But the religion of Hobbes was “of a strain beyond the apprehension of the vulgar,” and not very agreeable to some of the Church. A man may have peculiar notions respecting the Deity, and yet be far removed from Atheism; and in his political system the Church may hold that subordinate place which some Bishops will not like. When Dr. Grenville tells us “Hobbes ridiculed in companies” certain matters which the Doctor held sacred, this is not sufficient to accuse a man of Atheism, though it may prove him not to have held orthodox opinions. From the MS. collections of the French contemporary, who well knew Hobbes at Paris, I transcribe a remarkable observation:—“Hobbes said, that he was not surprised that the Independents, who were enemies of monarchy, could not bear it in heaven, and that therefore they placed there three Gods instead of one; but he was astonished that the English bishops, and those Presbyterians who were favourers of monarchy, should persist in the same opinion concerning the Trinity. He added, that the Episcopalians ridiculed the Puritans, and the Puritans the Episcopalians; but that the wise ridiculed both alike.”—Lantiniana MS. quoted by Joly, p. 434.
The religion of Hobbes was in conformity to State and Church. He had, however, the most awful notions of the Divinity. He confesses he is unacquainted with “the nature of God, but not with the necessity of the existence of the Power of all powers, and First Cause of all causes; so that we know that God is, though not what he is.” See his “Human Nature,” chap. xi. But was the God of Hobbes the inactive deity of Epicurus, who takes no interest in the happiness or misery of his created beings; or, as Madame de Staël has expressed it, with the point and felicity of French antithesis, was this “an Atheism with a God?” This consequence some of his adversaries would draw from his principles, which Hobbes indignantly denies. He has done more; for in his De Corpore Politico, he declares his belief of all the fundamental points of Christianity, part i. c. 4, p. 116. Ed. 1652. But he was an open enemy to those “who presume, out of Scripture, by their own interpretation, to raise any doctrine to the understanding, concerning those things which are incomprehensible;” and he refers to St. Paul, who gives a good rule “to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.”—Rom. xii. 3.
This he pictures in a strange engraving prefixed to his book, and representing a crowned figure, whose description will be found in the note, p. [440]. It is remarkable that when Hobbes adopted the principle that the ecclesiastical should be united with the sovereign power, he was then actually producing that portentous change which had terrified Luther and Calvin; who, even in their day, were alarmed by a new kind of political Antichrist; that “Cæsarean Popery” which Stubbe so much dreaded, and which I have here noticed, p. [358]. Luther predicted that as the pope had at times seized on the political sword, so this “Cæsarean Popery,” under the pretence of policy, would grasp the ecclesiastical crosier, to form a political church. The curious reader is referred to Wolfius Lectionum Memorabilium et reconditarum, vol. ii. cent. x. p. 987. Calvin, in his commentary on Amos, has also a remarkable passage on this political church, animadverting on Amaziah, the priest, who would have proved the Bethel worship warrantable, because settled by the royal authority: “It is the king’s chapel.” Amos, vii. 13. Thus Amaziah, adds Calvin, assigns the king a double function, and maintains it is in his power to transform religion into what shape he pleases, while he charges Amos with disturbing the public repose, and encroaching on the royal prerogative. Calvin zealously reprobates the conduct of those inconsiderate persons, “who give the civil magistrate a sovereignty in religion, and dissolve the Church into the State.” The supremacy in Church and State, conferred on Henry VIII., was the real cause of these alarms; but the passage of domination raged not less fiercely in Calvin than in Henry VIII.; in the enemy of kings than in kings themselves. Were the forms of religion more celestial from the sanguinary hands of that tyrannical reformer than from those of the reforming tyrant? The system of our philosopher was, to lay all the wild spirits which have haunted us in the chimerical shapes of nonconformity. I have often thought, after much observation on our Church history since the Reformation, that the devotional feelings have not been so much concerned in this bitter opposition to the National Church as the rage of dominion, the spirit of vanity, the sullen pride of sectarism, and the delusions of madness.
Hobbes himself tells us that “some bishops are content to hold their authority from the king’s letters patents; others will needs have somewhat more they know not what of divine rights, &c., not acknowledging the power of the king. It is a relic still remaining of the venom of popish ambition, lurking in that seditious distinction and division between the power spiritual and civil. The safety of the State does not depend on the safety of the clergy, but on the entireness of the sovereign power.”—Considerations upon the Reputation, &c., of Mr. Hobbes, p. 44.
This royal observation is recorded in the “Sorberiana.” Sorbiere gleaned the anecdote during his residence in England. By the “Aubrey Papers,” which have been published since I composed this article, I find that Charles II. was greatly delighted by the wit and repartees of Hobbes, who was at once bold and happy in making his stand amidst the court wits. The king, whenever he saw Hobbes, who had the privilege of being admitted into the royal presence, would exclaim, “Here comes the bear to be baited.” This did not allude to his native roughness, but the force of his resistance when attacked.
See “Mr. Hobbes’s State of Nature considered, in a Dialogue between Philautus and Timothy.” The second dialogue is not contained in the eleventh edition of Eachard’s Works, 1705, which, however, was long after his death, so careless were the publishers of those days of their authors’ works. The literary bookseller, Tom Davies, who ruined himself by giving good editions of our old authors, has preserved it in his own.