Part 53 (1/2)
I will give Hobbes's own justification, after the Restoration of Charles II., when accused by the great mathematician, Dr. Wallis, a republican under Cromwell, of having written his work in defence of Oliver's government. Hobbes does not deny that ”he placed the right of government wheresoever should be the strength.” Most subtilely he argues, how this very principle ”was designed in behalf of the faithful subjects of the king,” after they had done their utmost to defend his rights and person. The government of Cromwell being established, these found themselves without the protection of a government of their own, and therefore might lawfully promise obedience to their victor for the saving of their lives and fortunes; and more, they ought even to protect that authority in war by which they were themselves protected in peace. But this plea, which he so ably urged in favour of the royalists, will not, however, justify those who, like Wallis, voluntarily submitted to Cromwell, because they were always the enemies of the king; so that this submission to Oliver is allowed only to the royalists--a most admirable political paradox! The whole of the argument is managed with infinite dexterity, and is thus unexpectedly turned against his accusers themselves. The principle of ”self-preservation” is carried on through the entire system of Hobbes.--_Considerations upon the Reputation, Loyalty, &c., of Mr. Hobbes._
[354] The pa.s.sage in Hobbes to which I allude is in ”The Leviathan,”
c. 32. He there says, sarcastically, ”It is with the _mysteries of religion_ as with wholesome pills for the sick, which, swallowed whole, have the virtue to cure; but, chewed, are for the most part cast up again without effect.” Hobbes is often a wit: he was much pleased with this thought, for he had it in his _De Cive_; which, in the English translation, bears the t.i.tle of ”Philosophical Rudiments Concerning Government and Society,” 1651. There he calls ”the wholesome pills,”
”bitter.” He translated the _De Cive_ himself; a circ.u.mstance which was not known till the recent appearance of Aubrey's papers.
[355] Warburton has most acutely distinguished between the intention of Hobbes and that of some of his successors. The bishop does not consider Hobbes as an enemy to religion, not even to the Christian; and even doubts whether he has attacked it in ”The Leviathan.” At all events, he has ”taken direct contrary measures from those of Bayle, Collins, Tindal, Bolingbroke, and all that school. They maliciously endeavoured to show the Gospel was _unreasonable_; Hobbes, as reasonable as his admirable wit could represent it: they contended for the most unbounded _toleration_, Hobbes for the most rigorous _conformity_.” See the ”Alliance between Church and State,”
book i. c. v. It is curious to observe the n.o.ble disciple of Hobbes, Lord Bolingbroke, a strenuous advocate for his political and moral opinions, enraged at what he calls his ”High Church notions.” Trenchard and Gordon, in their _Independent Whig_, No. 44, that libel on the clergy, accuse them of _Atheism_ and _Hobbism_; while some divines as earnestly reject Hobbes as an Atheist! Our temperate sage, though angried at that spirit of contradiction which he had raised, must, however, have sometimes smiled both on his advocates and his adversaries!
[356] The odious term of _Atheist_ has been too often applied to many great men of our nation by the hardy malignity of party. Were I to present a catalogue, the very names would refute the charge. Let us examine the religious sentiments of Hobbes. The materials for its investigation are not common, but it will prove a dissertation of facts. I warn some of my readers to escape from the tediousness, if they cannot value the curiosity.
Hobbes has himself thrown out an observation in his ”Life of Thucydides” respecting Anaxagoras, that ”his opinions, being of a strain above the apprehension of the vulgar, procured him the estimation of an _Atheist_, which name they bestowed upon all men that thought not as they did of their ridiculous religion, and in the end cost him his life.” This was a parallel case with Hobbes himself, except its close, which, however, seems always to have been in the mind of our philosopher.
Bayle, who is for throwing all things into doubt, acknowledging that the life of Hobbes was blameless, adds, One might, however, have been tempted to ask him this question:
Heus age responde; minimum est quod scire laboro; _De Jove quid sentis?_--PERSIUS, Sat. ii. v. 17.
Hark, now! resolve this one short question, friend!
_What are thy thoughts of Jove?_
But Bayle, who compared himself to the Jupiter of Homer, powerful in gathering and then dispersing the clouds, dissipates the one he had just raised, by showing how ”Hobbes might have answered the question with sincerity and belief, _according to the writers of his life_.”--But had Bayle known that Hobbes was the author of all the lives of himself, so partial an evidence might have raised another doubt with the great sceptic. It appears, by Aubrey's papers, that Hobbes did not wish his biography should appear when he was living, that he might not seem the author of it.
Baxter, who knew Hobbes intimately, ranks him with Spinosa, by a strong epithet for materialists--”The _Brutists_, Hobbes, and Spinosa.” He tells us that Selden would not have him in his chamber while dying, calling out, ”No Atheists!” But by Aubrey's papers it appears that Hobbes stood by the side of his dying friend. It is certain his enemies raised stories against him, and told them as suited their purpose. In the Lansdowne MSS. I find Dr. Grenville, in a letter, relates how ”Hobbes, when in France, and like to die, betrayed such expressions of repentance to a great prelate, from whose mouth I had this relation, that he admitted him to the sacrament.
But Hobbes afterwards made this a subject of ridicule in companies.”--_Lansdowne MSS._ 990--73.
Here is a strong accusation, and a fact too; yet, when fully developed, the result will turn out greatly in favour of Hobbes.
Hobbes had a severe illness at Paris, which lasted six months, thus noticed in his metrical life:
Dein per s.e.x menses morbo dec.u.mbo propinque Accinctus morti; nec fugio, illa fugit.
It happened that the famous Guy Patin was his physician; and in one of these amusing letters, where he puts down the events of the day, like a newspaper of the times, in No. 61, has given an account of his intercourse with the philosopher, in which he says that Hobbes endured such pain, that he would have destroyed himself--”_Qu'il avoit voulu se tuer._”--Patin is a vivacious writer: we are not to take him _au pied de la lettre_. Hobbes was systematically tenacious of life: and, so far from attempting suicide, that he wanted even the courage to allow Patin to bleed him! It was during this illness that the Catholic party, who like to attack a Protestant in a state of unresisting debility, got his learned and intimate friend, Father Mersenne, to hold out all the benefits a philosopher might derive from their Church. When Hobbes was acquainted with this proposed interview (says a French contemporary, whose work exists in MS., but is quoted in Joly's folio volume of Remarks on Bayle), the sick man answered, ”Don't let him come for this; I shall laugh at him; and perhaps I may convert him myself.” Father Mersenne did come; and when this missionary was opening on the powers of Rome to grant a plenary pardon, he was interrupted by Hobbes--”Father, I have examined, a long time ago, all these points; I should be sorry to dispute now; you can entertain me in a more agreeable manner. When did you see Mr. Ga.s.sendi?” The monk, who was a philosopher, perfectly understood Hobbes, and this interview never interrupted their friends.h.i.+p. A few days after, Dr.
Cosin (afterwards Bishop of Durham), the great prelate whom Dr. Grenville alludes to, prayed with Hobbes, who first _stipulated_ that the prayers should be those authorised by the _Church of England_; and he also received the sacrament with reverence. Hobbes says:--”Magnum hoc erga disciplinam Episcopalem signum erat reverentiae.”--It is evident that the conversion of Father Mersenne, to which Hobbes facetiously alluded, could never be to Atheism, but to Protestantism: and had Hobbes been an Atheist, he would not have risked his safety, when he arrived in England, by his strict attendance to the _Church of England_, resolutely refusing to unite with any of the sects. His views of the national religion were not only enlightened, but in this respect he showed a boldness in his actions very unusual with him.
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 G.o.ds 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d is, though not what he is.” See his ”Human Nature,” chap. xi. But was the G.o.d of Hobbes the inactive deity of Epicurus, who takes no interest in the happiness or misery of his created beings; or, as Madame de Stael has expressed it, with the point and felicity of French ant.i.thesis, was this ”an Atheism with a G.o.d?” 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 G.o.d hath dealt to every man_ the measure of faith.”--Rom. xii. 3.
[357] 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 ”Caesarean 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 ”Caesarean 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 pa.s.sage on this _political church_, animadverting on Amaziah, the priest, who would have proved the Bethel wors.h.i.+p warrantable, because settled by the royal authority: ”It is the king's chapel.” Amos, vii. 13. Thus Amaziah, adds Calvin, a.s.signs 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 pa.s.sage 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.
[358] 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.
[359] 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.
[360] 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.
[361] ”A Discourse Concerning Irony,” 1729, p. 13.