An Exploration of Hobbes’s Identity

In Hobbes’s view, the wisdom necessary for human survival is primarily provided by reason and faith, and the meaning and value of human existence are also judged mainly by reason or faith. Moreover, between faith and reason, Hobbes leans more toward fideistic elements. That is to say, in the choice between reason and faith, Hobbes has already given his answer: faith is the foundation for providing the meaning and value of existence, meaning that faith in a transcendent being is the source of the meaning and value of existence. In *Leviathan*, Hobbes spares no effort in criticizing the Protestant doctrine of “justification by faith,”[1]1 “Justification by faith” (因信称义) is a core Protestant doctrine, associated especially with Martin Luther, holding that salvation is granted through faith alone rather than through good works. Hobbes criticizes this doctrine in *Leviathan* to subordinate religious authority to the sovereign. granting “Leviathan” and the sovereign the supreme authority to interpret the Bible and the responsibility to serve as the means of salvation. Even so, Hobbes still requires that the sovereign must be a Christian, and “Leviathan” remains a “mortal god” existing before God. In other words, humans need to live facing God, need to become believers in God, and the subjects of Leviathan can only be saved through Leviathan; the same applies to “Leviathan” as a creation and imitation of humans. Only in this way do humans and their artifact—Leviathan—have the basis, meaning, and value of existence. Hobbes offers no further justification for this choice, because in his view faith in God transcends the scope of human rational capacity. Thus, Hobbes’s researchers mostly discuss whether this self-profession of faith is sincere and reliable, rather than analyzing the reasons for his inclination toward faith.

在霍布斯看来，人类生存所需要的智慧主要由理性与信仰提供，人类存在的意义与价值也主要以理性或信仰来评判。而且在信仰与理性之间，霍布斯身上的信仰主义的东西更多一些。也就是说，在理性与信仰之间的选择上，霍布斯已经给出了他的答案：信仰是提供生存的意义与价值的基础，即对一个超验存在的信仰是生存的意义与价值之源。在《利维坦》里，霍布斯不予余力的批评新教的“因信称义”思想，他赋予“利维坦”、赋予主权者以解释圣经的最高权威和承担得救凭借的职责。既便如此，霍布斯依然要求主权者须是一个基督徒、“利维坦”依然是一个面向上帝而存在的“有死的上帝”。换言之，人需要面向上帝而生，需要成为一个信上帝的人，利维坦的臣民也只有依靠利维坦才能得救；作为人的创造物和模仿者的“利维坦”同样如此。只有这样，人以及人的仿造物——利维坦才有存在的依据、意义与价值。对此选择，霍布斯并没有更多的辩解，因为在他看来对于上帝的信仰超越了人类理性能力所及的范围。所以，霍布斯的研究者们更多的是讨论他的这种信仰的自我表白是否真诚可靠，而不是分析他倾向于信仰的缘由。

So, is Hobbes’s self-profession of faith trustworthy? Hobbes scholars have long been deeply divided on this issue. Broadly speaking, there are two explanatory models: first, the secularizing explanatory model, in which these scholars believe Hobbes’s profession of faith is dishonest and untrustworthy; second, the fideistic explanatory model, in which scholars holding this position believe his faith is devout and trustworthy.

那么霍布斯的信仰的自我表白是否值得信赖呢？历来的霍布斯研究者们对此分歧颇大。概括的说有两种解释模式：一是世俗化的解释模式，这些学者认为霍布斯的信仰表白是不诚实、不值得信赖的；二是信仰解释模式，持此立场的学者认为他的信仰是虔诚的、是值得信赖的.

I

一

For a long time, Hobbes has usually been regarded as an atheist, but he never called himself an atheist. On the contrary, he declared himself a Christian who believes “Jesus is the Christ.” So, are those who consider Hobbes an atheist misunderstanding him? How should we approach Hobbes’s profession of faith? One important reason Hobbes is considered an atheist is that his contemporaries called him an atheist. However, according to Wittgenstein’s “language-game theory,” although the word “atheism” has “family resemblances,” its real meaning must be assigned through specific usage by people in different times and cultural contexts. When we mention “atheism” in China today, its meaning mainly refers to having no religious belief and not believing in the existence of any transcendent god; an atheist is a person holding such a view. But when a 17th-century Englishman was considered an “atheist,” did it really mean he had no religious belief and did not believe in a transcendent god? Such a conclusion might fit our current usage habits and psychological expectations. Yet things are often not so simple; the meaning a word expresses in a specific context can be vastly different from our habitual usage. Therefore, we need to know: what did “atheism” and “atheist” actually mean in Hobbes’s time?

在很长一段时间里，霍布斯通常被认为是一位无神论者（atheist），但他从来没有说过自己是无神论者。与此恰恰相反，他却声言自己是一位信“耶稣是基督”的基督徒。那么，认为霍布斯是无神论者的人们是不是在误解霍布斯？我们应该如何面对霍布斯的信仰表白？霍布斯之所以被认为是一位无神论者，一个重要的原因是他同时代的人们称他为无神论者。然而，按照维特根斯坦的“语言游戏理论”，“无神论”这个词语尽管“家族相似”，但它的真实内涵需要在不同时代、不同文化背景的人们在具体的使用中赋予。当我们今天在中国提到“无神论”的时候，它的含义主要是指没有宗教信仰，不相信任何超验的神的存在；无神论者则指持有这种观念的人。但是，一个17世纪的英国人被认为是“无神论者”，他的真实含义就真的是没有宗教信仰、不相信超验的神的存在的人？可能这样的结论比较符合我们现在对这个词语的使用习惯和心理预期。然而，事情往往并不如此简单明了，一个词语在特定情境中所要表达的意涵与我们对它的使用习惯之间可能有天壤之别。因此，我们需要知道的是：“无神论”以及“无神论者”在霍布斯的时代究竟意指什么。

According to A.P. Martinich’s research, the word “atheist” in the 17th century more often referred to a form of “abuse” (a term of abuse); it could also refer to someone whose philosophical or faith principles inherited an atheistic critical stance. At the same time, the word “atheist” in the 17th century also had the character of a quasi-political term, used by parties with different political views and positions to accuse each other. For example, Queen Elizabeth I and James I were both labeled “atheists” by their opponents. Thus, the meaning of the word “atheist” in 17th-century England was clearly different from its modern meaning, especially from the meaning assigned to it by domestic scholars in China.

根据马蒂尼奇的考证，“无神论者”（atheist）这个词在17世纪更多的是指某种形式的“滥用”（a term of abuse），它也可以指某人的哲学或信仰原则继承了无神论式的批判立场。同时，无神论者这个词语在17世纪还具有准政治术语（a quasi-political term）的特点，它被政治观念和立场不同的各方用于相互指责对方。比如伊丽莎白女王、詹姆斯一世都曾被他们的对手冠以“无神论者”的头衔。由此可见，“无神论者”这个词语的含义在17世纪的英国与现代有明显的差异，尤其是与我们国内学者对它赋予的含义更是差距巨大。

Martinich’s vindication of Hobbes is important: it not only lets us see through the mist of history the true face of the “atheist” label, but also, in his view, Hobbes was a sincere and relatively orthodox Christian. He argues that although Hobbes was accused of atheism in his time, his proof that “God exists” adopted a relatively traditional method. Moreover, when accused of atheism by John Bramhall, Hobbes did not remain silent but actively defended himself, hoping to prove his innocence in matters of religious faith.

马蒂尼奇为霍布斯的正名是重要的，他不仅让我们透过历史的迷雾看清了“无神论者”头衔的本来面目，而且在他看来霍布斯是一位真诚的、比较正统的基督徒(a sincere and relatively orthodox christian)。因为他认为，霍布斯虽然在他的时代被指责为无神论者，但他对“上帝是存在的”的证明采用是比较传统的方式。而且当被布拉莫霍尔（John Bramhall）指责为无神论者之后，霍布斯不是沉默，而是积极的为自己辩护，以期证明自己在宗教信仰上的清白。

In fact, Martinich’s vindication of Hobbes is merely one link in a chain of such efforts relatively close to our time. Before him, countless thinkers had already striven to clear Hobbes of the label of atheist. In the famous 1946 *Introduction to Leviathan*, M.J. Oakeshott argued that Hobbes’s *Leviathan* is the greatest, even unique, masterpiece of political philosophy written in English. It was due to Hobbes’s work that the second mode of reflection on politics in European intellectual history—reflection on politics centered on the concepts of will and artifact—reached its zenith. Moreover, Hobbes’s *Leviathan* is also a subtle explanation of the human predicament and its remedy. Regarding the human predicament and its remedy, beyond the external conditions of survival, the need for inner peace and a sense of certainty in the order of life leads humans to rely on an ultimate purpose and value; God is this ultimate purpose and value of the world. Therefore, in Oakeshott’s view, Hobbes followed precisely this line of thought in explaining the human predicament and its remedy, and his mode of thinking was also of medieval lineage. Hence, Hobbes’s Christian faith was sincere and trustworthy.

其实，马蒂尼奇为霍布斯的正名只是这项工作链条上与我们距离较近的一个环节而已，在他之前，已经有无数的思想家努力的为霍布斯洗脱无神论者的称号而努力。在1946年出版的著名的《利维坦导读》里，奥克肖特（M.J.Oakeshott）认为霍布斯的《利维坦》是用英语写作的最伟大的、甚至是独一无二的政治哲学杰作。正是由于霍布斯的工作，使得欧洲思想史上对政治的第二种反思模式，即以意志与人造物为主导概念反思政治达到了登峰造极的高度。而且霍布斯的《利维坦》也是对人类困境及其解救之道的一次精妙的解释。对于人类的困境及其解救，除了生存的外在性条件而言，内心的安宁、对生活秩序的确定感的需求导致了人类需要信靠一个终极目的和价值，上帝就是这个世界的终极目的和价值。因此，在奥克肖特看来，霍布斯正是沿着这样的思路才阐释人类的困境及其解救的，他的思考方式也是中世纪血统的。所以，霍布斯的基督教信仰是真诚而可信赖的。

Howard Warrender also held a similar position. He argued that in *Leviathan*, Hobbes discussed different types of obligations, such as physical obligation, political obligation, and moral obligation, and that all these obligations ultimately are obligations to God. In his book *The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: His Theory of Obligation*, Warrender focused precisely on elaborating this idea of Hobbes. Therefore, in Warrender’s view, Hobbes’s self-profession of Christian faith was also trustworthy.

瓦伦德（Howard Warrender）也持近似的立场。他认为：霍布斯在他的《利维坦》中，论述了不同类型的义务，比如自然义务（physical obligation）、政治义务（political obligation）以及道德义务（moral obligation）等，所有这些义务归根结底都是对上帝的义务。瓦伦德在《霍布斯的政治哲学：他的义务论》（ThePolitical Philosophy of Hobbes:His Theory of Obligation）一书中正是着重阐述霍布斯的这一思想。所以在瓦伦德看来，霍布斯的基督教信仰的自我表白也是值得信赖的。

Wright (George Wright) believes that Hobbes has been quite wronged, often misunderstood or even deliberately distorted by modern scholars. He points out that some modern editors, when editing *Leviathan*, have even deleted the entire fourth part and the main content of the third part, because these are meaningless for the concept of modernity. He says: “On the road to clarifying the historical understanding of Hobbes’s intentions and contributions, there is a stumbling block, namely the self-evident and self-warranting concept of modernity. As an ‘early modern thinker,’ Hobbes has from time to time been subjected to the rule of interpretive retrospection.” In fact, Hobbes was a firm supporter of the Protestant tradition, because he commented on major issues connected with the rise of Protestant doctrine and provided answers to these issues, answers formed mainly within the terms provided by the culture and presuppositions of Protestant doctrine itself. Wright even calls Hobbes a “Puritan theologian.” So, how did Hobbes profess his Christian faith? And when he was accused of being an atheist, how did he defend himself?

莱特（George Wright）认为霍布斯颇为冤枉，他常被现代学者误解、甚至是故意曲解。他指出有现代学者在编辑《利维坦》时，甚至删去该书整个第四部分和第三部分的主要内容，因为这对现代性观念没有任何意义。他说：“在澄清对霍布斯的意图和贡献的历史理解的道路上，有一块绊脚石，这就是不证自明的自我担保的现代性观念。作为一个‘现代早期思想家’，霍布斯已经时不时的受到了解释性回溯法的支配”。事实上，霍布斯是新教传统的坚定支持者，因为他评论与新教教义兴起相联系的重大问题，并为这些问题提供答案，而这些答案主要是在新教教义自身的文化和前提条件所提供的术语范围内形成的。莱特甚至称霍布斯为“清教徒神学家”。那么，霍布斯是如何表白自己的基督教信仰？当他被指责为无神论者之后，他又是如何为自己辩护的？

II

二

In the 1668 Latin edition of *Leviathan*, its content added an appendix compared to the 1651 English edition. In Chapter Three of the *Appendix*, Hobbes defends himself against the accusation that he is an atheist. Looking at the defense throughout the chapter, it can be said to cover various aspects. From some of the main concepts of *Leviathan* to Christian theological doctrines such as the Church, angels, the Kingdom of God, the soul, eternal life, salvation, and the Trinity, Hobbes provides clear explanations and defenses. In our view, the key lies in two points: first, the defense concerning “God is a body,” and second, the defense concerning the doctrine of the Trinity.

在1668年拉丁文版的《利维坦》里，它的内容比1651年的英文版多加了一个附录。在《附录》的第三章，针对人们说他是无神论者的指责，霍布斯为自己做了辩护。纵观全章的辩护，可以说涉及到各个方面。从《利维坦》的部分主要观念到教会、天使、上帝国、灵魂、永生、得救以及三位一体等基督教神学教义，霍布斯都做了明确的解释和辩护。在我们看来，这其中的关键在于两点：首先是关于“上帝是一个有形体”的辩护，其次是关于“三位一体”教义的辩护。

First, in *Leviathan*, Hobbes holds that the universe is the aggregate of all bodies, so no real part of it can fail to be a body, and God exists; therefore, according to Hobbes’s logic, God is a body, i.e., God is a corporeal being. To many of his contemporaries, this seemed utterly heretical, a typical atheistic view. In response to this accusation, in the *Appendix to Leviathan*, Hobbes argues as follows: “To assert that God is a body, but before him (he refers to Hobbes—translator’s note), Tertullian had already asserted the same proposition in an argument against Apelles and other heretics of his time. … And none of the first four ecumenical councils condemned this doctrine.”

首先，在《利维坦》里，霍布斯认为宇宙是所有物体的集合，所以其中任何真实的部分都不可能不同时是物体，而上帝是存在的，所以按照霍布斯的逻辑，上帝是一个物体，即上帝是一个有形体。而这在许多的他的同时代的人看来简直是大逆不道，是一种典型的无神论的观点。针对这种指责，在《<利维坦>附录》里，霍布斯这样辩驳道：“断言上帝是一个形体，但在他（他指霍布斯——引者注）之前，德尔图良在反对他那时代的阿培勒（Apelles）和其他异端者的一个论证中，已经断言过同样的命题。……而前四次大公会议中的任何一次都没有谴责这一学说”。

Moreover, in Hobbes’s view, although there were disagreements among the Church Fathers, the Council of Nicaea itself did not explicitly state that God is incorporeal; they did not want to insert the word “incorporeal” into the creed, because this word is not found in the Bible. Furthermore, the incorporeality of God cannot be deduced from the word “co-essential.” Therefore, saying “God is a body” does not contradict the Bible. On the contrary, acknowledging that “God is a body” is truly acknowledging God’s existence. Because in Hobbes’s view, only bodies truly exist; God truly exists, so God is a body. He says: “To say God is an incorporeal existence is equivalent to saying God does not exist at all.” And this body that is God is one “in which the fullness of divinity dwells bodily.”

而且在霍布斯看来，虽然在教父们之间有分歧，但是尼西亚大公会议本身也没有明确表述上帝是无形的，他们不想把“无形的”（incorporeal）这个词输进信经里去，因为《圣经》上找不到这个词。而且，上帝的无形也不能从“同性同体的”(co-essential)一词中推导出来。所以说“上帝是有形体”不违背《圣经》。恰恰相反，承认“上帝是有形体”才是真正的承认上帝的存在。因为在霍布斯看来，只有有形体才真正存在，上帝是真正存在的，所以上帝就是有形体。他说：“说上帝是无形的存在等于说上帝根本不存在”。而上帝这个有形体是“神性的完满有形有体的居住在里面的” 。

Second, in *Leviathan*, there is the following passage: The true God may also be represented by man. God was first represented by Moses, and the Israelites governed by Moses were not his own people but God’s people; he did not govern in his own name by saying “Moses says,” but in God’s name by saying “God says.” Secondly, God was represented by the Son of Man, his own Son, our holy Savior Jesus Christ, who came down to earth, taught the Jews, and led all nations to the heavenly kingdom of the Father; Christ did not come of himself but was sent by the Father. Thirdly, God was represented by the Holy Spirit or Comforter, who spoke and moved in the apostles; this Holy Spirit was not a Comforter who came of himself but was sent simultaneously by the Father and the Son. This was also accused of being an atheistic statement. How should this passage be understood? Hobbes says: “Here, the author (referring to Hobbes—translator’s note) seems to have intended to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, although he did not call it by that name: this is a pious wish, but this explanation is erroneous. For, just as all Christian sovereigns, because Moses in a certain way bore the person of God, he therefore seems here to constitute one person of the Trinity.” Hobbes admits that he made a mistake here due to carelessness. However, he immediately adds: “If the author (referring to Hobbes—translator’s note, same below) had said that God created the world in his own person; redeemed mankind in the person of the Son; and sanctified the Church in the person of the Holy Spirit; then the author would have said nothing other than what the Church says in its doctrinal responses.” What does this mean? After Hobbes admits his initial carelessness, he quickly supplements and explains the meaning he originally intended to convey, namely, the doctrine of the Trinity. And his understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity never exceeded the scope of the Church’s interpretation; it was merely a repetition of what the Church had said. This is what Hobbes means by “said nothing other than what the Church says in its doctrinal responses.” From this, it appears that Hobbes believed his understanding of the Trinity was consistent with the tradition of Church doctrine.

其次，在《利维坦》里，有这样一段话：真神也可以由人代表。上帝首先是由摩西代表，摩西所治理的以色列人不是他自己的子民而是上帝的子民；他不用“摩西说”这样的说法以自己的名进行治理，而是用“神说”这样的说法以神的名进行治理。其次，上帝便是有降临人世、教化犹太人并引导所有的民族归向圣父天国的人子、他自己的儿子、我们神圣的救世主耶稣基督代表；基督不是自己来的，而是由圣父那里派来的。第三，他便由使徒身上说话和推动使徒的圣灵或保惠师代表；这圣灵不是自己降临人世的保惠师，而是同时由圣父圣子那里派遣前来的这也被人指责为是无神论的言论。如何理解这段文字？霍布斯说：。在此，作者（指霍布斯——引者注）似乎是想要解释三位一体教义，尽管他并没有这样称呼这一教义：这是一个虔诚的愿望，但这种解释是错误的。因为，就像所有基督徒君主那样，由于摩西以某种特定方式秉有上帝的位格，因此他似乎在此就构成了三位一体中的一个位格。霍布斯承认自己在这里因为草率而犯了错误。但是，他紧接着补充道：“如果作者（指霍布斯——引者注，下同）已经说，上帝在他自己的位格中创造了世界；在子的位格中，他救赎了人类；在圣灵的位格中，他圣化了教会；那么，作者除说了教会在其教义回答中所说的东西以外，就什么也没有说”。这是什么意思？在霍布斯承认自己当初的草率之后，很迅速的补充解释了他原本想要表述的意思，即三位一体教义。而他对三位一体教义的理解从来没有超越教会解释的范围，只不过是替教会重复说了一遍而已，这就是霍布斯所谓的“除说了教会在其教义回答中所说的东西以外，就什么也没有说”。由此看来，霍布斯认为自己对三位一体教义的理解是符合教会教义传统的。

In fact, whether Hobbes’s profession of Christian faith is sincere and whether his defense of his innocence is trustworthy is a question forever worth discussing, and it may even be fundamentally unsolvable. Because in a certain sense, this is a matter of Hobbes’s researchers interpreting his faith based on their own conviction, i.e., whether they consider him a Christian or an atheist. That is to say, it is a circular argument: first determining a conclusion and then proving that conclusion.

其实，霍布斯的基督教信仰表白是否真诚、为自己的清白的辩护是否值得信赖是一个永远值得讨论的问题，甚至它根本就是无解的。因为从某种意义上讲，这是霍布斯的研究者基于自身的一种认信，即认为他是基督徒还是无神论者来解释他的信仰。也就是说，这是一个循环论证，即先认定了一个结论然后再去证明这个结论。

However, if measured by Hobbes’s own criteria for judging atheism, the conclusion that his profession of faith is sincere and reliable can be established. Regarding the question “By what actions can atheism be proven?” Hobbes holds that whether spoken by mouth or written by pen, a person can only be judged an atheist based on what is said, not based on his actions. Because in Hobbes’s view, actions may be feigned. Therefore, only those who directly deny God’s existence or publicly declare their doubt about whether God exists can be identified as atheists. And Hobbes believes that those judged to be atheists should be severely punished. If Hobbes is judged by this standard, then he is certainly not an atheist. Because, as Martinich [2]2 A.P. Martinich, a contemporary scholar of Hobbes’s political philosophy and theology. said earlier, Hobbes never in his life publicly declared himself an atheist like Nietzsche and others, and when accused of being an atheist, he actively defended himself. This is also the case in the Latin *Appendix to Leviathan*; in Wright’s words: “In the *Appendix* to *Leviathan*, the problem Hobbes consistently seeks to solve is ‘to verify the correctness of a concept of faith rooted in history; he wants to base faith on the supreme authority of the Bible… Hobbes also wants to show that such a concept of faith rooted in history is consistent with the authority of the secular authorities in matters such as the Book of Common Prayer and public professions of faith.’”

但是，如果以霍布斯自己对于无神论的判断标准来衡量，他的信仰表白是真诚可靠的这一结论是可以成立的。针对“通过什么样的行为可以证明无神论呢？”这一问题，霍布斯认为，不管是用口说出来的，还是用笔写下来的，只有根据被说出来的东西才能判定一个人是否是无神论者，而不应该根据他的行为。因为在霍布斯看来，行为可能是伪装出来的。所以直接否定上帝存在或公开宣告他自己对上帝是否存在有怀疑的人才可以被认定为无神论者。而且霍布斯认为应该对被判定为无神论者的人施行严厉的惩罚。如果以这为标准判断霍布斯，那么他肯定不是无神论者.因为正如前文马蒂尼奇所言，霍布斯一生从来没有像尼采等人那样公开宣称自己是无神论者，而且当被指责为无神论者的时候，还积极的为自己辩护。在拉丁文版的《<利维坦>附录》也是如此，用莱特的话说就是：在《利维坦》附录里，霍布斯自始至终要解决的问题是“想要证实根植于历史的信仰概念的正确性，他要把信仰的基础建立在《圣经》的至高地位上……霍布斯还想表明，这样一种根植于历史的信仰概念，与世俗当局在公祷书和公开的信仰宣告这些事情上的权力是一致的” 。

At the end of the appendix to *Leviathan*, Hobbes’s concluding words perhaps better allow us to sense his sincere Christian faith. He says: “In these examples which you have enumerated, I find nothing that violates the faith of our Church, although several of them defeat the teachings of unofficial theologians.” Therefore, we hold that Hobbes’s self-profession of faith is sincere and trustworthy.

在《利维坦》附录的最后，霍布斯总结性的话也许更能让我们感受到他真诚的基督教信仰。他说：“在你（指文中虚拟的一个对话者——引者注）已经例举的这些例证中，我没有发现任何有违我们教会信仰的东西，尽管其中有若干例证击败了非官方神学家们的教导”。所以我们认为：霍布斯的自我信仰表白是真诚的、值得信赖的。

III

三

When faced with the choice between “reason” and “faith,” Hobbes firmly expressed his “faith” and his Christian identity. As Carl Schmitt remarked, although later generations continually misunderstood his piety, Hobbes remained a devout Christian. Perhaps we can glean something from Hobbes’s “faith.”

霍布斯在面对“理性”抑或“信仰”的选择时，他坚决的表达了他的“信仰”、他的基督徒身份，如卡尔•施密特所言，虽然后人不断误解他的虔诚，霍布斯仍是一位虔诚的基督徒。或许我们可以从霍布斯的“信仰”里体悟到一点什么。

In an era undergoing secularization, where the power of reason was increasingly manifest and growing, an era in which the image of man loomed ever larger and God receded ever further, Hobbes makes us see anew: in a rational, calculating age, without God, man would live in a chaotic, meaningless “state of nature”; without God, man’s obedience to man might be merely an illusory dream, while reality is “a war of every man against every man.”

在一个正在经历世俗化、理性的力量正日益显现和壮大的时代，在一个人的形象越来越高大、神渐行渐远的时代，霍布斯重新让我们看到：在一个理性、算计的时代，没有神，人将生活在一个混乱的无意义的“自然状态”；没有神，人服从人也许仅仅是一个虚无缥缈的梦，现实却是“每个人对每个人的战争”。

England, with its century of civil war, was itself a realm devoid of existential meaning and value. Facing a seventeenth-century England riven by incessant civil war and conflicts among sects and doctrines, Hobbes saw the misfortune and sorrow of those living within it, which touched his sensitive and fragile soul. With his steadfast Christian faith, and with his Leviathan under the guardianship of a sublime God, he sought a peaceful, tranquil earthly life; and he hoped, through Leviathan, to enable the suffering to find the direction and foundation of trust in the “Promised Land”—the Kingdom of God. Hobbes endowed Leviathan with absolute authority, hoping it could sustain the courage to exist for the distressed, struggling, and weak in the earthly realm; yet Leviathan is also extremely fragile—its duties and the nature of its being as a creature determine that it must submit to and serve a higher existence: God.

世纪内战不断的英国，何尝不是一个没有存在意义和价值的国度。在面对一个内战不断、教派与教义冲突不断的17世纪的英国，霍布斯看到了生活于其间的人们的不幸与悲哀，这触动了敏感而脆弱的霍布斯的心灵。他用他坚定的基督教信仰，他用他有着崇高上帝监护下的利维坦去寻求一个和平、安宁的尘世生活；更希望借助利维坦，让苦难中的人们找到“希望之乡”——上帝之国的方向和信靠的基础。霍布斯赋予了利维坦以绝对权威，他希冀它能支撑起尘世中困苦、艰难和羸弱的人们生存的勇气；可利维坦又是极其脆弱的，它的职责、它的受造物的本性决定了它必然臣服于、服务于一个更高的存在——上帝。

In Hobbes and his Leviathan, we see a courage and hope for existence, because it overcomes the fear of the most terrifying thing in earthly life—violent death. This allows the meaning and value of the “living” person to continue, and allows the “living” person to dwell in an ineffable yet wonderfully infinite hope. Perhaps, in Hobbes’s Leviathan, man obtains not only the justice of a brief earthly existence but also eternal “righteousness,” for Leviathan can enable men to be “saved” and become citizens of the heavenly kingdom. In sum, Hobbes strove with all his might to seek a meaning and value for existence within Leviathan, and he used Leviathan to defend a kind of “hope.”

在霍布斯和他的利维坦里，我们看到了一种存在的勇气和希望，因为它克服对尘世中最为恐怖的事情——暴死——的恐惧。这让“生”的人的意义与价值得以延续，也让“生”的人生活在一种不可言说却又美妙无穷的希望之中。也许，在霍布斯的利维坦里，人不仅获得了尘世短暂生存的正义，更可以获得永远的“义”，因为利维坦可以让人们“得救”成为天国的臣民。总之，霍布斯竭尽全力在利维坦里为人们寻求一种存在的意义与价值，他更用利维坦为一种“希望”辩护。

Hobbes not only hoped to use his “Leviathan” to maintain peace and reshape the meaning and value of existence; did he not also expect that his teachings on “reason and faith” could, in an increasingly “rationalized” age, rebuild faith in a transcendent, ultimate God? For he believed that only faith—faith in a higher existence than man—could give human existence meaning and value; for he believed that possessing reason alone was insufficient to make man human, and that the truths provided by reason were insufficient to bring man peace and tranquility. Thus, when faced with the choice between reason and faith, Hobbes was more on the side of faith, or rather he chose faith, and he continually defended this choice.

霍布斯不仅希望用他的“利维坦”去维护和平、重塑生存的意义与价值，他又何尝不期待他的关于“理性与信仰”的教导能在一个渐趋“理性化”的时代重建对超验的、终极的上帝的信仰。因为他相信只有信仰——对一个比人的存在更高存在的信仰，才能使人的生存具有意义和价值；因为他相信拥有理性还不足以使人成为人，理性提供的真理不足以使人获得和平与安宁。所以在面对理性与信仰的选择时，霍布斯身上更多是信仰，或者说他选择了信仰，而且不断的为他的这种选择辩护。

Online Editor: Jia Fei

网络编辑：嘉扉