Almost 150 years after the publication of The Prince, another book of tremendous influence was published in 1651 AD: Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. Hobbes’ political outlook and aims regarding Church/State relations closely resembled those of Machiavelli, in that he grounded his outlook upon a presuppositional materialistic worldview. Like Machiavelli, Hobbes believed that it was a huge problem to allow religion to be independent of the ruling political power. And, like Machiavelli, Hobbes believed that the king should use religion as a means to control the populace.
Good and Evil: Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da
But whereas Machiavelli said that the ruler might have to some things considered “evil” in order to maintain his power, Hobbes denied the notion of “good” or “evil” all together. The notions of good and evil were just subjective opinions different people had given their different circumstances. He stated:
“…whatsoever is the object of any man’s Appetite or Desire; that is it, which he for his part calls Good: and the object of his Hate and Aversions, Evil; And of his Contempt, Vile and Inconsiderable. For these words of Good, Evil, and Contemptible, are ever used with relation to the person that uses them: There being nothing simply and absolutely so; nor any common Rule of Good and Evil, to be taken from the nature of the objects themselves…”
Simply put, “good” is nothing more than a matter of taste; “evil” is simply a way of saying, “I don’t like that.” So when it comes to issues like the death penalty, some people thing it is a good thing, others think it is an evil thing—but it really isn’t either good or evil: it just is a matter of opinion. Such an outlook, when extended to its logical conclusion, is flat out diabolical. The Klu Klux Klan likes to lynch black people—it’s not really “evil,” and in fact, from their perspective, it is positively “good”! Who’s to say what’s really right and wrong? Enter Hobbes’ Leviathan.
Hobbes’ Own Origins Story
Hobbes believed that way back when, when man was in his pre-civil, and just natural human condition, that every person just desired different things and abhorred different things—and this was just the way it was. Therefore, every person had the right to do whatever nature “wired him up” to desire to do. Quite obviously though, this created a potential problem. If everyone had the right to do whatever they wanted to do, that would inevitably lead to chaos, because every person would fight and try to kill anyone who attempted to deprive him of his right to do what he wanted to do. What is man in his pre-civil, natural human state to due?
Well, Hobbes said there was nothing that could be done in that pre-civil state. That is why, in order to prevent such chaos, a secular government must step in the gap and arbitrarily declare what is to be considered good and evil according to the whim of the king. And who got to be king? Obviously the one with the most power. And with that power, he could then proceed to impose that order and that arbitrary standard of good and evil upon the populace. Simply put, that was Hobbes’ view of humanity, and his rationale for the unlimited and absolute power of the secular monarch:
- No, there is no such thing as good and evil;
- Yes, each man has the right to do whatever he wants, but that inevitably leads to chaos;
- So yes, that is why we need an absolute ruler to impose his subjective standard of right and wrong on everyone else.
Deal with it: might makes right.
The King, the State, and the Church
Like Machiavelli, Hobbes also believed that the king should exercise control of the Church, and use it as a tool to maintain his power. In fact, Hobbes’ definition of Church was this: “a company of men professing Christian Religion, united in the person of one Sovereign; at whose command they ought to assemble, and without whose authority they out not to assemble.”
Reflect on what Hobbes said for a moment: “a company of men professing Christian Religion,” but who only assemble at the command of the Sovereign. In other words, the Church might profess that Christ is king, the ruler of all creation who is above all principalities and powers, but in actual practice (according to Hobbes, at least), the Church is to answer solely to the earthly, secular ruler.
Leviathan Arises
Given all that, we should further contemplate the title of Hobbes’ work, Leviathan. That seems a rather odd title, at least for someone who may not be well-read in the Bible. For in the Bible, Leviathan is ultimately a reference to the ancient Near Eastern great sea serpent associated with evil and chaos, and eventually associated with Satan himself. The Old Testament also associates the various evil empires of the ancient world, be it Assyria, Babylon or Egypt, with Leviathan.
In the book of Revelation, Satan is explicitly portrayed as the great dragon who rules the waters of chaos, and who calls out the beast from the sea, namely the Roman emperor, to establish his power and to kill anyone who refuses to worship him. In short, Hobbes’ Leviathan is nothing short of an appeal to set up the ultimate anti-Christ, secular government who by seizing the authority of the Church, ultimately demands the worship as a god.
Machiavelli advised rulers to pay lip service to the Church but to live by their own moral standards, and the only moral standard was to do whatever was needed to secure one’s own power. Hobbes came along and denied the reality of good and evil altogether, and argued for the need for an absolute ruler who simply imposed his own power and his own subjective standard of right and wrong on the masses. There is still one more highly influential thinker that came from this time period: Baruch Spinoza. Once you learn about him in the next post, you’ll know why I consider these three to be quite the unholy trinity of Church-State philosophy.
