Theological Origins of Modernity

250 chapter seven
individualism made the notion of a common essence of the three persons
inconceivable. Most nominalists became either Tritheists or Arians (or
some variation thereof, for example, Socinians or Unitarians). 149 Hobbes
sought a diff erent solution. He argues in the English version of Leviathan
that the God is “personated” or represented by Moses (the Father), Christ
(the Son), and the Apostles and doctors of the church (the Holy Spirit).
While this view contradicted the second of the Th irty-Nine Articles and
pushed Hobbes toward Arianism, he believed it was better founded in
Scripture than the traditional Trinitarian view that in his opinion was the
result of the corrupting infl uence of Platonism on patristic Christianity. 150
Th e question of the relation of the persons within the Godhead was a
vital and contentious question in the early church, and was revived during
the Reformation. While Hobbes’ interpretation of the Trinity was heterodox,
it was shared by a number of the dissenting Protestant sects. Still,
in response to the furor evoked by the Leviathan, Hobbes modifi ed his
account in the Latin translation to bring his interpretation more into line
with the Th irty-Nine Articles. 151
While Hobbes struggled to make sense of the ontological divide between
man and God, he was resolute and unvarying in his rejection of the
existence of all beings who were supposed to inhabit the ontological space
between them. He goes to great lengths to show that angels and devils
are not real beings. He also denies that the saints dwell with God and can
intercede with him on our behalf. Th e worship of the saints in his view is
idolatry. Although Hobbes’ rejection of such beings has been taken as an
indication of his hostility to religion, he is no diff erent in this respect than
most of the Reformers.
Although Hobbes (like many nominalists) had diffi culty explaining
a Trinitarian God, he found it easier to explain the connection between
divine providence and mechanical causality. Both the scholastics and
nominalists argued that God could act directly or by means of secondary
causes. His initial creation of the world ex nihilo and miracles are examples
of the former. Everything that follows by the action of one created
object on another is produced by the latter. In such cases, while God may
still have planned, willed, or foreseen the result he did not produce it directly.
To construct a causal science of motion would be impossible if God
constantly intervened in the order of events. Under such circumstances an
analysis of secondary causes would not be useful. Hobbes argues that God
acts aft er the creation only by means of secondary causes, according to a
strict mechanical necessity. Even miracles in his account do not violate
this law. God foresaw the need for them at the creation and organized the