Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Rousseau on Civil Religion

Author(s): Ronald Beiner

Source: The Review of Politics , Autumn, 1993, Vol. 55, No. 4 (Autumn, 1993), pp. 617-
638
Published by: Cambridge University Press for the University of Notre Dame du lac on
behalf of Review of Politics

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1407609

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1407609?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of Notre Dame du lac on behalf of Review of Politics and Cambridge University
Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of
Politics

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Rousseau
on Civil Religion
Ronald Beiner

Book 4, chapter 8, of the Social Contract, on civil religion, presents a puzz

According to Rousseau, no state has ever been founded that did not have reli
as its base. But which religion? Christianity is not an option. Paganism is no
option. Monotheistic theocracy is not an option. What does that leave? By a pro
of elimination, we are left with an Enlightenment religion of tolerance and mu
forbearance, which even readers sympathetic to Rousseau (or perhaps espec
readers sympathetic to Rousseau) might say is no religion at all. I argue
Machiavelli and Hobbes share Rousseau's fundamental concern, which is that
otherworldly aspirations of Christianity are subversive of political requiremen
but each of them thinks he can solve the problem by "de-transcendentalizi
Christianity: Machiavelli, by treating the papacy as if it were a pagan instituti
Hobbes, by reinterpreting the New Testament as if it were the Old Testament.
article examines why Rousseau rejects the Machiavellian and Hobbesian solut
to his problem, and why he has no solution of his own to offer.

Those readers of Rousseau who are inclined to interpret T

Social Contract as a determinate and realizable blueprint for
ideal political community would be well advised to ponder ca
fully the fact that the book concludes with the statement of a cr
political problem for which Rousseau is unable to propose
solution that he himself regards as acceptable. Rousseau wa
familiar with two possible solutions offered by his predecessor
the tradition of modern political philosophy, but he rejects both
these as undesirable. In the Geneva Manuscript he explores a pos
sible solution of his own, but jettisons this as well when he com
to write The Social Contract.

Rousseau's Problem

The Social Contract concludes with a stunning paradox

key statement of book 4, chapter 8, is that "a State has neve
founded without religion serving as its base" ("jamais Etat ne
fond6 que la religion ne lui servit de base").1 This statement

1. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On the Social Contract, ed. Roger D. Masters,

Judith R. Masters (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1978), p. 127.
617

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
618 THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

in the context of a very penetrating analysis

presumes to be an exhaustive survey of re
bilities. There are two main alternatives: the f
attaches the label "natural divine right," is st
its focus, and finds its purest embodiment in
Gospels; the second, which Rousseau refers t
divine right," embraces a variety of more
regimes. These divide basically into two type
local civil religion of Roman and other pag
universalistic and therefore imperialistic the
Judaism. All national religions will appear pa
universalism of Christianity, but as the contr
Islam and paganism shows, this parochiali
(relatively) tolerant or aggressive cast. Ro
third, hybrid, alternative, "mixed right," wh
dual sovereignty model, dividing authority
state. In practice, it means that the priests a
temporal authority for themselves, and to th
established authority of the state. Rousseau c
the priest," and agrees with Hobbes in den
otherworldly religion any moral claim w
blatant target of this polemic is of cours
Rousseau concedes in the paragraph refer
dividing of sovereignties is latent in the "spir
general, not just the Catholic version of Chr
Where does this leave us? The statement
this section rules out the possibility of a
absence of a civil religion. A religion that is n
nor strictly otherworldly (viz., Catholicism
jected. A religion that is strictly otherworld
sions of Christianity, including, especially
tianity of the Gospels) is religiously true but
useless. It fails to make available the civil r

2. Ibid.: "Hobbes... dared to propose the reunification

eagle, and the complete return to political unity, w
government will ever be well constituted. But he ou
dominating spirit of Christianity ['l'esprit dominat
incompatible with his system." The reference to "the sp
126 bears the same implication, viz., that it is Christian
cism in particular, that tends to bifurcate sovereignty.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CIVIL RELIGION 619

insists is politically indispensable

chapter (paragraphs 8-30) are devo
of reconciling Christianity with t
hopeless one. One cannot speak o
two words are mutually exclusi
Rousseau, as a partisan of republ
embrace some species of theocracy
variety, or of the imperialistic, mo
does voice significant sympathy
and declares that "Mohammed had
an option that he ultimately repud
ance and intolerance is morally
Christian universalism embodies a moral truth that we cannot
forgo. All good politics is parochial and a religion that encourag
this parochialism, rather than helping us to transcend it (as tru
Christianity does), would diminish our humanity. So wh
Rousseau entirely accepts and restates Machiavelli's analysis
the antipolitical character of Christianity, he cannot follow
Machiavelli in opting for some kind of anti-Christian politics. T
crusades show us what we get when we turn Christianity i
pagan direction,5 and the crusades were an abomination. But eve
if, contrary to this argument, we could conceive a civil religion th
was not subject to this criticism, that is, some kind of theocracy t
remained politically attractive, Rousseau says that we would
seeking a possibility that is no longer attainable: the preservatio
or re-establishment of the ancient system is a futile endeavor. "T
spirit of Christianity has won over everything."6 And in the las
paragraph of the chapter he tells us that "there is no longer and
never again be ['il ne peut plus y avoir'] an exclusive nation
religion."7 So we are left with the two unhappy alternatives of
morally true religion that is in its essence subversive of politics, a
a sound civil religion that is both morally unattractive and, histo
cally, an anachronism.

3. Ibid., p. 130.
4. Ibid., p. 126.
5. Ibid., p. 130.
6. Ibid., p. 126. The text reads: "Plusieurs peuples cependant, meme da
l'Europe ou a son voisinage, ont voulu conserver ou retablir l'ancien systeme, ma
sans succes: l'esprit du christianisme a tout gagnd."
7. Ibid., p. 131. My italics.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
620 THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

The standard reading of the Social Contrac

Rousseau does offer a civil religion. This com
section of book 4, chapter 8, confined to the
35-paragraph chapter, and it is a real puz
recommendations of these last five paragr
the powerful arguments Rousseau assembles
critical analysis of the first thirty paragraph
marks the transition between the critical firs
and the recommendatory second part, Rou
political considerations aside, let us return to
its principles."8 But what does it mean to def
in abstraction from "political considerations"
almost to suggest that right stands in contrad
that a political community that satisfied the
particular, the moral imperative of tolerance,
three paragraphs) would be incapable of po
When Rousseau says that "a State has n
without religion serving as its base," I assum
a "real" religion,9 the kind of thing that cou
motivations of citizens, thus fostering good
ing to consolidate the foundations of the sta
in the last five paragraphs is a highly att

8. Ibid., p. 130. The text reads: "laissant A part les

revenons au droit, et fixons les principes."
9. In an illuminating essay on "Civil Religion in Am
[Winter, 1967]: 1-21), Robert N. Bellah argues that the A
discloses a veritable civil religion that draws upon bib
but invests them anew with a peculiarly political fu
represents a unique religious construction insofar as it s
images of the Old Testament without being Jewish, a
ates symbolism of the New Testament without being Ch
in any way sectarian, the American civil religion takes
Biblical tradition and forges from them the liturgical b
community embracing the entire nation. (As Bellah poin
tionaries of 1789 also sought to forge a new civil cult, t
militant break with Christian norms.) It may well be
something very much like this in mind with his own
However, this still leaves unresolved why Rousseau, t
religion chapter, treats various world religions as if the
of directly constituting alternative political communi
merely a pool of religious motifs which republican stat
draw upon for their own purposes.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CIVIL RELIGION 621

religion, an Enlightenment-style "r

say, in which liberal or negative
might positively build republican
rather watered-down quasi-relig
farewell to his republican ideal, w
potential illiberalism that it impli
would be appropriate to respond
Karl L6with in his commentary on

a Christianity reduced to morality an

doctrinal foundations is no longer a r
that a Christianity which is watered d
the priest is "first of all a Gebildeter,"
philosophizing theologian, and even
that such a Christianity cannot appeal
religion.10

In any case, nowhere in book 4, chapter 8, does Rousseau explain

how the anemic religion that he conjures up at the end can possibly
satisfy the robust requirements that qualify a civil religion as a real
civil religion, and it remains entirely mysterious how the liberal-
ized religion to which he lowers his standard in the last five
paragraphs of the chapter can elude the seemingly exhaustive
framework of analysis laid out in the first thirty paragraphs.
Rousseauian politics ends up with a paradox rather than a pro-
posal.

The Machiavellian Solution: Paganization of Christianity

An examination of a few of the more "straightforward" possi-

bilities that Rousseau knew and rejected may cast light on the
dimensions of the quandary with which he presents us. In Dis-
courses I: 11-15, Machiavelli makes even clearer than Rousseau
does the standard by which a real civil religion is to be judged. That
standard is the use to which the pagan religion was put by the
Roman republic. Machiavelli provides ample lessons in these five
chapters of what it is to make prudent use of a religion, both
politically and militarily, but "the Roman Church," failing to live

10. Karl Lowith, Meaning in History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1949), p. 29.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
622 THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

up to its name, is incapable of doing this, an

Discourses I: 15, stirs up religious terror to no
criticism of the papacy is evident in the con
I, chapter 14, between Papirius' shrewd mani
beliefs and Appius Pulcher's blatant disregard
Roman court, because it is blatantly unchrist
for its own religion, like Appius Pulcher, wh
using Christian piety for political purposes
policy of Papirius.
Machiavelli makes perfectly clear throug
of religion in The Discourses that Christia
civilizational resources at its disposal, to disci
"carve a beautiful statue from rough marble,
dered these resources in the most appallin
argues in Discourses II: 2, devalued honor a
martyrdom, has taught men to be humble
contemptuous of worldly things, has made t
and rendered heaven impotent. In sum, C
ebrated slavishness, and encouraged huma
liberty, or the harsh politics required for th
Religion lies at the heart of Machiavellian
might not be immediately apparent to reader
famous passage in The Prince, chapter 12, Ma
precedence of good arms over good laws beca
good arms there must be good laws"12. B
parallel passage in Discourses I: 11, continues
completion of a half-uttered thought): "wher
no religion, it is with difficulty that it can be
as arms take precedence over laws, religion t
arms. Hence Numa, founder of Rome's religio
over Romulus: it was Numa who render
Romulus "had left undone."14 We see, then
founding states reposes on the more basic
religions.

11. Niccolb Machiavelli, The Discourses, ed. Bernard

Penguin, 1970), p. 141.
12. Niccolb Machiavelli, The Prince, ed. Harvey C.
University of Chicago Press, 1985), p. 48.
13. Discourses, ed. Crick, p. 140.
14. Ibid., p. 139.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CIVIL RELIGION 623

In stark contrast to the Roman rel

strengthened human beings, giving t
hunger for worldly glory, Christian
the opposite direction, thereby weak
all of this can be changed or revers
in Discourses II: 5, the founding of n
not "due to heaven"; that is, it is sub
politics. Just as paganism succeeded i
sor, and was (nearly) wiped out in tur
ably Christianity too is vulnerable to
Christian religion (or perhaps a resum
paganism).15 This is what one might
sion of Machiavelli's politics. It co
chapter 6 of The Prince. The "stars" o
princes, all of whom founded some
mere states: Moses was the founde
Cyrus was the founder of the Persian
founder of the Roman civilization; T
Greek civilization. In order to occupy
not suffice to found a state within a
zation; one would have to found a n
Machiavelli suggests a more modest
2, where he gives an extremely curio
of Christian civilization. He does not s
effeminate and heaven is impotent, b
were effeminate and as if heaven we
interpretation of Christian teaching.
preted, Christianity teaches that i
defend the fatherland," to love and h
to be such that we may defend it,"
otherwise, "this undoubtedly is due r
those who have interpreted our re
['l'ozio'], not in terms of virtue."16
effects that it has had in the world o
pretations." Now as a serious attem
Christian teaching, this is absolutel

15. Ibid., pp. 288-89.

16. Ibid., pp. 278-79. My italics. I have sub
"laissez faire," and converted "virtii" to "vir

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
624 THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

himself knew perfectly well. What Machi

that it remains open to us as a civilization (o
innovator within our civilization) to reint
such a way that it secures the political adva
were so adept at exploiting through a jud
religious beliefs and practices. To blame
Christianity on a faulty interpretation is to
tion, more consonant with the cultural
politics. Here Machiavelli states his progr
clarity: by speaking of the Christian quest f
tion as if it were the product of a misinter
indicates that Christianity can and ought to
it were not Christianity, specifically, as
paganism. Christianity has to be paganized.1

The Hobbesian Solution: Judaicization

A reading of the much-neglected parts

shows that Thomas Hobbes, too, belongs
tradition. At first, this is surprising. Certain
to say on the subject of religion in De Cive
every impression that Hobbes is a theorist f
of Christian doctrine count for very litt
imperatives of political authority count f
One's first impulse is to say that Hobbes
ensure maximum discretion for the sovereig
of cultic requirements, and that it would be
this discretion by inquiring too closely into
of a state religion. This is a true but insu
insufficient because it fails to explain why

17. According to my interpretation of The Prince, f

25, and 26 of the book, Machiavelli's interest in C
prospect, offered by the Borgias (Cesare and his fat
paganizing the papacy. This project foundered when
capture the papacy, thereby revitalizing the Church
chapter 11, whereas Alexander's intent was not "to
rather the duke [Cesare]," Julius, by contrast, "did eve
the Church and not of some private individual" (M
Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in
1960), pp. 71-74; Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist, se
space to develop this reading of Machiavelli in the pr

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CIVIL RELIGION 625

such monumental time and ener

exegesis. The answer to this puzzle
insight grasped by Rousseau and
inely Christian aspirations are so r
subvert the authority of temporal
search for a way in which to de-
ever, Hobbes's solution is not to go
to go back even further, to the Ju
Let us begin by turning to De Civ
of these two aspects, namely, the
maximal latitude in shaping a r
political community. We saw in se
Judaism as a theocratic teaching, a
its political advantages and ultimat
theocracies are either universalisti
they are simply parochial, and ther
truths eventually made availabl
contrast, attempts to draw from t
theocracy. For Hobbes, the Old T
alternation between the "maistry"
istry" of priests, on the one han
"maistry" of priests accompanied
ets.1s Monarchy is the only way t
associated with Hebrew theocrac
that the Israelites are "a people gr
the only sure way of coping with
themselves recognize this, and the
God then "consents."20 Another w
for prophets (subverters of priestly
that the Hebrews were "the greate
resistant to a kingly authority t
reminiscent of that under which
Pharaohs.21 The only solution t

18. Thomas Hobbes, De Cive, chapter 16,

Gert (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 19
19. Ibid., p. 323. Cf. Thomas Hobbes, Lev
Penguin, 1985), pp. 506-507.
20. Man and Citizen, pp. 315, 323, 324.
21. Ibid., pp. 314-15.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
626 THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

Hobbes's phrase "private zeal"22) is to reserv

ity to decide who is and who is not a true pr
Samuel 8: 7 ("Hearken unto the voice of the
say unto thee") is crucial for Hobbes beca
people themselves came to realize this.23 Th
chapter 16, is the transition from "judges"
Saul), and the question of why this tran
Hobbes's analysis is that theocracy is inhere
priests lack the authority to settle the questi
true prophet. What Moses founded was a th
monarchy, that is to say, "a priestly kingdo
free, in which [the Hebrews] were to be
power."24 In other words, the rule of priest
Only kings can stabilize the political commu
themselves authority concerning true and f
fore, Hobbes's affirmation of undivided tem
he sees it, merely a philosophical appropriat
contained within the narrative of the Old Testament.
In De Cive, chapter 13, Hobbes presents a "query," "whether it
be the duty of kings to provide for the salvation of their subjects'
souls, as they [the kings] shall judge best according to their own
consciences."" Having posed the query, Hobbes says merely that
"we will leave this difficulty in suspense."26 In fact, the whole of
part 3 of De Cive is intended as a comprehensive answer to this
question posed but not answered in chapter 13, para. 5, namely,
whether it is right for kings to intervene in what concerns the
salvation of their subjects' souls. The whole thrust of part 3 is to
answer in the affirmative. The establishment of a civil religion is
part and parcel of what it is to exercise kingly authority. Hobbes's
civil religion as laid out in De Cive, part 3, can be summed up as
follows. The Christian prince must affirm God's existence, must
not set up idols, and must affirm that Jesus is the Christ. Beyond
that, the Christian prince can institute any articles of faith and any
rites that he cares to, and Christian subjects are fully bound by

22. Ibid., p. 323.

23. Ibid., pp. 315, 323.
24. Ibid., p. 338. Hobbes's italics.
25. Ibid., p. 257.
26. Ibid., p. 260.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CIVIL RELIGION 627

these dogmas and rites. As for

Christian subjects must bear allegi
concerns temporal matters. If the
of spiritual matters forces the Ch
faith, the latter must be prepared t
their faith, rather than to resist c
show themselves to be less than wholehearted in their commit-
ment to Christian faith.27 It goes without saying that the civ
religion of non-Christian princes is fully binding upon non-Chris
tian subjects. This "theology" is through and through political. It i
not the theology of someone primarily concerned with the salva-
tion of the soul, but the theology of someone primarily concerne
that the pursuit of salvation of the soul not interfere with th
requirements of political order.
De Cive, as we have seen, serves a primarily negative purpose,
namely, to shelter civil authority against the political presump
tions of the priests, to knock down these priestly ambitions and t
fend off the theocratic challenge. Part 3 of Leviathan, by contrast
tells a rather different story, and points in the direction of a muc
more ambitious Hobbesian project. De Cive leaves the content
Hobbes's civil religion (in common with the Rousseauian civi
religion at the end of the Social Contract) pretty much open to th
discretion of the sovereign. In Leviathan, however, that is not so
(and it is for Rousseauian reasons that it is not so!). Let us, then, turn
now to the Leviathan's discussion of religion.
In Leviathan, part 3, we learn that the drama told in De Cive,
chapter 16, concerning the Hebrews' overthrowing of the theoc-
racy as founded by Moses tells us only half a tale. The whole stor
can be summarized as follows: (1) Moses founds a theocracy, that
is, a regime ruled by those who claim to rule in the name of God
The problem with this theocratic regime is that it spawns people
who claim prophetic powers, and this makes it impossible to asser
any singular civil authority. As Hobbes sums up the problem: "th
Jewes ... called mad-men Prophets."28 When the Israelites them
selves came to realize the nature of their political problem, w
reach stage (2) of the story, namely, that the people demand

27. Cf. Leviathan, pp. 674-75.

28. Ibid., p. 143.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
628 THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

King, after the manner of their neighbour n

that they "cast off Gods yoke" (i.e., ended t
the drama of Samuel and Saul related in De
retold in Leviathan, chapter 40: the people re
agreed to relinquish authority." This non
dures until we reach the final act in this dr
"restores" the Kingdom of God (i.e., re-inst
In other words, Christ's mission is to re
theocracy founded by Moses and interru
successors. Hobbes asserts that the claim to be "Christ" means
claiming to be "King of the Jews," quite literally, and this
precisely what Jesus claimed for himself (viz., to be the Jew
Messiah, as the Jews conceived the idea of the Messiah).32 With t
utterly bizarre interpretation of the New Testament, the Leviath
thus picks up and pursues the political drama narrated in chapt
16 of De Cive.
What Hobbes is in effect saying here is what Machiavelli said
in Discourses I: 12, that if the spirit of religion "had been kept up by
the rulers of the Christian commonwealth as was ordained for us
by its founder, Christian states and republics would have been
much more united and much more happy than they are," provided
that the religion founded by Christ is interpreted as if it were the
religion of the Old Testament, and Christ himself is interpreted as
if he were Moses.33 In other words, Hobbes's civil religion consists
in "Judaicizing" Christianity in much the same way that
Machiavelli's civil religion consisted in "paganizing" it. What it
means to Judaicize Christianity is that the Christian religion ceases
to assert any otherworldly claims whatsoever, and limits itself to
this-worldly claims on behalf of Christ's eventual reclamation of
temporal power. But since the theocratic monarchy only com-
mences with the Second Coming,34 and Christ is not (yet) around

29. Ibid., p. 424; cf. pp. 368, 445-47.

30. Ibid., pp. 507-508.
31. Ibid., pp. 424, 447, 448, 515.
32. Ibid., pp. 413, 447, 517.
33. Ibid., pp. 480-81, 512, 515, 518, 520. The shock value of this reduction of
Christ to Moses is enhanced when one bears in mind John Aubrey's report that
Hobbes shared the Machiavellian view of Moses as an armed prophet: seeAubrey's
Brief Lives, ed. Oliver Lawson Dick (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972), p. 317.
34. Leviathan, pp. 512, 514, 517.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CIVIL RELIGION 629

to reassume rulership of the Jewish

civil and ecclesiastical, can be exer
power until Christ comes again to re
means that one gets all the advanta
the palpable disadvantages of the
effect to "restore" the old Jewish
bestowing a monopoly of prophe
Christ, thus ensuring that the esta
out suffering the nuisance of other
claims to authority. A Christian
person of the sovereign) offers the
theocracy without the political dra
Hobbes thinks that it was for go
overthrew their theocracy, but de-
not necessarily offer a sufficient c
authority with which they were gr
thinks, is to reintroduce theocracy,
is the supreme and unchallengea
religious truth. Hobbes wants ultim
rather than to de-theocratize it bec
Christian) theocratic politics can
authority to strip Christianity of
threaten temporal authority. In De
sovereign virtually unchecked auth
trine according to his own purposes
urges the sovereign to seize upon t
to reshape Christianity in the imag
Hobbesian monarch possesses the
questions by the sheer exercise o
wants this theocratic authority
"Judaic" reading of Christianity up
can be seen most clearly in Hobb
reinterpret Christian doctrines of
the Old Testament. He insists tha
Adam will be, once we recover it thr
(rather than drawing men up to he
an eternal governor), and Hobbe

35. Ibid., p. 516: "He taught all men to obe

Moses seat."

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
630 THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

Testament in order to debunk the Christian

over, according to Hobbes, Christ himself re
the Messiah on the authority of the Old Testa
Testament, our Saviour himself saith to the J
the Scriptures... bidden them take thence the
Christ')37, so it is to be inferred that Chri
mission in Old Testament terms. A nonthe
not give the sovereign sufficient discretion to
teaching in such a way as to render it politica
would defeat Hobbes's ultimate purpose
Hobbes's aim is to "reunify the two heads
Hobbes realizes that only through a kind of
they be fully reunified. Hobbes's object is no
and politics, but rather, as he puts it, to subs
Kings" for "a Kingdome of Priests."3
The strongest confirmation of Hobbes's au
the Machiavellian civil religion tradition is H
the fall of old religions and the founding of n
ing to Hobbes, old religions die on account
priests: not only are they corrupt but the
corrupt; and new religions arise as a conse
which a multitude hath in some one perso
Reformation offered of course a powerful re
process works. But once it is recognized t
pointed out, new religions are "due to men
heaven," that innovations in and transfor
belief and practice are legitimate objects of s
way is clear for Hobbes's project of a reint
made serviceable for politics.
When Rousseau writes in the civil religion
Contract that Hobbes "ought to have seen

36. Ibid., pp. 480-81,485 ff. Hobbes also debunks the

89. (The "Devil" refers to worldly enemies of the Hebre
"Hellfire" refers to the Jerusalem garbage dump!).
37. Ibid., p. 544. Cf. p. 617.
38. Ibid., p. 447.
39. Ibid., pp. 181-83, 179.
40. Discourses, ed. Crick, p. 288. In imitation of Mach
"how the Religion of the Gentiles was a part of their P

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CIVIL RELIGION 631

spirit of Christianity was incomp

betrays a fundamental misunderst
civil religion, for Hobbes did see th
incompatible with his system, a
effort to the reinterpretation of C
to be incompatible with Hobbesi

Geneva Manuscript: The Appa

Rousseauian Solution

In section one we saw that in the first thirty paragraph

Social Contract's penultimate chapter, Rousseau offers the
ing analysis of politically-relevant religious possibilities:

(1) Politics without a civil religion, which he rejects.

(2) "Pure" Christianity, which he religiously accepts but polit
rejects.
(3) Corrupted Christianity, which contests the sovereign's claim to undi-
vided political authority, very forcefully rejected. (Chief instance is
Catholicism, but Rousseau refers also to Shintoism and Tibetan Bud-
dhism.)
(4) Monotheistic theocracy, which is either (a) conquering and proselytiz-
ing (the warrior religion of the Koran),4 or (b) simply conquering, or
genocidal (the warrior religion of the Old Testament),42 both rejected.
(5) What one might call "benign theocracy," or a fairly tolerant national
religion, namely paganism, especially Roman paganism, for which
Rousseau feels evident sympathy, but which he nonetheless rejects
(perhaps with regret!) as historically anachronistic.

41. Although Rousseau writes that "Mohammed had very sound views"
(Social Contract, ed. Masters, p. 126), given Rousseau's resolute anti-imperialism it
is hard to believe that he had as much sympathy for Islam as this suggests. More
likely, it is simply the aspect of "reuniting the two heads of the eagle" that appeals
to Rousseau, especially relative to Christianity.
42. This is the implication of Rousseau's statement that only with the Jewish
god (i.e., the first monotheistic religion) does one shift from the pagan idea of
national gods among the gods of other nations, to the imperialistic idea of a jealous
god (ibid., p. 125). Rousseau states that in relation to the Ammonites, the Jewish god
was merely a pagan god, so to speak, but in relation to the Canaanites (and
presumably other peoples as well) the god of Israel was a "jealous god" (i.e., a god
who sanctioned genocide: "peuples proscrits vouds A la destruction"--proscribed
peoples slated for destruction). This gave rise to holy wars, or wars of religion,
which, according to Rousseau, is a strictly monotheistic concept. On the other
hand, while the concept of holy wars originates with Judaic monotheism, Rousseau

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 632 THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

Finally, Rousseau switches in the final five p

chapter to a very different possibility, a predom
religion which, as we saw, somehow simply
analytic framework. (One may rightly observ
that Rousseau chooses to offer such a liberal conclusion to a rather
illiberal book.) Yet in the Geneva Manuscript (an earlier version of
the Social Contract), Rousseau flirted with an additional possibility,
tacitly dropped in the definitive version of his treatise on politics,
which we might call a distinctively Protestant civil religion. Rousseau
writes: "Experience teaches that of all the Christian sects, Protes-
tantism, as the wisest and gentlest, is also the most peaceful and
social. It is the only one in which the laws can maintain their
dominion and the leaders their authority."43 Here Rousseau refers
to Protestant Christianity as a "social" sect, whereas in the defini-
tive version of his teaching on civil religion, he devotes the central
analysis of the chapter to demonstrating that it is of the very
essence of Christianity to be "contrary to the social spirit."44 Why
is the Protestant option dropped? Now of course it may well be that
Rousseau, as a Swiss Protestant, was (and for good reason) deeply
fearful of French Catholicism, and that the "purely civil profession
of faith," the nameless (and rather anemic) religion described at the
end of the chapter, is the only politically viable way of plumping
for Protestantism in the midst of a religiously intolerant Catholic
culture. This is certainly a possible way of reading what Rousseau
is up to in the concluding paragraphs of the Social Contract. But I
don't think this interpretation does full justice to the deep philo-
sophical tensions that are at work in Rousseau's thinking.45 As
Roger Masters's acute observation in an editorial note makes clear,

emphasizes that the Jews tend to be the victims rather than the oppressors in such
wars. Having been vanquished, they refuse obstinately to recognize the gods of
their masters, and their monotheistic claims render them objects of persecution (as
is later true for the Christians as well). Thus, it might be said, they introduce wars
of religion negatively, by inviting other peoples to enforce submission to rival
gods, rather than positively, by striving to expand the dominion of the Hebrew
god.
43. Ibid., p. 201.
44. Ibid., p. 128.
45. A further problem with the "Protestant" interpretation is that the polemic
against Catholicism is blatant enough in the Social Contract that Rousseau would
have aroused Catholic wrath in any case.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CIVIL RELIGION 633

Rousseau's political philosophy is in

idea of universal benevolence.46 As
have embraced the sort of secularized Christian universalism
exemplified by Diderot, but Rousseau's political principles
opposition to Diderot) steer him in a decidedly particularist ("p
gan") direction. In fact, as Masters rightly points out, Rous
takes himself to have refuted what he refers to, in book 1, cha
2, of the Geneva Manuscript, as "the gentle laws of brotherho
rejecting them as placing unrealistic expectations on human
ture.47 Since universal brotherhood is not to be hoped for, the
politics would strive to enlarge individual self-concern into a k
of collective selfishness ("my interest" becomes fused with
interest of the polis"), and in a way it is precisely this at which
Rousseauian general will aims. Exactly in the spirit of Edm
Burke, Rousseau condemns that phony cosmopolitanism t
allows individuals to "boast of loving everyone in order to have
right to love no one."48 On the other hand, Rousseau, unl
Machiavelli, has by no means broken with the Christian spirit
universal human brotherhood, as his sharp attack on the "nati
religions" in Social Contract, book 4, chapter 8, makes perfe
evident.49 We are left with an unbridgeable tension between Ch
tian universalism and pagan parochialism. If Rousseau is aliv
this tension, as he certainly is in the Social Contract, then Protestan
ism (contrary to what Rousseau had seemed to suggest at the e
of the Geneva Manuscript) cannot be a sustainable option.

Social Contract: The Ultimate Unavailability of a Rousseau

Solution.

In Meaning in History, Karl L6with writes (in the context of

discussion of Vico):

46. Masters ed., p. 154, n. 137. See also p. 203, n. 3.

47. Ibid., p. 160.
48. Ibid., p. 162. Cf. Burke's polemical opposition between "kind" and "ki
dred" in "Letter to a Member of the National Assembly," in The Works of Edmu
Burke, vol. 4 (London: Oxford University Press, 1934), p. 300. Ironically, the pri
target of Burke's critique in this context is Rousseau himself!
49. In Geneva Manuscript, pp. 160-61, Rousseau goes further, claiming that
religions naturally lend themselves to political abuse, leading to "the furies
fanaticism" and untold bloodshed.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
634 THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

Rousseau's alternative that the political religions o

but false, while Christianity is true but socially
[Vico]. Hence he could also be unconcerned about
a synthesis between the universal (Christian) rel
of the "citizen" in a new kind of Christian "civil

And indeed in the Geneva Manuscript Rous

projected civil religion that "the advantages o
and the citizen will be combined. The State will have its cult and
will not be the enemy of anyone else's."5' But the Social Contract
claims no such thing, and if our reading of Rousseau throughout
this essay has been a faithful one, Rousseau was entirely right to
retract the Geneva Manuscript's overambitious promise of a synthe-
sis of Christianity and paganism. Of our three authors, the only one
who really wanted a synthesis of "the religion of man" and "th
religion of the citizen" was surely Hobbes, in the sense that Hobbes
genuinely abhorred the pagan politics that tempted both
Machiavelli and Rousseau, and therefore sought to temper th
harshness of that politics with what both Machiavelli and Rousseau
saw as the "slavishness" of Christianity. (To confirm this point, one
need merely imagine how Hobbes would react to Machiavelli's
and Rousseau's celebrations of Rome.)
Let us now see if we can get in a clearer focus Rousseau's
relation to the two predecessors in whose shadow the discussion
of civil religion is conducted. First, Machiavelli. When Rousseau
says that "there is no longer and can never again be an exclusiv
national religion,"52 he is in effect giving up on his preferred vision
of politics, a robust civil religion, and satisfies himself with a feeble
second best: religious toleration to minimize social divisions.
However, this is well short of the religiously enforced social unity
required for true political health. In switching from "political
considerations" to "principles of political right," Rousseau aban
dons the maximalist goal of a true civil religion, and opts for a
minimalist goal-something more than anti-political Christianity
but much less than the "national religion" of the pagans. He agrees
with Machiavelli on the political superiority of paganism to Chris-

50. L6with, Meaning in History, p. 130.

51. Masters ed., p. 200.
52. Ibid., p. 131.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CIVIL RELIGION 635

tianity, but is not willing to pay t

pay for a restored paganism. In tha
tian morality that prompts him to
civil religion offered by Machiavell
As for Hobbes, he and Rousseau
indicated above, Hobbes is still in
"man" and "citizen" which Rousse
Hobbes's solution is a Christian c
"political" than the national religio
claim the sanction of Christianity
the continuity between the New Tes
But as Rousseau says, "the Gospel is
is prepared to paganize Christianity
crusades" (something that Hobbes h
favor). Rousseau certainly sympa
subordinate priests to temporal aut
grossly underestimates the degree
thus he points out that even Eng
combine spiritual and temporal aut
ters to the priests, not, as Hobb
priests."55 Overall, Rousseau sets ou
any synthesis such as is undertak
synthesis into its parts and proving
able. Let us again review the altern
Gospel is religiously true but politi
theocracy is, in its pagan version
thirsty, and in its Jewish version,
the same is true of post-Christian
cism, with its combination of worldliness and unworldliness,

53. Hence he writes in the Geneva Manuscript: "It is not permissible to

strengthen the bond of a particular society at the expense of the rest of the human
race" (p. 196). This moral universalism is strongly qualified, though not entirely
abandoned, when Rousseau formulates the more thoroughgoingly particularist
vision of the Social Contract. The text cited in this note provides a telling example:
in the final version (p. 128), Rousseau deletes the reference to the human race, and
substitutes an appeal to the security of the state ("sa propre stirete").
54. Ibid., p. 198; cf. p. 130.
55. Ibid., pp. 126-27. Rousseau and Hobbes clearly share a dim view of what
Rousseau calls "the religion of the priest" (p. 128).

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
636 THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

offers the worst of both worlds. If this indeed e

then a Hobbesian synthesis is simply unavailab
Rousseau says that Hobbes "ought to hav
dominating spirit of Christianity was incompat
tem." As we argued above, Hobbes does see th
Machiavelli-reinterprets Christianity so that it
tianity. It should be clear enough by now wh
say in answer to the Machiavellian and Hobbe
would say that Christianity is antipolitical in its
cannot be paganized or Judaicized. Again, "the G
religion"-or at least, it could be turned into a ci
a morally unacceptable price. Perhaps another w
would be to say that Rousseau is resistant to
Christianizing Christianity because he is more o
either Machiavelli or Hobbes.
As we saw in the last section, Rousseau's thought fluctuates
between two opposed and contradictory standpoints, the stand
point of cosmopolitan brotherhood and the standpoint of national
particularism,57 and the idea of civil religion seems to get caught i
the interstices of this tension. We come back in the end to Rousseau
odd distinction between "political considerations" and "prin-
ciples of right." In paragraph 17 of the civil religion chapter
Rousseau states that "considered politically," the three kinds o
religion he analyzes (this-worldly, otherworldly, and a this-

56. Once again, Protestantism is offered in the Geneva Manuscript as

supplementary option, and is recommended as superior to the alternatives prev
ously rejected. It "binds the citizens to the State by weaker and gentler ties,"
turning away from the society of "heroes and fanatics" that engenders pagan
zealotry (p. 197). It offers a religion of tolerance, forgoing pagan virtues in order
to avoid pagan vices. If it were in fact possible to describe this as a proper civi
religion ("splitting the difference" between Christianity and Machiavelli, as it
were), then there would indeed be a Rousseauian solution. The linchpin of my
whole interpretation is the presumption that when Rousseau came to pen the Soci
Contract in its definitive version he thought through this possibility much more
fully, and deliberately renounced it.
57. As if to prove my point, the very thinkers who are condemned in th
Geneva Manuscript for their cosmopolitanism are praised by Rousseau in the Secon
Discourse as "great cosmopolitan souls, who surmount the imaginary barriers that
separate peoples"! Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The First and Second Discourses, e
Roger D. Masters, trans. Roger D. and Judith R. Masters (New York: St. Martin
Press, 1964), p. 160.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CIVIL RELIGION 637

worldly/otherworldly hybrid) are,

ont toutes leurs defauts"). Then, p
these possibilities is undesirable (d
paragraphs to a demonstration of
a civil religion), Rousseau sudden
30, saying that he is putting to one
returning to questions of right. Y
civil religion abstract from politics
on matters of principle provide
actual reorganization of social and
tion invoked here between politica
strongly to suggest that the two t
tory prescriptions: Theocracy "wo
lates political right, whereas Chr
moral legitimacy but doesn't "wo
politics presupposes a false and in
breeds bad politics. Hence each ser
cal validity of the other. If the pro
much of an aporia as our readin
required to re-read the whole of th
this impasse with which the bo
particularistic and true religion
religion" does not name a genuine
tics, but rather identifies their ne

Conclusion: Eclipse of the Civ

Leszek Kolakowski refers to the

tion, which he sums up as follows
...seemed to be encouraged even
ers."58 The theorists cited by Kola
Machiavelli, Hobbes, Spinoza, and
tradition in fact extends as far as

58. Leszek Kolakowski, Modernity on E

Chicago Press, 1990), p. 179.
59. The topic of Nietzsche's civil reli
separate essay, but let us at least mention h
Machiavelli (Discourses II: 5), the highest po
religions. In fact, one might speculate th

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
638 THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

theoretically profound tradition, it is a stri

overwhelming triumph of the liberal vision
that civil religion theorizing has largely van
century. The meaning of this triumph of th
is encapsulated by Jiirgen Habermas when h
bility of "the unifying, consensus-creating
planting "the social integrative powers of
shaken by enlightenment."60 The assumptio
find other ways in which to hold a political
But again, it is striking that thinkers as
Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau, and Nietzsc
this modern, rationalist assumption extrem
enough, this rationalist faith in the poli
religion goes all the way back to Plato's argu
at the end of the Republic, with its implied
equacy and unreliability of a merely reli
virtue, of "custom without philosophy."61 Fo
only philosophy can ultimately accomplis
(whether Homeric or Judeo-Christian) sets o
draw citizens into a stable and coherent p
Western secular politics at the end of the tw
ues to confront challenges such as the politi
to be seen whether a thoroughly secular pol
challenges, or whether political theory in th
premature in closing the file on the venerab
tion highlighted so well by Rousseau.62

Spoke Zarathustra was to prove that a single human be

a religion. What Moses and St. Paul did can be done a
60. Habermas and Modernity, ed. Richard J. Berns
Press, 1985), p. 197.
61. Republic, Book 10: 619 c-d; cf. Phaedo, 82 b-c. Fo
Georg Gadamer, "Plato and the Poets," in Dialogue and
pher Smith (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980)
62. I have been helped in thinking through this a
political theory graduate core course at the University
colleagues, Joe Carens and Tom Pangle. I want to tha
as the students in the course in the years I co-tau
suggestions. I am also grateful to Edward Andrew, Jam
and Clifford Orwin for generous critical responses to

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.20 on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:19:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms