Richard Hooker

As the Protestant Reformation began to further develop, it became more radicalized, moving from the original intention of Luther to simply reform the existing Roman Catholic Church to movements that wanted nothing to do with the Papacy at all and considered Rome to be a false, counterfeit Church and the Pope to be the antichrist. One of the more radical offshoots of Protestantism was Puritanism, a movement which thought that other Protestant movements had failed to properly de-Romanize themselves and proposed a form of Christianity completely free from Catholic influence. Their attacks on the Roman Catholic Church as well as other already existing forms of Protestantism also lead to attacks on the existing social order. These attacks lead to many responses with Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, and Anglican writers pointing out the many supposed errors of the Puritan system. Though many attacks were leveled, one of the most famous one belonged to Richard Hooker, who is the subject of Duncan B. Forrester’s second essay in History of Political Philosophy.

In Hooker’s most famous work, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, he argues that the Puritans had distorted the teachings of Calvin, despite their claims to be his faithful followers. Because of this distortion, the Puritans had produced a distinct political theology that had to be dealt with separately, rather than simply as another form of Calvinism. For Hooker, the Puritans had a far more radical conception of the authority of scripture than Calvin did, as now the scriptures were seen as totally infallible and were to offer perfect guidance on moral and political matters. The role of the Church was also changed to become seen as the guardian of God’s word. The shifts the Puritans caused in both how the Bible and the Church were to be seen also caused a great shift in how they saw the state. For the Puritans, as there were two covenants in the Old Testament, one between the king and God and another between the king and the people, the people then had, as John Knox argued a right to revolt against ungodly rule because king had broken one of the covenants. Though Hooker was not himself a Calvinist, Calvin was one of the many sources he would use against Calvin’s more radical interpreters.

Though Hooker’s Laws is divided into eight books, this essay will focus on the first book. In that book, Hooker turns to the use of metaphysics to show that the universe has a certain order to it that demonstrates God’s reason, a move that causes Hooker to reject the voluntarism of both the nominalists as well as the Reformers. What Hooker’s embrace of metaphysics also did was show that the universe has a type of “natural goodness” that can be used as a starting point for other types of goodness. It also showed that there are many types of laws to which man is bound by, which shows that if true, the extreme reading of sola scriptoria the Puritans had would be false. And just as there are many types of law, for Hooker there is also a distinction between changing and unchanging laws, thus meaning that it is possible for some laws to change. The changing of laws though must be guided by the unchanging, eternal law in order to give the changed laws proper justice.

Hooker also shows a high degree of Platonic and Aristotelian influence as he sees that man is able to come to perfection though the social life. Such an idea firmly cements the contention that people are by their nature social animals in that they need some form of social organization to better themselves. Furthermore, for Hooker both political power and political laws are rooted in human action, an idea that appears to require a good deal of participation in the body politic in order to influence how the system is to be run. Hooker furthered his attack on the Puritan conception of the state and the Church by arguing that both were guided by reason. Hooker also rejects the absolute separation of Church and state as Hooker wants the Church to be able to restrain both rulers and citizens from behaving unjustly. In Hooker’s view, the state and the Church are to be complimentary. This is not to suggest that Hooker is simply creating a revival of Thomist/ Catholic thought in England as he still thinks the Church should be firmly in control. It should also be noted that Hooker is willing to give religious groups a good deal of freedom for a man of his time and does not think the state should demand everyone to be a member of the same church as for Hooker, religious groups are allowed to believe as they wish as long as those beliefs do not threaten the established order.  

Martin Luther and John Calvin

While the transition from the Ancient to the Medieval world has been generally agreed upon as far as the symbolic date and event goes, the fall of Rome in 476 AD, there is not a generally agreed upon event or date to symbolize the transition from the Medieval to the Modern world. Three major events have been given which are as follows: Columbus’ landing in the Americas in 1492, the beginning of the Protestant Reformation in 1517, and the fall of Constantinople (the Eastern Roman/ Byzantine Empire) in 1453. As all these events happened around 1500, this has been the line of demarcation historians has traditionally used to divide the Medieval and Modern worlds. Though all these events were significant in the development of the Modern world, one event in particular stands out; that event being the Protestant Reformation. As this was a highly significant event, its two chief proponents, Martin Luther and John Calvin, are highly important philosophers, not only of religion and theology, but also of politics. Thus, both men are included in History of Political Thought with Duncan B. Forrester’s essay focusing on how both men changed the way not only the Church was to be governed, but the state as well. Forrester’s essay tends to focus on the areas where both men agreed, but it also does a marvelous job explaining how both men differed, and how those differences manifested themselves in differing methods of governance.

First off, in order to understand the political thought of Luther and Calvin, it must be understood that both men did not see themselves as political philosophers, but rather as theologians. The reforms they made of the Church though necessitated reforms to the state. For both Luther and Calvin, their thought is centered in the Bible and at the center of their theology is the idea that man is justified by faith alone. For both Luther and Calvin, man must be justified by faith alone as man is seen as being totally depraved. What is meant by total depravity here is not that men can do no good at all, but rather it means that what good men can do is meaningless and pathetic when compared to God. Though this certainly came across as a highly radical idea during their time, it is important to remember that neither Luther nor Calvin thought of themselves as leading a revolution. Instead, they were leading a restoration of the original Christianity of St. Paul and St. Augustine, as the Medieval teaching had become Pelagianism, the idea that man could save himself. They also sought to remove the Aristotelian influence on the Church, which meant that they say reason/ revelation and philosophy/ theology as more distinct that was commonly thought of during their time. Thus, they also sought to undo the Thomist synthesis between these concepts.   

Just as the authority of Medieval Church teaching was deemphasized, the authority of the Bible was deemphasized and was removed from the judgment of the Church as it was the Bible that set the limits of reason. Without the Church counsels that had traditionally guided Christian morality,  a new formulation of ethics had to be constructed, particularly in the light of the idea of Sola Fide, the idea that faith alone could save men and works were meaningless. Thus, the idea was presented that while it was faith and not works that saved men, works were the outgrowth of faith, so those who had good faith would also have good works.   

But perhaps the most important idea Luther and Calvin presented was the idea that men belonged to two kingdoms, the spiritual kingdom and the temporal kingdom. Both of these kingdoms were seen as having differing jurisdictions. For example, man is seen as being totally free in the spiritual kingdom but is totally in bondage in the temporal kingdom. It also should be noted that despite the use of the words “temporal” and “spiritual,” these two kingdoms should not be thought of merely as Church and State. Regardless of the differences between the two kingdoms, God is still seen as the creator and sovereign of both and eventually the two kingdoms will be united, but that time as yet to come. For now, government is totally in the realm of the temporal kingdom and it has been established simply to keep the peace. Also, Luther and Calvin both use the word “Church” in two differing ways. One way refers to the visible Church, which refers to those who are formal members of the Church while the invisible Church refers to the communion of all Christians. It is also here where we begin to see how both men differ as Calvin places more emphasis on the visible Church’s ability to guide people than Luther does. Still, they are united in the belief that the state can reform the Church to put it more in line with the word of God. Another thing that should be avoided when thinking about the doctrine of the two kingdoms is to think of it as basically analogous to the Catholic doctrine of the “two swords.” Such a reading would be incorrect because for both men, there is but one sword, and that sword belongs to the government. This idea is rooted in the belief that the state is needed as no theology can perfectly guide people.

The Fall of Man has a great power over both reformers’ thought as they saw the problems as being rooted in the Fall, and of course it is only though the Fall that such an idea as total depravity makes sense. Still, it is also interesting to note that while Calvin does believe in total depravity, it does not appear as if all is lost as he also seems to see man’s social nature as being one of the last bits of God’s image still in him. Despite Calvin’s admittance of man’s social nature, the idea of total depravity still means that for both men, government is highly important in order to keep people in line. Because of their views on the Church and the state, Luther and Calvin end up fighting a battle on three fronts. Theses battles are as follows: 1) against the radical Anabaptists, who denied any civil control over Christians. 2) Against the Papacy, which took the state’s power. And 3) against certain princes, who took the Church’s power.

It is also important to remember, despite the fact that both men were producing radical formulations of state power, they were careful to avoid being utopian on this matter. It is also on this point where we can see one of the clearest distinctions between Luther and Calvin’s thought. For Luther, there is no distinction between democracy and mob rule and as a mob can never be truly Christian, monarchy is seen as the best form of government. Still, Luther does not have complete faith in the power of monarchy as he also sees absolute monarchy as being in error, thus restraints on the monarchy are needed. For Calvin though, man’s depravity means that government must use checks and balances in order to avoid the twin evils of tyranny and mob rule. For this, Calvin sees a republic as the most appropriate form of government.

Despite the fact that both men do admit that government must have some restraints placed on it, they also see all leadership, even bad leadership and being ultimately given by God and thus must be obeyed. While it is true, God is to be obeyed first and foremost, it is not up to the individual to decide when these two ideas conflict. As a generally rule though, Luther and Calvin both think that disobedience when a temporal leader steps out of his proper realm. It also must be kept in mind that while disobedience is at times justified, resistance is not. These ideas raise the question as to what a Christian should do when faced with great tyranny. For Luther and Calvin, such a Christian has three options. They are as follows: 1) move to be under the rule of a less tyrannical regime, 2) suffer, 3) resist in certain clearly defined circumstances.

Tolerance is another major element in both men’s though as while Luther started off as being fairly tolerant for a man of his era, he became less and less tolerant as his thought developed. Likewise, Calvin thought it was perfectly in the state’s jurisdiction to punish people for blasphemy. This is important as while both men were well aware of Christian persecution in the past, as well as the persecution of themselves and their followers, neither saw that as a justification of the toleration of all opinions.

Another important concept in Luther and Calvin’s political thought is the three forms of law. The three forms of law are as follows: 1) the divine law, dealing with direct revelation from God, 2) the natural law, dealing with that from God which is not the result of direct revelation, and 3) the positive law, which deals with the particular laws of the leader in charge. Ultimately, both men see the natural law as being identical with divine law, a move which radically deemphasized the importance of natural law.

Vocation is also a highly important element of both Luther and Calvin’s thought as all people are seen as having two callings in life, one of God and salvation and one of vocation. Vocation is important as it helps place people more firmly in society, thus statesman is seen as a highly honorable vocation. This also means that a statesman abusing his power also abuses the vocation God gave him, and as such will be punished by God for doing so. From the idea of vocation comes Luther’s idea of “the hero”, an idea which Calvin does not share. For Luther, the hero is a special man who can properly lead a rebellion. Such men though, are extremely rare.  

Duncan D. Forrester’s essay on Martin Luther and John Calvin has been so far more favorite entry in History of Political Philosophy. Forrester is able to brilliantly show how both men agreed on many issues, yet also came to several significant disagreements that manifested themselves in different ways.     

Niccolo Machiavelli

Yet another one of Leo Strauss’ personal contributions to History of Political Philosophy, his work on Niccolo Machiavelli focuses on what may be perhaps the most controversial philosopher included in the book as well as one of the men most responsible in bringing about the transition from the Medieval to the Modern world. As Strauss notes, Machiavelli can be seen as addressing a central problem in Classical Greek philosophy, how to deal with differing conceptions of the good. As Strauss notes, while Socrates saw virtue as acting good, he fails to take into account differing conceptions of what is good. This has caused the West to be unable to come to rest, a tendency which ultimately caused the birth of the modern world. As Machiavelli was one of the first to deal with this, he can be seen as making a radical break with the past, which has caused some to see him as a precursor for another philosopher to make a radical break with the past, Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes is often seen as such as he completely abolishes natural law and also makes the root of human experience the fear of a violent death, a view that does appear to have some similarities to Machiavelli, but the fact is that Hobbes never refers to Machiavelli.

Still, it remains clear that Machiavelli sees justice and ethics as having a far more limited use that had typically been seen before him as both must be kept in check by political realities and power. Adding to this is Machiavelli’s contention that contra many of those that came before him, it is not true that the virtuous man will necessarily be happy. Perhaps not surprising then, for Machiavelli context matters greatly, thus eschewing universal morality. For this reason, Machiavelli contends that a ruler having a reputation for cruelty is far better suited for war than for peace. Machiavelli also attacks the very roots of the idea of virtues. What this means is that virtues such as justice, morality, and legitimacy are ultimately rooted in the opposite concepts, and in order for a regime to have the stability required to have these values, it must do so through injustice, immorality, and revolution. In this way, Machiavelli’s ideas can be seen as being rooted in the ideas of the ancients before they discovered virtue. Under this interpretation of Machiavelli, he is not really making a discovery then, but rather a rediscovery.

Such an interpretation, of Machiavelli attempting to revitalize ancient warrior values also ties into the view of Machiavelli attempting to undertake a pagan revolt against Christianity and reestablish Roman authority, which would also reestablish the authority of Rome’s chief historian, Livy. Machiavelli’s “New Rome” is not to be a mere carbon copy of the original empire, as Machiavelli does recognize Rome fell for a reason, as Machiavelli knows that Rome indeed had problems and was only able to establish many of its customs though trial and error. His New Rome then is to have the advantage of being able to see and understand these mistakes, thus correcting them. Though Machiavelli does show an early form of Italian nationalism here (a fact that Strauss strangely overlooks), it is important to note that Machiavelli, in true Roman tradition, avoids ethnic based nationalism for civic nationalism as he praises Rome for its willingness to bring in foreigners into Roman life, particularly that life of the Roman Republic.

Machiavelli’s sympathy for Greco-Roman paganism can be seen in his contention that religion was the very center of Roman life, a life that he of course deeply admires. He does appear to have an at least somewhat nuanced attitude towards Christianity, as he states that Christianity played some role in helping preserve some of those Classical Roman values. Elsewhere though it becomes clear that he sees the arrival of Christianity as an inferior system that replaced a superior one as he states that religions must replace and destroy one another. With that in mind, he blames Christianity on the decline of the traditional Roman religion. Still, Machiavelli does not see that all the good things about Rome has been destroyed as he has a particularly positive attitude towards the adoption of Latin as the literary language of the West because it helped preserve some Roman literature. Regardless of his attitudes towards Christianity’s replacement of Roman paganism, one of his most important contributions to thought was that for Machiavelli, all religion, including Christianity was of human, rather than heavily origin. What this means is that for Machiavelli, there is no theology but political theology.

Regardless of all of his accomplishments, Machiavelli is still primarily known for his justification of the use of brutal force in politics, to the extent this particular for of politics even bears his name, “Machiavellian.” Though it is true that he did suggest rulers must use blunt force in order to rule, an act that must be done apart for justice, it is important to remember that Machiavelli does not give a blank check for rulers to behave brutally to those they rule, as they should only do what is needed to rule. 

Marsilius of Padua

Though St. Thomas Aquinas is by far the most famous Christian Aristotelian, he was by no means the only one as there were also many others such as Marsilius of Padua, whose essay in History of Political Philosophy was written by Leo Strauss. Though they were both Christians and heavily influenced by Aristotle, it is not the case that Aquinas had a major impact on Marsilius’ thought as Marsilius only references Aquinas once in his Defender of the Peace. So as he was a Christian and a Aristotelian, but not a Thomist, Marsilius ended up coming to a far different conception of the proper Christian application of Aristotle’s philosophy than Aquinas did. For one thing, while Marsilius accepts the idea of the priesthood being divinely established, and separated from the rest of the believers, he denies that the Church hierarchy is. Thus, for Marsilius, the priesthood must be seen as equal. He also takes any other ideas more directly from Aristotle, as he sees the purpose of what he calls the “commonwealth” which is roughly equal to the Aristotelian conception of the City, as being to enable me to live the good life. Furthermore, Marsilius also sees the commonwealth as the grounding for other kinds of causes. This is not to say that Marsilius was simply regurgitating Aristotle, as he did have some major disagreements with him. The biggest and most obvious of these would be on the Christian revelation for while Aristotle had no conception of such an idea, Marsilius saw it as being able to cure the diseases of the commonwealth. Though there was a major disparity from their teachings, it should be remembered that in Marsilius’ mind, he was not contradicting Aristotle as much as he was bringing up a point that Aristotle simply overlooked. For Marsilius, Aristotle’s problem was that as a pagan, he lacked a proper conception of the divine.

Though Marsilius accepts the idea that the priesthood is to be above the rest of the believers, it should not be inferred from this that they are to rule over the body of believers, but rather should act more like teachers or judges. Hos the commonwealth is to be ruled though is important as Marsilius is highly focused on the unity of the commonwealth, as for him unity is the very thing the disease of the commonwealth seeks to destroy, which will then bring about anarchy and thereby harm the good life. This fear of anarchy Marsilius has is important as for him any regime, even an unjust regime is still ultimately better than no regime. This sort of notion ultimately leads to Marsilius being more concerned with mere law than the best law and mere government than the best government. Despite this fear of no government, Marsilius displays a surprisingly democratic streak for a man of his time as he sees political authority as ultimately relying upon the whole of the body of citizens, what he calls the Human Legislator. Perhaps not surprisingly considering his admiration of Aristotle and his democratic streak, Marsilius sees Aristotle as being far more democratic than he is typically seen as being.

So powerful is the Human Legislator for Marsilius, it has the power to elect and dispose of priests, thus reversing the traditional distinction between the people and the priests in favor of the people. In order to justify such a radical move towards democracy, Marsilius gives four proofs in order to justify placing so much power in the hands of the Human Legislator. Ultimately though, his fourth proof is just a summation of the first three, so only the first three proofs will be mentioned here. They are as follows: 1) Legislative power ought from those whom the best human laws can emerge, and as no man would willingly vote to do harm to himself, the Human Legislator will be able to produce the best laws. 2) Each man will be able to assure the laws are observed. 3) Each man will be able to better know what benefits or harms each. Though the Human Legislator is to rule the commonwealth, and while it is to be made up of the entire body of the citizens, it is not an egalitarian program as those that are to rule the Human Legislator are its most able part. Though doing this, Marsilius has, in a way, produced a synthesis between oligarchy and democracy. By creating his divide between the Human Legislator and the most able members of the Human Legislator, Marsilius returns to Aristotle’s view that the Human Legislator (the sovereign) is identical with the ruling part (the government). Furthermore, Marsilius also sees the ruler as part of the legislator.

Marsilius’ conception of law, order, and government ultimately leads him to the conclusion that the supremacy of the law is not absolute as it may be necessary to act illegally in order to save the commonwealth. Still, he still displays a surprising commitment to democracy, at least in its majoritarian form, for a man of his day as he draws a parallel between the “the whole body of the citizens” of his Human Legislator to “The Whole Body of the Faithful” of the New Testament, thus giving his radical new system a Christian justification. Marsilius also takes his dedication of democracy all the way to the monarchy as while he favors monarchy, he untimely wants for it to be an elected monarchy. It may be surprising to some to hear that he ultimately favored monarchy, considering how radical his commitment to democracy is elsewhere. Marsilius ultimately does have justification for this as he believes that above all else the king/ ruler must have prudence, and therefor needs whatever system allows him to have the most prudence. For Marsilius, this system was most likely elective monarchy. Still though, Marsilius keeps the idea that unity is essential for a commonwealth, but contra many others, he does not think the rule of many will harm the unity of the commonwealth. In fact, for Marsilius the rule of many is the best way to bring about unity as the Human Legislator can more easily produce laws that people are likely to obey. In a way then, Marsilius here produces a synthesis between populism and absolute monarchy.

Marsilius, to be sure still sees the priesthood as being highly important, but ultimately he does not want them to rule as he sees the spirit of the priesthood as being incompatible with the qualities that are needed to rule. Such an idea can be seen as being rooted in the Christian duty to obey as well as the Christian call to poverty. The idea that the priests are not meant to rule eventually produces some other highly interesting ideas in Marsilius’ thought. For one, while divine law has no coercive element in and of itself; human can be coercive in its dealings with those that violate divine law. Also, Marsilius allows for the Human Legislator to pass laws enforcing religions orthodoxy as if people were permitted to disobey divine law, eventually divine law would lose its power. This leads him to a highly interesting conclusion, particularly for someone that claimed to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church, as Marsilius sees a universal prince as being more important than a universal bishop, as a universal prince can make people keep the faith. Ultimately though, Marsilius sees a universal prince as being unnecessary. Two more things to keep in mind is that while Marsilius uses the term “divine law”, divine law should not be equated with natural law as for Marsilius, there is no such thing as natural law. It should also be kept in mind that Marsilius can be seen as setting the state for the rise of Machiavelli, as both saw that there was no enforceable law other than what humans made.

Perhaps the most obscure philosopher to be included in History of Political Philosophy, Leo Strauss does a fine job of shedding light on another version of Christian Aristotelian philosophy apart from the dominant Thomist tradition. This essay shows while interpretation is generally considered to be Strauss’s best quality and is well worth reading for anyone interested in the thought of Marsilius of Padua. Marsilius, for as obscure as he is personally serves as a major influence for one of the most important political theorists to ever live and thus deserves to be studied. This essay will hopefully be able to encourage further study of Marsilius of Padua’s thought.