Theological Origins of Modernity

notes to pages 250–256 353
150. It also props up his notion of the sovereign. On the political implications of this
reading of the trinity see Joshua Mitchell’s thoughtful “Luther and Hobbes,”
676–700.
151. Martinich, Hobbes, 327. One might believe that this alteration reveals that Hobbes
was ultimately not wedded to any doctrine, but it is important to remember than
the Latin Leviathan was published in 1668, well aft er the restoration of political
and religious authority in England. While Hobbes was willing to argue about controversial
issues in 1651 when there was no established authority, he could not do
so in 1668 because by his own argument he was required to submit to established
authority. For this reason the 1668 edition is also less trustworthy as a source of
his true opinions.
152. Timothy Fuller, “Hobbes on Christianity in a Skeptical Individualist World,”
paper delivered at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting,
Atlanta, September 1999, 20.
153. Strauss claims nature for Hobbes is disorder, but Hobbes himself is more on the
side of design. K. C. Brown, “Hobbes’ Grounds for Belief in a Deity,” in Th omas
Hobbes: Critical Assessments, 4:46. Damrosch points out that in the Leviathan
Hobbes emphasizes the unbroken coherence of the causal chain rather than its
origin in God. “Hobbes as Reformation Th eologian,” 339. But, as Brown suggests,
Hobbes’ argument for a fi rst mover slides over into an argument for design since
the mere motion of world cannot create its own matter. “Hobbes’ Grounds,” 4:44.
Joshua Mitchell has made what is perhaps the strongest argument for the importance
of God’s guidance of history for Hobbes. Not by Reason Alone: Religion,
History, and Identity in Early Modern Political Th ought (Chicago: Th e University
of Chicago Press, 1993), 46–72.
154. Fuller, “Hobbes on Christianity,” 13.
155. Springborg, “Leviathan,” 138.
156. Th is was the position of Beza and William Perkins. Martinich, Two Gods, 274.
157. EW 3:335. See also Martinich, Two Gods, 101. In the debate with Bramhall he asserts
that the man predestined for election will examine his life to see if the path
he follows is godly, while those who “reason erroneously, saying with themselves,
if I shall be saved, I shall be saved whether I walk uprightly or no: and consequently
there unto, shall behave themselves negligently, and pursue the pleasant way of
the sins they are in love with,” shall be damned, but good and bad action in this
account are the consequence and not the source of salvation and damnation. EW
4:232. See also Reik, Golden Lands, 128.
158. In this respect the comparison to Lucretius is merited.
159. Martinich, Two Gods, 337, 345.
chapter eight
1. Th e plight of the large Tory population who fl ed to Canada and England went
largely unnoticed in the popular imagination of European intellectuals.