulation by the English
physician William Harvey, are some examples of irretrievable contributions to the
improvement of the materialistic theory of the universe.
From a young age, some of Hobbess journeys to the continent convey him a
consciousness of a new intellectual and truth-seeking reality: between 1610 and 1612,
2

he realizes that the Aristotelian method is already being questioned, in spite of having
been taught in English schools; between 1629 and 1631, he comes across with a
Geometry book by Euclid, and is amazed with his skill of argumentation and
consistency; between 1634 and 1637, Hobbes attends Natural Philosophy classes in
Paris. In addition, for some time, he was secretary to Francis Bacon.
In the autumn of 1640, when the Parliament was about to start a conflict with
the monarchic authority, Thomas Hobbes flees to Paris, where Leviathan is written and
published. This title is borrowed from The Bible, and means a sea creature extensively
described by God to Job (Job 41); the author makes use of this allegorical sea monster
to pass on the idea that the best State is the one that detains naval power, in other
words, the only way to have full authority. Therefore, Leviathan is the state system
itself, based on the secular power, and where the Church is entirely absent.
Later on someone vented the possibility that the book had been written for
Oliver Cromwell. 29 years after, in his Considerations upon the Reputation, Loyalty,
Manners and Religion, of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury [...], the author explains
that, in 1650, Cromwell was a mere General. The book was especially dedicated to
Charles II, of whom Hobbes had been tutor and who, at that time, was also on the run.
However, not only the English monarchic circle in Paris showed some spitefulness
towards the book, but also the French Catholics hated the hefty attacks on the Papacy.
At any rate, the idea of seeing Hobbess theories rejected by his
contemporaries is not very accurate. Although unpleasant for many politicians and
clergymen, his doctrine had a wide acceptance and wholeheartedness among many
intellectual circles1.
The style and form of Leviathan, consisting of 47 chapters divided into four
parts, are influenced by modern science. Nearly half the work is dedicated to a
comprehensive and polemic study on Christian ideology, and contains several
additional arguments with examples from the Bible.
Hobbes wants to be fully conscious of the meaning of every word employed in
his book, and so he explains, with full precision, the most dubious ones, in order to
pass on his ideas accurately. Hence one of his criticisms is pointed to the Church of
Rome for its methodical use of the incomprehensible Latin language in order to
approach the mysteries of religion in a more mystifying and odd way2:

The biographer Anthony Wood, in Athenae Oxoniensis (1691), refers to Leviathan as having
influenced half the nation.
At a linguistic level, this period is contemporary of Modern English, when this language is
already in a mature phase, which allows it to compete with Latin. There is a strong response of
people to the incomprehensibility of Latin words when employed in a massive way, and the
Latinisms used the inkhorn terms are seen as preciosity. The Authorized King James

The Language also, which they use, both in the Churches, and in their
Publique Acts, being Latine, which is not commonly used by any Nation now in the
world, what is it but the Ghost of the Old Romane Language? (HOBBES 1979, XLVII,
381)

Hobbess urge to pursuit truth in politics, science or religion, leads him to

attach a huge importance to Words and to their purest meaning, since they are a great
source of power:
For it is evident enough, that Words have no effect, but on those that
understand them; and then they have no other, but to signifie the intentions, or
passions of them that speak; and thereby produce, hope, fear, or other passions, or
conceptions in the hearer. (HOBBES 1979, XXXVI, 238)

III. The Games of Power

1. Body and Soul

In Leviathan, the meaning of body is thoroughly described:

The Word Body, in the most generall acceptation, signifieth that which filleth,
or occupyeth some certain room, or imagined place; and dependeth not on the
imagination, but is a reall part of that we call the Universe. For the Universe, being the
Aggregate of all Bodies, there is no reall part thereof that is not also Body; nor any
thing properly a Body, that is not also part of (that Aggregate of all Bodies) the
Universe. (HOBBES 1979, XXXIV, 210)

Matter is, in fact, the essence of the Universe, the necessary foundation of all
research, and everything beyond the physical substance is sheer speculation. A
centuries-old tradition, reinforced by Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, neo-Platonic or
Christian theories, inter alia, considered soul a spiritual and divine essence with an
existence of its own, separated from the body and, therefore, imperishable. Refuting
such unyielding theory in the mid-17th century was still a sign of Atheism.
Rene Descartes had solved this dilemma reasonably by declaring the
existence of two genuine substances: matter and soul. In this Manicheistic dualism,
where everything is either matter or spirit, Hobbes selects the first alternative and
asserts that there is nothing left of a human being after his death. According to the
latter, soul depends on body, hence corresponding to life:
That the Soul of man is in its own nature Eternall, and a living Creature
independent on the Body; or that any meer man is Immortall, otherwise than by the
Resurrection in the last day, (except Enos and Elias,) is a doctrine not apparent in
Scripture. (HOBBES 1979, XXXVIII, 243)
Version of The Holy Bible (1611) marks the assertion of English as the official language and
the decline of Latin as a scholarly language.

Following the Epicurean philosophy, Hobbes also sees the entire Universe
corporeal and made of material entities in an endless motion1. According to Karl Marx,
the English theorist systematizes Bacons materialism, since, in his mind, there are no
incorporeal substances; therefore, it is unreasonable to assert that the thoughts
produced from matter will become self-sufficient.
From the ideas expressed in Leviathan, we realize how the author supports
the new scientific knowledge, namely experimental observation and its conversion into
mathematical relations. Natural science is only possible by reducing natural processes
to mathematical relations, through its quantification. This is what Hobbes tries to
measure in the whole universe, overlooking everything from the transcendental and
immaterial sphere:
The World, (I mean not the Earth onely, that denominates the Lovers of it
Worldly Men, but the Universe, that is, the whole masse of all things that are) is
Corporeall, that is to say, Body; and hath the dimensions of Magnitude, namely,
Length, Bredth, and Depth: also every part of Body, is likewise Body, and hath the like
dimensions; and consequently every part of the Universe, [...]. (HOBBES 1979, XLVI,
367)

If soul is something unfindable and fully static, matter and body issue is what
truly matters to Hobbes. Akin to the new science, the author believes in the idea of
motion by stating that the structure of a human body is in constant mutation. In other
words, originated in Aristotle, life itself is nothing but matter in perpetual motion.
Before cyclical phenomena of nature, fear disappears since its whole mystery
is explained:
[...] whatsoever accidents or qualities our senses make us think there be in
the world, they be not there, but are seeming and apparitions only: the things that
really are in the world without us, are those motions by which these seemings are
caused. (HOBBES 1966, 8)

The motion of external bodies is responsible for the direct or indirect action
exerted on the human organs of perception. Thus sensorial perception is nothing but
matter in motion.
In so far as Hobbes seeks to understand and explain everything around him
by using a scientific terminology, we may consider him a forebear of modern
Positivism. Such is the case of his description of the human body, in the introduction to
Leviathan, as if it were a quite intricate machine - a bold interpretation for this period in
that it seeks to nearly remove the presence of the soul: For what is the Heart, but a
Spring; and the Nerves, but so many Strings; and the Joynts, but so many Wheeles,
giving motion to the whole Body, such as was intended by the Artificer?
1

th

Giordano Bruno, in the late 16 century, had defended already the idea that matter is
understood as an automotive and independent principle. According to this scientist, shape
cannot exist outside matter, and vice versa. Matter is born from matter, in an endless
recreation of new and varied forms.

Partaking William Harveys ideas (1578-1657), Hobbes supports the notion

that heart is a source of life and senses. Through the circulatory motion formed in the
human body, the heart commands desires, feelings, thoughts and all sorts of
reasoning, which are motions in nature resulting from vibrations produced by the brain
matter.
In short, the perception of everything that happens in reality derives from the
production of many simultaneous movements arising in our consciousness in the form
of colour, sound or temperature: Neither in us that are pressed, are they anything
else, but divers motions; (for motion, produceth nothing but motion.) (HOBBES 1979,
I, 3)

2. From the State of Nature to the Social State

Sovereignty and power is a seriously important issue to Hobbes. Throughout

the centuries, both the absence of a sovereign and the relations between delegates of
secular and spiritual power created many disputes. To whom shall the authority be
assigned when there is no leader? Which are the options before two opponent powers?
In De Cive, published in the year of Leviathan, Hobbes attempts to prevent
that social conflicts end up in a civil war (such as the one occurred between 1642 and
1649), and in Behentoth (1680) he makes a sociological approach to the causes of civil
war. In Leviathan, he tries to demonstrate, in a logical way, the need to create an
absolute and indivisible sovereign State as a means of achieving peace. For this
purpose, before addressing the issue of State and power, Hobbes makes a notable
study of the human mind and of nature, pointing out that every voluntary human action
is set up by appetites of different strengths and by the need to satisfy them; that is, the
author describes the appetites and aversions that constrain men, because, in his
opinion, they are responsible for every human act.
According to Hobbes, there are two kinds of power: the natural powers, also
called original, derive from the faculties of body or mind, such as strength, prudence,
arts, eloquence, or nobility; the instrumental powers are acquired by the previous ones
or by fortune, as means to obtain even more, such as wealth, status, friends or good
luck.
Outlining a historical string, the English theorist refers that there was a state of
warfare among mankind, before the establishment of sovereignty. The homo homini
lupus law was dominant, implying the acceptance of conflict as a distinctive part of
human nature. The absence of sovereignty, rules or social laws happened in a full state
6

of nature, where men felt the right to possess all things. Under these conditions, men
could not live in any politically organized society. By viewing any other man as a likely
enemy, ones tendency was to use the sense of self-preservation. In the state of
nature, in a full denial of civilization, no man is required to abide by any contract.
According to a Thomas Hobbess famous expression, freedom is the silence
of the laws. In fact, in a state of liberty everyone is free to satisfy his cravings since no
one is subjected to social rules. As mentioned above, the author rejects the traditional
Aristotelian theory, which regards man as a political animal, and the natural relations
between men as peaceful and gregarious, war and conflicts being just a hiatus of these
normal conditions. In contrast, Hobbes argues that the natural tendency of man is to
live in a perpetual state of insecurity and fear, if he lacks protection from a powerful
sovereign or government.
Civil peace being an essential good, one should try to find (and keep) it at all
costs, in order to guarantee the balance of society. Hence, in Leviathan we find the
golden rule, taken from the Gospels principles, which had in view the same end: Do
unto others as you would have them do unto you.
In the 16th century, Europe had been involved, much of the time, in bloody
wars on behalf of religion. People died in the name of truth; however, according to
Hobbes, whatever the truth may be, life in society can only exist if and when everyone
acknowledges the desire of peace as the only thing that brings men together.
The Hobbesian doctrine stands upon the idea that life is desire, truth is power,
and speech is contract. If we have a simple and perpetual pleasure in the desire that
leads us to action, if full happiness in life lies in the power to accomplish that pleasure,
and if it is not possible for a human being to coexist with another human being without
a mutual resignation of powers, then the entire relationship among men must be
conceived, certainly, in terms of desire, power and contract.
Thomas Hobbes wishes to bring peace to England. According to his words,
human society starts with natural law and ends in civil law, the utmost form of
coexistence. This is a tough path that begins in a primal and insecure state of nature,
and ends in a civilized and peaceful society, governed by a supreme authority, which
was settled by common agreement.
In the 17th century, the concept of the individual becomes increasingly
important. However, the idea of freedom, mostly understood in a social sense, instead
of a theological one, will be the first value arising from the dawn of liberalism, and will
also help each one achieve other natural rights such as life, personal fulfilment or
property. All these concepts and values are inherent to the social contract.

Peace among men is established through an agreement, through which a

state of nature turns into a social state. Complying with a contract, men resign to all
their individual powers and put them in the hands of a sovereign, who will be the
expression of a collective power, with liberty to act for the benefit of the community, all
members being obliged to abide by laws:
[...] the Right of all Soveraigns, is derived originally from the consent of
every one of those that are to bee governed; whether they that choose him, doe it for
their common defence against an Enemy, as when they agree amongst themselves to
appoint a Man, or an Assembly of men to protect them; [...]. (HOBBES 1979, XL, 312313).

3. The Civil States Unlimited Power

Thomas Hobbess idea about the society to which he belongs - fragmented

and egotistical - leads him to consider the need of a permanent and indisputable
sovereign, in order to keep citizens in strict compliance with social rules; the reason is
that, although in a contractual basis, and therefore artificial (unlike in a state of nature),
all forces are necessary to preserve contracts established by free will.
The notion of sovereignty is also regarded as utterly essential. As with divine
power, also the sovereign must have an everlasting power; the holder of such power is
always above the scrutiny of his subjects, an intrinsic attribute to his governance1; In
Leviathan, there are clear references to the severe consequences of an absence of
sovereign power, even more serious than those resulting from any abuse of this same
power:
So it appeareth plainly, to my understanding, both from Reason, and
Scripture, that the Soveraign Power, whether placed in One Man, as in Monarchy, or
in one Assembly of men, as in Popular, and Aristocraticall Common-wealths, is as
great, as possibly men can be imagined to make it. And though of so unlimited a
Power, men may fancy many evill consequences, yet the consequences of the want of
it, which is perpetuall warre of every man against his neighbour, are much worse.
(HOBBES 1979, XX, 109)

The unlimited power of the state includes religious, moral and social aspects,
since the ruler of Christianity is the legitimate representative of God on Earth, and is
conscientiously bound to the laws of nature, hence taking the duty to satisfy his people
through peacekeeping.
For Hobbes, political duty is a moral obligation imposed by divine will, resulting
thus the mutual respect of the Contracting Parties. Therefore it is not surprising that
there is such a strong and significant insistence on keywords like judge, law,
1

In the first edition, Leviathans frontispiece shows an immense crowd shaping the body of their
Sovereign, for it is he who, by enforcing the law, provides unity and peace to community.

transgression, sentence, legislator, judgment, obedience, justice or court,

amongst others.
Thus, the right of Kings, hither to of a divine nature, becomes a conveyance of
citizens powers, although the authority granted to the sovereign will continue to derive
directly from God: For Christian Kings have their Civill Power from God immediately;
[...] All lawfull Power is of God, immediately in the Supreme Governour, and mediately
in those that have Authority under him: [...]. (HOBBES 1979, XLII, 309).
In Leviathan, power being a word of supreme value, Hobbes will dare to
vehemently condemn the ecclesiastical power, institutionalized by the Roman Catholic
Church and officialised by Dictatus Papae, a bulla decreed in the 11th century by
Gregory VII1, whose purpose was to assert the superiority of this Church. Nevertheless,
as in the words repeated by Hobbes throughout his book:
[...] no man can obey two masters. [...] Christ himself told us is impossible,
namely, to serve two Masters. (HOBBES 1979, XLII, 306-307)
Men cannot serve two Masters: They ought therefore to ease them, either
by holding the Reins of Government wholly in their own hands; or by wholly delivering
them into the hands of the Pope; [...].(HOBBES 1979, XLII, 313)

In the moment of choosing between civil ruling, embodied by State and

sovereign, and ecclesiastical power, represented by the Roman Church and the
papacy, Hobbess choice is quite clear - the Church must be subordinated to the State,
and the legitimate religion must be recognized by the ruler. The law of the State is
above the law of the Church:
Therefore the Ministers of Christ in this world, have no Power by that title, to
Punish any man for not Beleeving, or for Contradicting what they say; they have I say
no Power by that title of Christs Ministers, to Punish such: but if they have Soveraign
Civill Power, by politick institution, then they may indeed lawfully Punish any
Contradiction to their laws whatsoever: [...]. (HOBBES 1979, XLII, 269)

The apparent reason for this premise can be found in the social contract
theory: if man is the creator of a State free from divine interference, then it is natural for
him to claim for total emancipation of politics and its separation from the religion field.
Hobbes criticizes those who think that state security relies upon the Church and the
clergy. In fact, the clergy is not crucial, in any way, to the existence of the state and the
community; on the contrary, the security of the Church depends both on the national
security and the sovereign power.

The Dictatus Papae was the most authoritarian reform of the ecclesiastical and feudal society.
This bull stated that, for instance, the Roman Church had a sacred origin, having been
founded directly by Christ - therefore being infallible; only the Roman Catholic Pontiff is
universal; and the Pope is the only man who can be kissed in the foot, which means that his
power is above the princes and may overthrow the Emperor.

4. Atheism, according to Hobbes

a) A denied reality
For Plato, the existence of gods is something beyond any doubt; the Greek
philosopher, in his Laws, states that all mankind, including Greeks and non-Greeks,
believe in gods. Later, the 3rd century Christian apologist, Lactantius, declares in
Institutorum that "Argumentum" is "consensu Gentium"; in other words, a great number
of nations and peoples share the universal consensus on the existence of God.
However, doubts on this subject always remained in ones mind. Throughout
the centuries, depending on the current freedom of speech, they were expressed in
greater or lesser intensity and straightforwardness. In 16th century England, too many
religious confrontations were among the main causes for the growth of Atheism and
disbelief, which caused a major source of social unrest: on the one hand, the clash
between Catholics and Protestants; on the other hand, conflicts among various
religious sects, arisen from dissent. All these struggles for the monopoly of truth only
contributed for the people to acknowledge that, after all, truth did not belong exclusively
to any of the conflicting parties1.
These religious controversies are not the sole contributors for the growing of
Atheism. From the late Middle Ages throughout the Renaissance, in addition,
philosophy in increasingly showing secular signs of irreligiousness, while Art and
Science converge their attention to planet Earth and become more devoted to human
nature: by conveying the idea that God is not everything and Man is beyond what was
believed, the anthropocentric system began to rid the world of a sacred context to
which it has always been bound2.
Towards the end of the 17th century, in the Essay Concerning Human
Understanding, John Locke declares that, given the existence of Atheists, who had
already spread their thoughts in previous centuries, the idea of God cannot be
universal, therefore inborn. Until the 19th century, there was a staunch refusal to
acknowledge the existence of Atheists, as quoted in the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
Many people, both ancient and modern, have pretended to atheism, or have
been reckoned atheists by the world; but it is justly questioned whether any man

Attesting this idea there are the countless testimonies of authors such as the one by Thomas
Nashe; in his book Pierce Penniless (1592), he refers to religious controversy as the main
reason for the growing disbelief. Hooker, another British author of the same period, also
realizes that this fact fostered the increasing number of Atheists in his country, and exposes
this same idea in Laws of Ecclesiastical Politie. Finally, Francis Bacon, in his essay On
Atheism (1597), also considers this issue as one of the true causes of Atheism.
At a certain point, Renaissance humanism was eventually seen by Catholic Church as a sort
of a covert Atheism and therefore incompatible with Christian doctrine.

10

seriously adopted such a principle. These pretensions, therefore, must be founded on

pride or affectation. (in BERMAN 1988, 1)

During Hobbess lifetime, some authors denied the existence of atheists. In

Atheomastix (1622), Bishop Martin Fotherby, based on universal consensus,
vehemently denies the existence of atheists, by stating that there is an inbred
perswasion in the hearts of all men, that there is a God. (in BERMAN 1988, p. 34).
In 1624, Lord Herbert of Cherbury publishes his book De veritate, where he
uses Fotherbys argument to prove that there is God. For Lord Herbert, the belief of all
common people in His existence is enough as evidence.
Sir Thomas Browne also believes that Atheism never existed. In his book
Vulgar Errors (1645), he refers that many there are who cannot conceive that there
was ever any absolute Atheist. (in BERMAN 1988, 42).
Both Henry More (1653) and Philippus Baldaeus (1672) refer to the universal
consensus argument, the latters reasoning being particularly interesting:
The existence of a God, or Supreme Being, is so firmly rooted in the heart of
mankind, that there is no nation in the world but has acknowledged the same. What is
alledged to the contrary of the Chileses, Tapujars, Brasilians, Madagascarians, as
also the inhabitants of Florida, the Caribee Islands, and especially the Cape of Good
Hope, must rather be attributed to the want of knowledge of those authors than real
truth. Of this I was sufficiently convinced in 1666, when I tarried three months at the
Cape of Good Hope, where I found these barbarians to perform their religious services
in the night-time, which I had no opportunity to observe in 1665, when I came that way
before. (in BERMAN 1988, 42)

In 1878, Ralph Cudworth publishes The true intellectual system of the

universe: the first part, wherein all the reasons and philosophy of atheism is confuted.
And its impossibility demonstrated (eventually, it had no continuity). In this book, the
leader of the Cambridge Platonists proclaims the falsehood of Atheism, for it is powerdriven by a sightless and unreasonable impetus.
With so many authors denying the existence of Atheists, they could be asked
some questions: Whom were these messages sent to? Whom were they quarrelling
with? If there was a universal consensus on the existence of God, then was the
publication of these texts not inconsistent and pointless? In 1699, replying to Bishop
Edward Stillingfleet John Locke asks these two questions in this regard: Were there
ever in the world any Atheists or no? If there were not, what need is there about raising
a question about the Being of God, when nobody questions it?
b) To Be or Not to Be an Atheist
In 1666, English people, shocked with both the Great Fire and the Great
Plague, wondered why God had punished their community. In turn, at the sight of an
undeserved prosperity of the Puritans, the period became even more strained due to a
11

growing disbelief. In the Restoration period, the rush of atheism and disbelief is
eventually controlled by the implementation of two Acts of Parliament. In the first draft,
from January 31, 1666-7, the denial of God becomes almost a crime; in the second
draft is from January 29, 1677-8, denying God is already considered a criminal activity,
which gives the impression that Atheism would be a greater menace at this stage:
If any person, being of the age of 16 years or more not being visibly and
apparently distracted out of his wits by sickness or natural infirmity, or not a mere
natural fool, void of common sense, shall, after the day whereon the Royal Assent
shall be given to, by word or writing deny that there is a God... [that person] shall be
committed to prison. (in BERMAN 1988, 49)

Most likely, this would be the reason (fear of the consequences of a radical
opinion that he might sooner or later defend) why Hobbes, throughout his life, denied
also the existence of Atheists. In 1658, John Bramhall, Bishop of Derry, publishes The
Catching of Leviathan, where he accuses him of atheism, blasphemy and subversion of
religion, among other charges, in regard to a where he states that superstition stems
from fear without reason, and atheism from reason without fear. Some years later,
Leviathans author refutes these accusations, by emphasizing that both atheist and the
superstitious are deprived of reason (which is nonetheless inconsistent with what he
had previously uttered); furthermore, since the atheist sees himself as the most rational
one, Hobbes considers him the most irrational of both. For this author, Atheism is a
pure sin of ignorance derived from false and audacious reasoning; thus, one of the
biggest offences that could be made to him would be the blame of Atheism.
At any rate, Hobbess political philosophy strengthened the major pillars of
Atheism in the Restoration period, and contributed to the increase of disbelief. Daniel
Scargill is one of those witnesses, as can be seen in his work Recantation... publickly
made before the University of Cambridge, presented on 25th July 1669, where he
declares the actual existence of Hobbesists, the author himself being one of them1.
In 1680, eight months after Hobbess death, Chaplain Robert Parsons
preaches a sermon at the funeral of the poet John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, alluding
to the way an absurd and foolish Philosophy, which the world so much admired,
propagated by the late Mr. Hobbes [sic], and others, had undone him, and many more
of the best parts of the Nation. (in BERMAN 1988, 53)
In 1693, Richard Sault admits that his own atheistic ideas have been
influenced by reading Spinoza and Leviathan; in The Deist's Manual (1705), Charles
Gildon also declares the existence of Hobbesists, whose system is the speculative
Atheism.
1

According to the American historian James Axtell, Daniel Scargill is very likely to have been
influenced by Hobbes, not through his scarce and expensive books, but by texts of authors
who criticized him negatively.

12

What Hobbes really thought about God, nobody will ever find out. However,
throughout his written work, which is what truly matters, we never find any trace of
Atheism; on the contrary, neither the existence of God is denied, nor is God excluded
from his rational system.
Hobbes tries to attach more importance to human being and to his own
decisions, by presenting him as a driving force of history, and not merely as a subject
of the eternal predestination that attested the immutable law of God. In Leviathan, he
demonstrates that, by common agreement, all citizens can enter into a social contract
that makes them evolve from a savage condition to an organized community. In spite of
being considered a materialist, it can be inferred, from this book content, that the
author believed in the existence of God: For not only Christians, but all manner of
men do so believe in God [...]. (HOBBES 1979, VII, 32).
Hobbess philosophy is recurrently close to Spinozas. However, the idea of
God is one of their disagreements: for Spinoza, God is not the transcendent cause, but
the immanent cause of all things instead, Nature being His manifestation. In this
identification with Nature Deus sive Natura (Ethics IV), God is expanded in the
endless and eternal space of Nature.
For Hobbes, God is a part of the universe, and controls its full motion with
consistency. By resuming Aristotles naturalist thought, he shares the idea that God
operates as a driving force of the Universe.
According to Hobbes, there is another peculiarity in man: his curiosity to
discover the causes of things and the reasons for good or bad luck; as he states in The
elements of Law (1640): Nothing can move itself. However, if the universe consists
of a specified quantity of matter, there had to be someone or something that would set
all this matter in motion, thus creating the world and the living creatures. Hence the
notion of the First and Eternal Cause, which is God:
Curiosity, or love of the knowledge of causes, draws a man from
consideration of the effect, to seek the cause; and again, the cause of that cause; till
of necessity he must come to this thought at last, that there is some cause, whereof
there is no former cause, but is eternall; which is it men call God. (HOBBES 1979, XI,
53).
[...] a First, and an Eternall cause of all things; which is that which men mean
by the name of God: [...] (HOBBES 1979, XII, 55).

Given so many questions and doubts about the universe, God is the limit of
the short human knowledge, the holder of all power, therefore, of absolute law.

13

3. Faith in the light of reason

It is especially in Part IV (Of the Kingdom of Darkness) that the biggest blows
are stricken on the irrational elements of religion and the Scriptures. By confronting
faith and reason, Thomas Hobbes attacks superstition and the belief in magic, the only
means that priests have to hold authority over an ignorant people.
After examining The Holy Bible methodically, and based on theological
studies, Hobbes concludes that, as a true symbol of God's Word, this book should be
read very carefully in order to avoid misunderstandings, happened throughout the
centuries. The Scriptures comprise three pillars: reason, revelation, and the voice of
the prophets, the former being Hobbess preferred. As he states, in the Scriptures
nothing can exist against reason, and the mysteries of religion are described in
irrational words, since they exceed reason itself.
To believe or not to believe in religion, in the Scriptures or in Revelation is only
a question of individual faith, because through reasoning alone it is an unattainable
task, as Hobbes points out in this quite curious example: For it is with the mysteries of
our Religion, as with wholsome pills for the sick, which swallowed whole, have the
vertue to cure; but chewed, are for the most part cast up again without effect.
(HOBBES 1979, XXXII, 199).
By refuting undeniable truths in the theological field, Thomas Hobbes
provokes strong controversies with some ecclesiastical authorities1. One is held with
Dr. John Bramhall, about Hobbes denying the existence of incorporeal substances, an
idea that would destroy God, angels and spirits. Hobbes replies that words like
incorporeal or immaterial are not found in the Scriptures, and that God is a pure,
simple, invisible corporeal spirit, the word corporeal construed as a magnanimous
substance; furthermore, this idea is based on Saint Paul: It is sown a natural body; it
is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
(Epistle to the Corinthians I, 15. 44). God is inscrutable, for no one can have any idea
of His existence, or conceive His shape and kind.
Allusions to the Catholic Church as being supported by an Intolerance
Principle will generate further hostility and a fierce criticism towards Thomas Hobbess
ideas. For this political philosopher, the Roman Church and its priesthood are largely
guilty for safeguarding the "Kingdom of Darkness", a realm of social obscurantism
nurtured by the traditional Aristotelian doctrine:

After certain threats that have been made to Hobbes about the theory that he advocated, and
though he had passed his last years under the protection of Charles II, he uttered this
sentence at the end of his life: Fear and I were born twins.

14

Also the Religion of the Church of Rome, was partly, for the same cause
abolished in England, and many other parts of Christendome; insomuch, as the fayling
of Vertue in the Pastors, maketh Faith faile in the People: and partly from bringing of
the Philosophy, and doctrine of Aristotle into Religion, by the Schoole-men; from
whence there arose so many contradictions, and absurdities, as brought the Clergy
into a reputation both of Ignorance, and of Fraudulent intention; and enclined people
to revolt from them, either against the will of their own Princes, as in France, and
Holland; or with their will, as in England. (HOBBES 1979, XII, 62)

His major challenge is made to the Pope and to the way he seized power by
means of the greatest injustices and cruelties, in order to enforce an erroneous
doctrine and, thus opposing the decisions made by the temporal sovereignty. From this
viewpoint, the peril never comes from God, but from all those who are assumed as His
representatives on Earth, capable of doing miracles and possessing inspiration or
direct revelation.
Throughout Leviathans pages, Thomas Hobbes criticizes some Roman
doctrine precepts: he opposes the idea of a Heavenly Paradise after death, by
questioning the immortality of the soul, due to its reliance both on a corporeal space
and on the everlasting torments in Hell; he criticizes the idol worship, a ceremony
inherited from heathenism1; he is totally opposed to the compulsory celibacy of priests,
a rule imposed by the bull Dictatus papae (1075), and considers such a law unnatural
and a huge error of Roman moral philosophy; he questions the authorship of some
Bible books and presents his arguments with a logical structure.
For Hobbes, all these erroneous approaches stem from a misinterpretation of
the Gospels, and from the way metaphors are processed into absolute realities. By the
aforementioned examples, we can perceive that the Leviathans God is fairly close to
the Deist God, since this deity does not demand the Revelation or the Catholic Church
as intermediary of his divine wisdom.

Conclusions
The 17th century, like the previous one, is marked by a struggle for power that
can be summed up to a conflict between religion and science, each of them striving to
define its own area of action by the available means: science, extremely useful to
economic and social development; religion, much important for the required political

The criticism of idolatry is specifically mentioned in the Old Testament, according to the
commandment of God passed unto Moses on Mount Sinai: Ye shall make you no idols nor
graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of
stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus, 26.1).

15

stability. Galileo, a convinced Christian, thinks that there must be a perfect equity in the
debate between science and faith, each having its own space: science, free to
investigate its own subject matter; and faith, dedicated to theological issues and
without any influence on the opponent field1.
Eventually, in the course of time, science is a crucial feature for the
reconversion of religion. Thomas Hobbess suspicions towards traditional religion
derive mainly from both its objectionable and dubious origin and its consequent
exploitation by unscrupulous leaders and priests, for political purposes. Leviathans
author stresses the idea that the gods were created from mens fear before the forces
of nature, and prevailed thanks to ignorance and superstition. This is how religion
becomes a powerful tool of government, where its practical use is, essentially, the
maintenance of order2.
Hobbes stands for a religion assisted by reason and logic, no longer based on
superstitions and creeds, and where it is possible to distinguish the false gods, born of
fear, from the true God, the appropriate postulate of science. Only using instruments of
reason in language thought, it is possible to research and decode the causes of the
natural world, within his own limits, in order to achieve justice, peace and true religion.
On this the basis of scientific thought, Hobbes is driven to fight against the doctrine
imposed by Rome, for the rationalist debugging of a religion settled on orthodox values,
throughout the centuries.
The last lines of Leviathan are not only an encomium to Henry VIII and
Elizabeth I, to the way these kings fought the Roman power and kept determined in
their dissolution, but also an admonition to the continuous menace from the evil spirit of
Rome which, at any moment, can return to the heart of the English community. The
first covenant was made between God and his chosen people directly, through the
establishment of divine laws accepted by the Jews, without the intervention of any
sovereign power presenting itself as an intermediary or a representative of those laws.
This is indisputably a fine example to follow today and in future, for the benefit
of all freethinking communities.

th

In the 5 century, Aristotle distinction between the theologi, who had a mythological
perspective of the world, and the phisiologi, who began to interpret every phenomenon
around them by studying the natural forces.
In ancient Rome, ceremonies, feasts and games performed in honor of gods had chiefly the
function of preventing the rebellion of the people against the State.

16

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BERMAN, David. 1988. A history of atheism in Britain: from Hobbes to Russell. New
York: Croom Helm.
GASKIN, J. C. A. (ed.). 1989. "Thomas Hobbes on the Natural Causes of Religion and
the Absurdity of Speech about God", in Varieties of unbelief - from Epicurus to
Sartre. New York: MacMillan. 45-66.
HILL, Christopher. 1986. "Thomas Hobbes and the Revolution in Political Thought", in
Puritanism and revolution. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 267-288.
HOBBES, Thomas. 1979. Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a
Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil. London: J. N. Dent & Sons.
HOBBES, Thomas. 1966. An answer to a book published by Dr. Bramhall, late Bishop
of Derry; called the Catching of the Leviathan (1668-69), in MOLESWORTH,
William (ed.). The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury. Vol. IV.
Scientia Verlag Aalen. 283-384.
HOBBES, Thomas. 1966. Considerations upon the Reputation, Loyalty, Manners and
Religion, of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, written by himself, by way of letter
to a Learned person (1662), in MOLESWORTH, William (ed.). The English
Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury. Vol. IV. Scientia Verlag Aalen. 409440.
HOBBES, Thomas. 1966. An historical narration concerning Heresy, and the
punishment thereof, in MOLESWORTH, William (ed.). The English Works of
Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury. Vol. IV. Scientia Verlag Aalen. 385-408.
HOBBES, Thomas. 1966. "Human nature, ort the Fundamental Elements of Policie"
(1650), in MOLESWORTH, William (ed.). The English Works of Thomas Hobbes
of Malmesbury. Vol. IV. Scientia Verlag Aalen. 1-76.
JESSOP, T. E. 1960. Thomas Hobbes, London: Longman: Green & Co.
MACPHERSON, C. B. 1968. "Introduction", in HOBBES, Thomas. Leviathan,
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 9-63.
MACPHERSON, C. B. 1973. Hobbes: the political obligation of the moment, in The
political theory of possessive individualism Hobbes to Locke. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. 9-106.
MINOGUE, K. R. 1979. "Introduction", in HOBBES, Thomas. Leviathan. London: J. M.
Dent & Sons Ltd. III-XXIV.
SILVER, Victoria. 1988. "The fiction of self-evidence in Hobbes's Leviathan. E. L. H..
Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, Vol. 55, n 2, Summer. 351-379.
THROWER, James. 1971. A Short History of Western Atheism. London: Pemberton.
WILLEY, Basil. 1979. The Philosophical Quest for Truth: Hobbes", in The Seventeenth
Century Background. Studies in the thought of the age in relation to Poetry and
religion. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. 88-110.
WOOLHOUSE, R. S. 1990. "Thomas Hobbes", in The Empiricists, Oxford: Oxford
University Press. 27-47.

17