It is true that Hobbes held that sovereignity without absolute power is not a sovereignity in the true sense of the word. However, this is marginal. Hobbes was not much concerned with formal problems, like the sense of sovereignity or infinite regresses. He was more concerned with the concrete prospects of war and violence. His substantial argument was that without an arbitrator with decisive power, violence and treachery are imminent everywhere, and life becomes insufferable.
The only way to erect such a Common Power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of Forraigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their owne industrie, and by the fruites of the Earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly; is, to conferre all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills, by plurality of voices, unto one Will. (Leviathan, "The Generation Of A Common-wealth")
The divine right of kings when it is accepted by the people is indeed a powerful factor of stability, in Hobbes' sense. However, although Hobbes defended absolute sovereignity, he decidedly did not recognize the divine right of kings. He argued that such a status existed only in the special circumstances of the biblical Jewish nation. There was no basis, Hobbes argued, for a similar status among Christians. Religious ministers ought to have no say in political matters. This is supposedly reflected also in Christ's own instruction to his followers to submit themselves to whoever is the prevailing ruler, even an infidel.
Another Argument, that the Ministers of Christ in this present world have no right of Commanding, may be drawn from the lawfull Authority which Christ hath left to all Princes, as well Christians, as Infidels. (Leviathan, "From The Authority Christ Hath Left To Civill Princes")