religion in their theories. Both authors allow for a secular reading of their theories. But
both also open themselves to a very religious understanding of the commonwealths. One
of the most significant results of this is the understanding of the political as an independ-
ent sphere in human communities.
If it is possible to describe Marsilius’s position as “reactive” or “preventive,”
Hobbes’s church policy has a much more active character. Hobbes’s theory, in fact, is not
too far from the papal position insofar as Hobbes claims for his sovereign not only the
rights and responsibilities Marsilius ascribes to the legislator and the ruler but also all
rights the pope asserts for himself—by giving up the universal demand of the Roman
Church. If one keeps in mind Hobbes’s outline in the third part of the Leviathan and the
divine character of the sovereign, one might even conclude that his theory is a lot less
secular than Marsilius’s theory.
A completely different question is, however, whether the “old wine of biblical
Christianity” Hobbes wanted to transfer into new skins has become vinegar or is still good
wine.
Convention