A. P. Martinich's The Two Gods of Leviathan appeared in 1992, and J. R. Collins's The Allegiance of Thomas Hobbes in 2005. Martinich offered a revisionist interpretation of Thomas Hobbes's religious commitments. He rebuked the conventional view that Hobbes was an atheist and placed him within particular traditions of reformed Christian theology. Collins's book strongly differed from these conclusions, and reasserted Hobbes's hostility to traditional Christianity as part of a general contextualization of his writings within the period of the English (...) Revolution. The following exchange between Martinich and Collins was first aired in 2007 as a debate at the Southwestern Political Science Association's Annual Conference. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Tolerantia: A Medieval ConceptIstván BejczyThe notion of tolerance is generally considered a product of modern times and in particular of the Age of Reason.1 The enlightened philosophers, who laid the foundations of liberalism and democracy, are often hailed as the men who introduced the notion of tolerance as a means of guaranteeing maximum freedom to the individual members of society. Writings such as the Epistola de tolerantia of John (...) Locke and the Traité sur la tolérance of Voltaire prove indeed that tolerance was an important topic in enlightened thought. Sometimes it is believed that an earlier notion of tolerance can be found, most notably in the writings of Christian humanists like Erasmus. As a matter of fact, “Erasmian tolerance” is a standing phrase in the Netherlands, where the people are happy to link the one virtue for which they openly praise themselves with the only Dutch author who is universally known.The Middle Ages, on the other hand, have no reputation for tolerance, the lack of which is usually attributed to the influence of a powerful Church that was able and willing to suppress all major deviations from the exclusive truth it was convinced it possessed. Only the Reformation, it is often argued, forced the Church to change its attitude and to redefine its relation towards dissidents.2 As a consequence, many historical studies of the idea of tolerance begin only in the sixteenth century.3This representation of the history of tolerance is, however, distorted. In the Middle Ages tolerantia was a highly developed political concept, and it was [End Page 365] widely applied in the ecclesiastical as well as the secular sphere. This observation is not altogether new. In a limited number of studies the medieval concept of tolerance receives due attention. The most important of these studies are those by Joseph Lecler, Mario Condorelli, and Klaus Schreiner, but unfortunately none of these authors treat the subject of medieval tolerance in a satisfactory way.In his monumental Histoire de la tolérance au siècle de la Réforme (1955) Lecler does not investigate the term or the concept of medieval tolerance systematically, but briefly surveys the attitude adopted by Christian scholarly authors towards heretics and unbelievers. In fact Lecler tacitly equates the notion of “tolerance” with “freedom of religion,” a concept which indeed found little support among medieval scholars.4 Condorelli’s study (1960) is much more systematic, but it has a rather limited scope. It concentrates on the development of religious toleration in medieval canon law between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries.5 The canon lawyers in fact coined the medieval concept of tolerantia with specific attention to religious toleration, and for this reason Condorelli’s work remains important and useful. But Condorelli does not analyze medieval tolerantia in its full range, nor does he compare the concept with later uses of the term.Schreiner’s article on tolerance in Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe (1990) contains a detailed discussion of the concept of tolerance and its development in western intellectual history.6 On the patristic and medieval periods Schreiner offers a wealth of material, and his representations of historical facts and developments are generally correct. His evaluations of the facts, however, strike me as misleading as far as the Middle Ages are concerned. Schreiner refuses to take medieval tolerance seriously. The pretension of Christian religion to embody the absolute truth and its function as the main integrating factor of society would have impeded a full development of tolerance; Schreiner even considers medieval Christianity intolerant in its very essence. As he argues,Only when the early modern state proceeded to make natural religion instead of a closed system of belief the consensus-shaping vinculum societatis, it set free spaces of action in which individuals and groups could realize their rights of freedom of belief and conscience.... Only [End Page 366] the dissolution of the historically grown bonds between religion and justice, which restituted freedom to religion and prudence to justice, enabled the free expression of religion in a spirit of mutual patience.7We can reproach Schreiner with several inaccuracies. First, it is questionable whether medieval religion represented a closed system which can be... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Tolerantia: A Medieval ConceptIstván BejczyThe notion of tolerance is generally considered a product of modern times and in particular of the Age of Reason.1 The enlightened philosophers, who laid the foundations of liberalism and democracy, are often hailed as the men who introduced the notion of tolerance as a means of guaranteeing maximum freedom to the individual members of society. Writings such as the Epistola de tolerantia of John (...) Locke and the Traité sur la tolérance of Voltaire prove indeed that tolerance was an important topic in enlightened thought. Sometimes it is believed that an earlier notion of tolerance can be found, most notably in the writings of Christian humanists like Erasmus. As a matter of fact, “Erasmian tolerance” is a standing phrase in the Netherlands, where the people are happy to link the one virtue for which they openly praise themselves with the only Dutch author who is universally known.The Middle Ages, on the other hand, have no reputation for tolerance, the lack of which is usually attributed to the influence of a powerful Church that was able and willing to suppress all major deviations from the exclusive truth it was convinced it possessed. Only the Reformation, it is often argued, forced the Church to change its attitude and to redefine its relation towards dissidents.2 As a consequence, many historical studies of the idea of tolerance begin only in the sixteenth century.3This representation of the history of tolerance is, however, distorted. In the Middle Ages tolerantia was a highly developed political concept, and it was [End Page 365] widely applied in the ecclesiastical as well as the secular sphere. This observation is not altogether new. In a limited number of studies the medieval concept of tolerance receives due attention. The most important of these studies are those by Joseph Lecler, Mario Condorelli, and Klaus Schreiner, but unfortunately none of these authors treat the subject of medieval tolerance in a satisfactory way.In his monumental Histoire de la tolérance au siècle de la Réforme (1955) Lecler does not investigate the term or the concept of medieval tolerance systematically, but briefly surveys the attitude adopted by Christian scholarly authors towards heretics and unbelievers. In fact Lecler tacitly equates the notion of “tolerance” with “freedom of religion,” a concept which indeed found little support among medieval scholars.4 Condorelli’s study (1960) is much more systematic, but it has a rather limited scope. It concentrates on the development of religious toleration in medieval canon law between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries.5 The canon lawyers in fact coined the medieval concept of tolerantia with specific attention to religious toleration, and for this reason Condorelli’s work remains important and useful. But Condorelli does not analyze medieval tolerantia in its full range, nor does he compare the concept with later uses of the term.Schreiner’s article on tolerance in Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe (1990) contains a detailed discussion of the concept of tolerance and its development in western intellectual history.6 On the patristic and medieval periods Schreiner offers a wealth of material, and his representations of historical facts and developments are generally correct. His evaluations of the facts, however, strike me as misleading as far as the Middle Ages are concerned. Schreiner refuses to take medieval tolerance seriously. The pretension of Christian religion to embody the absolute truth and its function as the main integrating factor of society would have impeded a full development of tolerance; Schreiner even considers medieval Christianity intolerant in its very essence. As he argues,Only when the early modern state proceeded to make natural religion instead of a closed system of belief the consensus-shaping vinculum societatis, it set free spaces of action in which individuals and groups could realize their rights of freedom of belief and conscience.... Only [End Page 366] the dissolution of the historically grown bonds between religion and justice, which restituted freedom to religion and prudence to justice, enabled the free expression of religion in a spirit of mutual patience.7We can reproach Schreiner with several inaccuracies. First, it is questionable whether medieval religion represented a closed system which can be... (shrink)

The affinity which the English Leviathan evinces for Independency is the focus of Johann Sommerville's article. Among the links the author traces is a concern to stress that clergymen have no independent jurisdiction over the laity, in contrast to positions shared by Catholics, Presbyterians and Anglicans. But, Hobbes has no doubt that the Independents themselves were fanatics, prescribing religious duties that might conflict with those of the lawful sovereign. Independents also taught resistance to the sovereign, while it is a key (...) aspect of Hobbes's political theory to teach submission to political authority. To summarize, while Leviathan agrees with the Independents in rejecting divine right theories of church government, it cannot be read as a defense of Independent thinking in general. (shrink)