Hobbes on Politics and Religion ed. by Laurens van Apeldoorn and Robin Douglass

Abstract

Reviewed by: Hobbes on Politics and Religion ed. by Laurens van Apeldoorn and Robin Douglass Monicka Tutschka Laurens van Apeldoorn and Robin Douglass, editors. Hobbes on Politics and Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Pp. xiv + 297. Cloth, $70.00. It is refreshing to read fifteen erudite articles written by seasoned experts and promising young scholars who engage the wide-ranging question of the intersection of religion and politics in Hobbes's works. The free standing arguments are not framed by Hobbes's alleged religious (in)sincerity, or by a priori conceptions of natural law, or some modernization thesis. This work is therefore a must-read for scholars yearning to explore Hobbes's religious politics in new ways. I hope it inspires more volumes, possibly organized around narrower religious topics (I will suggest two). Johan Olsthoorn argues that Hobbes's theory of representation takes him beyond Erastianism to the stronger claim of church-state identity with the sovereign speaking and acting in this new unity's name. Al Martinich likens Hobbes's human sovereign to his divine natural sovereign. God's sovereignty derives from the sure and irresistible power that He [End Page 172] may exercise arbitrarily. Since Hobbes's human sovereign resembles God, the former also is not accountable to humankind if (s)he unleashes irrational, evil, or destructive power. Teresa Bejan engages the Hobbes toleration debate. The sovereign influences fundamental inner beliefs by determining what young impressionable minds hear, and youth indoctrination is at odds with toleration. To the contrary, Franck Lessay maintains that Hobbes delineates an inner sphere that is home to religious belief and reflection, and offers a prudential foundation for political authority amenable to diverse faiths. His minimalist soteriology tolerates diverse Christian belief. Alexandra Chadwick explores Hobbes's responses to the politically destabilizing aftereffects of martyrdom. To minimize these effects, Hobbes defines martyrdom narrowly. He also undermines martyrs by claiming they mistake soteriological requirements and believe wrongly in reason's power to make correct salvific judgments. Alan Cromartie exposes the novelty of Hobbes's determinist-materialist psychology and his dubious Calvinist credentials. Hobbes's determinism deviates from the soteriological accounts of the bounded will developed by Luther and Arminians. His determinism also departs from predestination defined by Calvin and prominent English Divines. Alison McQueen maintains that Hobbes used the biblical figure of Moses to support absolutism in civil war England. This was a time when many Englishmen and women took Scripture's authority for granted. Whereas republican and parliamentarian activists interpreted Mosaic rule as a defense of their politics, Hobbes intervenes to realign Mosaic rule with absolutism and risks exposing the political nature of Scriptural interpretation. Paul Davis examines Hobbes's Scriptural quotations, documenting which Biblical translations he used, and if his quotations diverge from them. Usually, Hobbes transcribed quotations faithfully. Sometimes, he borrowed from theologians who influenced him. Occasionally, he takes liberties to reconcile biblical quotations with his theories. Patricia Springborg contextualizes and explores Hobbes's intentions in Historia Ecclesiastica. She locates the poem within Hobbes's works on heresy, dating its composition between the English and Latin Leviathans. The poem elevates humanist Christian historiographers above post-Eusebius church historians. She contends that Hobbes's preference for the former reflects his fear of persecution, as the histories of the latter are rabidly sectarian. For his part, Glen Newey is unconvinced that fear of persecution led Hobbes to amend the Latin Leviathan. The Appendix's account of the Trinity is nonconformist. Hobbes either made it fit his personation theory because he thought it was right, or because it could accommodate diverse faiths. Jon Parkin argues that Hobbes's vague vision of a Christianity supportive of civil authority made him adopt an ambiguous religious identity. His writing strategies block disagreeable conclusions and tease with paradoxes. Hobbes wins over diverse believers by reengineering convictions to conform to his theories. Elad Carmel complicates the Hobbes (authoritarian)/English deist (tolerationist) binary. Hobbes's anticlericalism, commitment to rational religion, and skepticism toward revelation influenced the English deists. He is a precursor to radical enlightenment. Jeffrey Collins asserts that Hobbes constructed two different conceptions of 'religious war.' The first is historically specific, addresses prominent causes of England's war...