Theological Origins of Modernity

352 notes to pages 248–250
141. Springborg, “Leviathan and the Problem of Ecclesiastical Authority,” 136. Hobbes’
emphasis on reasonable interpretation favored broad access to Scripture. He
criticized Puritans for using obscure language to ensnare people. White’s De
Mundo, 478.
142. See Ockham, I Sent. d. 2 q. 10, in Opera philosophica et theologica, ed. Stephen
Brown (New York: Bonaventure Press, 1967), 355–56.
143. On this point, see Martinich, Two Gods, 196.
144. Damrosch, “Hobbes as Reformation Th eologian,” 345. Martinich notes the nominalist
connection: since God is self-suffi cient, nothing humans can do benefi ts
him. Two Gods, 128.
145. Mintz, Hunting the Leviathan, 42. As Ronald Hepburn points out, discourse intended
to honor God in Hobbes’ view is neither true nor false. “Hobbes on the
Knowledge of God,” in Hobbes and Rousseau: A Collection of Critical Essays,
ed. Maurice Cranston and Richard S. Peters (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
1972), 99.
146. Martinich points out that Hobbes’ insistence that God is corporeal has led some
to think that he was a pantheist like Spinoza. Two Gods, 248. Hobbes does admit
that Spinoza spoke more frankly than he did. See Edwin Curley, “‘I Durst
Not Write So Boldly’ or, How to Read Hobbes’ Th eological-Political Treatise,” in
Hobbes e Spinoza: Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Urbino 14–17 ottobre, 1988,
ed. Daniela Bostrengi (Napels: Biblipolis, 1992): 497–593. However, Hobbes cannot
be a pantheist because his God who acts and commands is not identical with
the world. As Glover points out, Hobbes not only distinguished them but asserted
that to identify them was to deny God’s existence. “God and Th omas Hobbes,”
166. It is oft en asserted that while Hobbes himself may not have been an atheist,
his teaching led to atheism. Th is argument, however, would seem to apply to most
Reformation theologians.
147. Such a claim would, of course, have left Hobbes open to the charge of occultism,
which would itself certainly have led to his condemnation and probably to his
death. Hobbes believed that the idea of an incorporeal God was not in Scripture
but was due to the impact of Platonism on Christianity during the Patristic period.
Such Platonism was anathema to Hobbes, who believed it was used by the
church to undermine sovereignty.
148. Hobbes probably does not explicitly develop this explanation because it would
seem to vitiate his claim that we can only conceive of a cause as the action of one
body on another. Th e deep problem that Hobbes leaves unexplained is how bodies
can be both inaccessible to us and yet essential to our conceptualization of causality.
Th is perplexity could be resolved by admitting that bodies are merely imaginary
entities, that is, merely arbitrary signs for demarcating and understanding
motion.
149. Geach sees Hobbes as a Socinian, but this is unlikely. While Hobbes shared some
of their beliefs, he did not share their ardent attachment to free will. “Th e Religion
of Th omas Hobbes,” 285–87.