The Early Modern Body Politic
The early modern body politic was foundationally built on the Reformation while simultaneously rejecting its legitimacy. In 1517, Martin Luther set forth to revise the Christian doctrine against the politics of his era, followed by John Calvin who furthered reformative political ideas. The Reformation transformed society from an exclusive theocratic state of class division to an inclusive personal relationship with God, whose grace was accessible to those He predetermined, (Kolb, R., p. 1). This limited view of government encouraged scholars to develop separation between church and state, viewing the state as a sovereign artificial body, (Ryan, A., p. 439). Luther and Calvin succeeded in disrupting the Mediæval body politic, and facilitating a demand for a new political era, the Reformed body politic. John Calvin wrote in his Institutes of the Christian Religion that Scripture was “[a] perfect rule of life in the Law. God our only Lawgiver,” (Calvin, J., p. 1355). John Calvin declared that Moral Law was “incumbent on all,” yet supported double predestination; writing “[f]or the elect are brought by calling into the fold of Christ, not from the very womb, nor all at the same time, but according as God sees it meet to dispense his grace,” Calvin, J., p. 1128). Martin Luther wrote against predestination that Paul “would not have any to inquire or search out whether he has been predestinated or not; but he holds forth the Gospel and faith to all men. So he taught before, that we are saved through faith in Christ,” (Luther, M., Loc 39972). Despite their differences, both Luther and Calvin alluded that Christianity was the only means of salvation, barring many members from its polity. All of these inherent foundations established by Calvin and Luther would be dismissed in the presiding early modern body politic; a movement that brought secularism to government.
The early modern body politic brought with it a modern understanding of governance; historian Alan Ryan writes of its distinct factor; “the thought that the state is…artificial rather than natural,” (Ryan, A., p. 406). Some critical scholars believe that Machiavelli was the originator of political science, however, it is asserted by Alan that political theory in Europe “begins with Hobbes and ends with Marx,” (Ryan, A., pp. 407, 415). Ryan adds “Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau among them, the state is essentially the unifying element in a society; it is artificial, is legal, [and] sustains the top-down authority that is implicit in the notion of legislation,” (Ryan, A., p. 407). The early modern body politic was strongly influenced by the writings of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1632-1704), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778); the three men brought a remedy to the reformed body politic, ushering in the new era of modernity. The early modern body politics beginnings not only changed history, but paved the way for the American Revolution.
Historian Alan Ryan defines the term “modernity’s” ambiguity, clearly indicating that the era of “modernity begins with Hobbes;” while claiming Thomas Hobbes to be “the greatest of the British political thinkers…and most compelling writer on politics in the English language,” (Ryan, A., pp. 411, 413). Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke also contributed greatly to the early modern influence of politics, yet as noted by historian Alan Ryan; “Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau did not agree among themselves,” (Ryan, A., p. 406). Alan Ryan writes that Hobbes believed absolute monarchy was the best form of government, adding “[t]he moral of Leviathan was the subjects had a duty to obey and assist any regime that would guarantee peace and would allow them to prosper by their own efforts, (Ryan, A., p. 415).
The Oxford Handbook of Hobbes reveals that Thomas Hobbes believed that all men held a moral obligation to contribute politically; he additionally ascribed man with an obligation to elect a sovereign authority, while voluntarily remaining obedient to whoever is sovereign (Martinich, A.P., p. 298). Oxford’s A. P. Martinich et al. write that “[s]pecifically, their following the laws of nature is necessary to create the bonds among them through which they can achieve peace. These bonds are artificial…they are wholly products of voluntary action,” (Martinich, A.P., p.300). Similar to the Reformation, Hobbes believed in self-regulation in exchange for individual sovereignty; the distinct difference was the source of that sovereignty; instead of divine anointing, it derived from individual voluntary action; the only deviation being self-defense, (Ryan, A., p. 180).
Thomas Hobbes’s “Leviathan” represents a landmark in political science, argued to be the first by many scholars, (Ryan, A., p. 415). The Leviathan’s Chapter XXVI features writings of civil laws, that read “laws that men are therefore bound to observe because they are members, not of this or that commonwealth in particular, but of a commonwealth,” (Hobbes, T., p. 176). It wasn’t which particular commonwealth one was a citizen of, but that one considered themselves a member of some society [commonwealth], yet did not offer expanse for commonwealth posterity, (Martinich, A.P., p. 303). Hobbes elaborates, writing that “[t]he legislator in all commonwealths, is only the sovereign, be he one man, as in a monarchy, or one assembly of men, as in a democracy, or aristocracy. For the legislator, is he that maketh the law,” (Hobbes, T., p. 176). Hobbes perceived the legislator as the sovereign head of the body politic, whose body was represented by the people. The legislator controlled the early modern body politic, working from a literal top-down approach, (Ryan, A., p. 242).
The early modern body politic cleared its immune system of its discriminative past; while the Reformation deposed Christendom from political culture, it had created further division among the polity, remedied by the early modern era. Instead of the Mediæval body politic’s head of theocracy; or the Reformation’s head of God; the early modern body politic brought its own form of revision, one that included all people, no matter their religion; it’s head was a sovereign artificial source, voluntarily complying with by the body itself; this created a symbiotic unity, (Ryan, A., p. 381). The early modern body politic was driven by utilitarian-like ideologies leading to immense political evolution, (Ryan, A., p. 109). This enabled the early modern body politic tested its immune system from later nations, ironically facilitating a platform for the very divided government republic detested by such utilitarian men, (Hume, D. p. 14).
The sickness of the early modern body politic was the establishment of secular authorities without objective origin, to govern the affairs of men; this began progressive revision and the establishment of non-theistic pagan tradition back into government, (Ryan, A., p. 493). Although this was meant to bring inclusion and increase political participation, it still held strict criteria for positions of authority. It did not address the persistent sickness found in past body politics; the exclusion of women, disabled individuals, and certain races from holding positions of authority; Alan Ryan writes that “men; women, children below voting age, and economically dependent men [we]re all outside the regime Rousseau [had] in mind,” (Ryan, A., p562).
A third sickness of the early modern body politic was its implementation and advocation for slavery, (Ryan, A., p. 561). Alongside its sicknesses, there are many positions that must be reinterpreted through the modern lens when it comes to the early modern body politic. According to historian Mark Goldie, “Locke’s world was one which assumed there were empty lands available to migrants. Today we preserve a version of his thought, when we hold that one criterion of a free society is that it allows its citizens to emigrate,” (Goldie, M., p. xvii).
The transposition of religion from public to private changed both political culture and existing institutions established by previous generations. Government began to be seen as a secular instrument independent of theology, applicable to all denominations; even to nontheistic citizens. Alan Ryan writes that authority was expected to be complied and supported, as Hobbes refuted the concept of republicanism; rejecting “that there was such a thing as free government, and that central to its achievement was the avoidance of tyranny,” (Ryan, A., p. 497). Early modern politics began the trend of separation between church and state, one that continues today in modern republics and various democracies around the world. Similarly, David Hume (1711-1776) resented republicanism, writing that “[a]ll absolute governments must very much depend on the administration; and this is one of the great inconveniences attending that form of government. But a republican and free government would be an obvious absurdity, if the particular checks and controls, provided by the constitution, had really no influence, and made it not the interest, even of bad men, to act for the public good;” Hume goes on to claim free governments to be “the source of all disorder” and “the most ruinous and oppressive to their provinces,” (Hume, D., pp. 14-17). Jean-Jacque Rousseau described a terminal velocity, deemed the “maximum strength” of the body politic writing that “[j]ust as nature has put limits to the size of a well-formed man, and outside these limits produces only dwarfs or giants, so too, when it is a question of the best constitution for a state, there are limits to the size that it can have, in order that it should neither be too large to be well governed, nor too small to continue to exist on its own. In every political body there is a maximum strength which it cannot exceed, and which it often loses by becoming larger,” (Rousseau, J.J., p. 81). All governments have a limit that should not be expanded, a threshold that should not be crossed; but instead whose existence should be reinforced through reinvestment in their own polity; yet many nations have fallen for omitting Rousseau’s political maxim scribed in 1755, (Rousseau, J.J. p. xi).
Conclusion
While Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, and other enlightened early modern thinkers sought to examine politics as science; God reminds us in Acts that restoration and revision happen at points that cannot be predicted by man. In Acts 1:6-8 (ESV) His Holy Spirit writes “So when they had come together, they asked him, ‘Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?’ He said to them, ‘It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.’” Contributors to the early modernity may have disagreed with each other, but they rejuvenated the body politic back to health; ensuring the security and general welfare of its subjects. The early modern body politic relied on quid pro quo; a subject’s obedience in exchange for liberty provided by a top-down sovereign authority, (Ryan, A., p. 242). It was not important the individual citizens ascribed their allegiance to, what was important was the ability to self-regulate apart from God; this political trend taken from the early modern body politic continues today in contemporary polity.
–September 25th, 2023
Bibliography
Acts 1:6-8 (ESV)
A. P. Martinich et al. (2016). The Oxford Handbook of Hobbes (Oxford Handbooks). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
Calvin, John. (2021). Institutes of the Christian Religion. V Solas Press. Kindle Edition.
Hobbes, Thomas; J. C. A. Gaskin. (1996). Leviathan (Oxford World's Classics). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
Hume, David; Stephen Copley; Andrew Edgar. (1993). Selected Essays (Oxford World's Classics). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
Kolb, R. (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther's Theology (Oxford Handbooks). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
Locke, John. (2016). Second Treatise of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration (Oxford World's Classics). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
Luther, Martin. (2018). The Collected Works of Martin Luther: Theological Writings, Sermons & Hymns: The Ninety-five Theses, The Bondage of the Will, The Catechism . e-artnow. Kindle Edition.
Machiavelli, Niccolò; Peter Bondanella; Maurizio Viroli. (2015). The Prince (Oxford World's Classics). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques; Christopher Betts. (1994, 1999). Discourse on Political Economy and The Social Contract (Oxford World's Classics). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
Ryan, Alan. (2012). On Politics: A History of Political Thought: From Herodotus to the Present . Liveright. Kindle Edition.