Work #1514 · Late period

Castigations of Mr Hobbes

Bramhall's 1658 follow-up reply to Hobbes — including 'The Catching of Leviathan'

John Bramhall · 1658 · English · Polemical-philosophical treatise

Tradition: High-Church Anglicanism / anti-Hobbist controversy / political-theological polemic

Bramhall's 1658 final salvo against Hobbes — including 'The Catching of Leviathan'

Published in 1658 as Bramhall's last major work (he would return briefly to Ireland after the 1660 Restoration to become Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland, but would die in 1663 with no further major publications), 'Castigations of Mr Hobbes His Last Animadversions in the Case Concerning Liberty and Universal Necessity' replies to Hobbes's 'The Questions Concerning Liberty, Necessity, and Chance' (1656). The Bramhall-Hobbes exchange had now been continuing for thirteen years: the original 1645 Paris discussion (when both were in exile); Hobbes's 1654 unauthorised publication of his side (under the title 'Of Libertie and Necessitie'); Bramhall's 1655 reply ('A Defence of True Liberty'); Hobbes's 1656 response (which Hobbes had wanted to title 'Of Liberty and Necessity, the Second Part' but published as 'The Questions Concerning Liberty, Necessity, and Chance'); and now Bramhall's 1658 reply, his final entry in the exchange. The book's form is characteristic of seventeenth-century printed controversy: Bramhall reprints Hobbes's text in full, then inserts paragraph-length critical responses. The substantive philosophical issues are the same as in 1655: libertarian free will versus deterministic-mechanistic necessitarianism; the relations between will and intellect; the nature of moral responsibility under causal determinism; the metaphysical status of contingency. But the 1658 entry adds a substantial appendix: 'The Catching of Leviathan, or the Great Whale' — Bramhall's most extensive engagement with Hobbes's broader political-theological position in 'Leviathan' (1651), arguing that Hobbes's materialism is implicitly atheist, his ecclesiology Erastian-tyrannical, his contractarian sovereignty incompatible with natural law and Christian conscience, and his overall system corrosive of every existing civil and ecclesial order. The 'Catching of Leviathan' appendix became the principal high-Church Anglican anti-Hobbist treatise; Bramhall's framework shaped subsequent Anglican-political philosophy for two generations.

Author

Editions cited

  • Castigations of Mr Hobbes His Last Animadversions in the Case Concerning Liberty and Universal Necessity, with an Appendix concerning The Catching of the Leviathan, or the Great Whale (Andrew Crook, London, 1658)
  • In John Bramhall, Works, ed. A. W. Haddan (Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology, Oxford, 1842-45, 5 vols), vol. 4 (Castigations) and vol. 5 (Catching of Leviathan)
  • Modern edition of the broader exchange: Vere Chappell (ed.), Hobbes and Bramhall on Liberty and Necessity (Cambridge, 1999)
  • Critical commentary: Nicholas D. Jackson, Hobbes, Bramhall and the Politics of Liberty and Necessity (Cambridge, 2007)

School Embodiments

Anglican Broad-Church · 22%
Scholasticism · 20%
Existentialism · 18%
Natural Law · 14%
Conservatism · 14%
Realism · 12%

Late-Bramhall high-Church Anglican defence against Hobbes.

"Hobbes leaves no room for the Church, only for a state-religion." (Catching of Leviathan, ch. 4)

Scholastic-Aristotelian framework against Hobbist mechanism.

"His materialism cannot do justice to the soul." (Castigations, on Hobbes's De Corpore)

Continued libertarian defence of free will.

"Liberty is more than absence of external impediment." (Castigations, on Hobbes's reply)

Natural-law-political framework against Hobbist sovereignty.

"The law of nature stands above the will of the sovereign." (Catching of Leviathan, ch. 6)

Royalist-political alignment against Hobbist absolute sovereignty.

"True kingship is not Hobbesian sovereignty." (Catching of Leviathan, ch. 8)
Realism 12%

Realism about substance, soul, and political order against Hobbist nominalism.

"Substance is not name; soul is not motion." (Castigations)

Internal Tensions

The most wide-ranging seventeenth-century English critique of Hobbes — political, theological, metaphysical. The 'Catching of Leviathan' appendix shaped subsequent Anglican-political philosophy for two generations; Samuel Clarke's 1704-05 Boyle Lectures continue the Bramhall anti-Hobbist programme in more philosophically systematic form.

I. Time

1658. Bramhall was 64, two years before the 1660 Restoration that would return him to Ireland as Primate.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: NDet Traversability: Linear Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One

II. Space

London publication; Bramhall was still in exile when the book appeared (his return to Ireland came after the 1660 Restoration).

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

III. Matter

Polemical-philosophical treatise plus 'Catching of Leviathan' appendix (~700 pages total in original). Form is interleaved Hobbes-Bramhall text (the Castigations proper) plus standalone treatise (the Appendix).

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

IV. Observer

Late Bramhall. The observer is the philosophical-theological bishop in his final productive period, integrating the long Hobbes-exchange with the broader anti-Hobbist political-theological project.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Immediate Knowledge Retainment: Total Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: Limited

V. Energy

Sustained anti-Hobbist polemical energies. The thirteen-year exchange (1645-1658) is the most sustained seventeenth-century English philosophical controversy.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

VI. Information

Castigations plus Catching of Leviathan. The Appendix is the principal high-Church Anglican anti-Hobbist treatise of the seventeenth century.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Substantival Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Conserved Granularity: Continuous

Personas that cite this work

John Bramhall Thomas Hobbes Samuel Clarke

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

How Castigations of Mr Hobbes resolves each dilemma

31 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 3 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 26 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (24/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
On this view, time itself is finite — the universe had a beginning and will have an end. Heat death (or whatever the actual end-state turns out to be) is a real horizon, structurally implied by the kind of cosmos we live in.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed. (15%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (24/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
On this view, the cosmos is bounded in both time and matter; resources are categorically not renewable beyond what cosmic processes provide. Practical limits and metaphysical limits coincide. Living well means living within limits, not engineering around them.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering. (15%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (24/202)
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
If we owe future people a habitable planet and the material means to flourish, and the cosmos is bounded in ways that make those obligations impossible at some scale, the obligation and the possibility come apart. Where they come apart turns on what kind of finitude we live in.
The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it.
On this view, the cosmos has limits; the obligation to future people is real but cannot exceed what the limits allow. The categorical worry about owing the impossible doesn't arise: the limits bound the asking. Ethics within a created or bounded order is the only …
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide. (47%) · The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on. (26%) · Both time and matter are unbounded; we cannot in principle owe more than is possible. (15%)
3 mainstream positions
3 unaligned
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream
Observer · 37 dilemmas, all mainstream
Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 54% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 54% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 48% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 48% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 48% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog. 28% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge. 28% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply. 28% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Are the dead morally present to the living? Are there indivisible units of experience? Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Could an AI have a mind that matters? Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Does history have a direction or meaning? Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Does prayer change God's mind? How is knowledge of reality produced? If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? Is memory stored or reconstructed? Is reality fundamentally digital? Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal? Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? What happens to "you" when you die? What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? What makes someone the same person over time? Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
← #1513 A Defence of True Liberty from Antecedent and Extrinsecal Necessity All Works #1515 The Catching of Leviathan →