Religion and philosophy of state

Stephan Sturm
Jan 15, 2025
9 min read

Religious and historical backgrounds of English state philosophy in the 17th century

We will take a closer look at the political and constitutional theories of the 17th century later on. We must briefly clarify the religious and political background.

In the 17th century, religion still played a decisive role in the philosophy of the state. The attempts at contract theory were based on the fact that it was no longer possible to do much with divine right in political theory. This was due to the many religious disputes that arose after the Reformation. It was therefore necessary to switch to non-religious motives because this was the way to solve religious problems. It is actually a significant realization that at the Peace of Westphalia, i.e. the end of the Thirty Years' War, one should simply focus on political issues and leave religious issues aside.

The theory of the state therefore had to find a non-religious basis. Locke filled part of his first great text on government with a religious theory that makes no sense today. He discusses a theory by Sir Robert Filmer. He believed that kings inherited their power from Adam. Adam was entitled to everything when he was alone in the world. In the second volume of "Leviathan", which no one reads today, Hobbes only deals with religious claims to power. He wants to prove that even in the Old Testament, religion did not determine politics.Hobbes says that even in the Old Testament, secular rulers had the power. They decided what the right religion was. And it was not religion that decided what the right policy was.

We will see this in more detail with the individual authors, but you can already see the extent to which religious questions still play a role in the theory of the state, otherwise the authors in question would not have devoted so much energy to it.

Reformation

We start with the Reformation. In 1517, Martin Luther posted the 95 theses on the castle church in Wittenberg. In 1518, he was put on trial in Augsburg. In 1520, the famous Imperial Diet took place in Worms, where Luther refused to recant his writings. In doing so, he contradicted the emperor and the Catholic Church, i.e. the Pope. The latter wanted to be able to define religion.

That is why there are now several denominations. Because there are now several denominations, politics can no longer be based on religion. You would then have to say which denomination you are basing it on. But the other denominations would not accept that. They would say that this is a false religion and that politics based on it is wrong.

In 1530, for the first time, there was a confession of faith other than the Catholic Church. It is called Confessio Augustana because it was adopted in Augsburg and presented to the emperor. The emperor could not reject it because of political entanglements. So there are now at least two churches. Many more churches and denominations then emerged, especially in England.

But first you need to know that the Reformation began in Scotland in 1523, three years after the Diet of Worms. It took until 1560 for it to gain

acceptance. In 1560, the "Confessio Scotica" was published in Scotland. In it, resistance to unjust authorities is declared to be a good work commanded by God. Christians are therefore allowed to oppose unjust authorities and do something good in doing so. This motivates people to take action against kings.

In 1553, Mary I tried to bring England back to Catholicism. However, this did not work. At the same time, the Reformation took place in Scotland.

There was a reformation in the Netherlands from 1519 to 1619. Some countries are already reformed, i.e. Protestant. There was a reformation in Switzerland from 1519 to 1712. There are now several churches in Europe, no longer a single Catholic Church. This naturally makes religion more complicated. Politics therefore finds it difficult to invoke religion.

In the meantime, in 1555, the German states concluded the Peace of Augsburg with the famous formula "cuius regio, eius religio". So for the first time there was something like religious freedom, but not for normal people, but for the princes. This "cuius regio" "eius religio" means that each prince can choose which religion applies in his territory, and this then automatically applies to all people who reside in this region, i.e. in this principality. At the same time, it was decided that people could emigrate, which they were not allowed to do before, namely if the prince had a different religion to that of the individual citizen. This was an attempt to solve the religion problem.

Thirty Years' War

The attempt is not very sustainable, as the 30 Years' War took place from 1618 to 1648. Originally, it did indeed have a religious background. But political and social reasons also played a role. Different princes fight in this 30-year war for different reasons. In the end, everyone fought against everyone else.

This war was devastating. 40 percent of the German rural population died or were killed by epidemics. In parts of southern Germany, only a third of the population survived. In other words, two thirds of the population died in southern Germany. In the other parts, almost half of the people died. At the same time, there was an 80-year war between the Netherlands and Spain from 1568 to 1648. Spain is Catholic, the Netherlands is now Protestant. Above all, they do not want to be occupied by the Spanish. Once again, religious and political interests intermingle. And this in wars that lasted for decades.

All in all, you can see that all these political interests and the religious interests mixed in with them lead to endless wars.

English Civil War

The more immediate background to Locke's and Hobbes' theories of the state, however, is the English Civil War. This lasted from 1642 to 1649 and saw the King and Parliament at loggerheads.

This is actually a political dispute that also has an economic background. The problem is that the king constantly needs money and parliament would have to approve this money. However, parliament has no interest in this and therefore always tries to make the approval of taxes dependent on parliament being given more rights.

This conflict has to do with politics and society. It arose when the bourgeoisie gained influence. The rich sit in the House of Commons and set the taxes, even though they have no interest in doing so themselves.

The king and the nobility have lost power. The parliamentarians now have the money. This leads to conflict with the Puritans, Presbyterians and Catholics. The Anglicans are still relatively close to the Catholics. Henry VIII founded the Anglican Church in order to get away from the Pope and decide for himself what should happen in the church. The king is the head of the church. The Puritans and the Presbyterians are Protestant. The Presbyterians have something like parliaments in the church. The Puritans believe firmly in the Bible and reject everything that kings decide for political reasons. They are against the king, except the Anglicans. That means there is a dispute between the churches. Some support the king, others are against him.

Shortly after the foundation of the Anglican Church by Henry VIII in 1534, there was already resistance. The Puritans were against the Anglican Church and against the king, who was supported by this church.

From 1639 to 1651, there was also a war between England and Ireland and Scotland. Here, too, the intermingling of the special interests of the Irish and Scots and their intermingling with religious interests played a role.

1604 James I becomes King of Great Britain. He is a Calvinist. He tries to impose a divine right. This is before the English Civil War. Parliament is against it. Parliament wanted the king's rights to be based on laws and a constitution and not on divine right. Divine right would mean that the king would have very many rights and would be absolute.

This led to resistance from Parliament and the Puritans. In 1605, the famous Guy Fawkes planned the assassination of James I. So even before the Civil War from 1642 to 1649, there were many conflicts between the King and the Parliamentarians on the one side and the Anglicans on the other.

And this English Civil War took place between Charles I and the troops of Parliament. James I claimed to be a divine right. That is a religious justification. Charles I now has problems with Parliament because there are many Puritans there. Parliament had to approve port duties. The king needed these port duties to earn money. But Parliament has to approve these port duties. They only do that for one year at a time. In this way, they can ensure that Parliament has to be convened at least once a year. The kings in England have always done it so that Parliament never meets and never convenes. If the port duties are only allowed for one year, the king must convene Parliament to maintain the duties.

The English king became involved in the 30 Years' War against Spain. This left him broke. That is why he now needs Parliament to provide him with new funding. This could be taxes or customs duties, for example. The House of Commons makes approval dependent on the Petition of Right being accepted.

It states that parliament must give its consent before taxes can be levied. Parliament would now like to legally ensure that it must always give its consent if taxes are to be levied. That is the background.

Now there are also problems with the Scots, and so they rebel in 1638. They say they have a contract with God. The Confessio Scotica has declared that they have a contract with God. That's why it's good to stand up to unjust kings.

The king needs money again. He has to wage war against the Scots. Parliament must be convened to approve the money. This leads to a new problem. The king cannot do as he wishes. He has to convene parliament.

In 1641, the Irish Catholics rebel. This costs money again. This now leads to a dispute in parliament. It's about the foundations of divine right. In other words, it is questioned whether the king can have been commissioned by God and can simply rule by divine right.

Charles I had to solve the problem. That is why he attempts a coup d'état against parliament in 1642. It is strange that the king can do this. But he wasn't actually ruling legitimately because he could never rely on parliament. Now he tries to use force. This leads to battles between the royal troops and the pro-parliament troops. So royal troops are fighting against troops commissioned by parliament. This leads to problems with the other countries that belong to Great Britain. In 1643, Scotland supports the parliamentarians and sides with them.

The Puritan Cromwell then founded the famous New Model Army. The army is made up almost exclusively of Puritans. They all have the same religion. They are well armed and trained. In contrast to the soldiers you usually have, they are all hired soldiers. They fight with great zeal. That makes the New Model Army very successful.

Overthrow of the monarchy

Charles I was executed in 1649. This was something completely new in history. From then on, a king could be tried and even executed for his wrong policies. The monarchy was overthrown and a Commonwealth of England was founded. This takes a while. Royalists and parliamentarians take turns. The Royalists rise again because Cromwell has established a dictatorship. And he is not very democratic either. The wars against Scots and Irish are bloodthirsty. Many people die. I think he killed half the Scots. That's why the Scots sometimes switch sides and the Royalists win for a short time.

The whole thing only ended in 1688 with the famous Glorious Revolution and since then England has had a constitutional monarchy. The theories of Hobbes and Locke emerged during this time. Hobbes is a royalist. But this is long before the Glorious Revolution. At that time, it was thought that the royalists would win.

Locke is on the side of the parliamentarians. He supported the theory of the Glorious Revolution. This states that the monarchy should be enshrined in the constitution. However, Locke also writes this after the Glorious Revolution, when he is more or less on the safe side.

Consequences for the philosophy of the state

Hobbes' and Locke's theories of the state now operate in this entire field. They attempt to find a non-religious justification for the state. In doing so, they attempt to develop a theory of contract. This also involves a state of nature. The people enter into a contract with the other members of society and simultaneously or subsequently enter into a contract with the government. This is the basis of all modern theories of the state. The idea was to avoid divine right. In addition, a constitution must be drawn up that guarantees the rights of queens and parliaments. Locke is rather religious in his declarations, but he avoids statements that are reminiscent of a particular religion.

Both want to establish a contract theory. They say that certain things have always applied in the state of nature and therefore cannot be abolished later. Both therefore refer to the state of nature and natural law. And this will of God is also natural law. In other words, there are two reasons. On the one hand, there is a religious justification, especially in Locke. The other justification is generally understandable and is based on natural law. It is also understandable for people without religion or with other beliefs.

A generally understandable justification based on natural law, which can also be understood by people who belong to a different religion.

This pattern, i.e. a double justification, still exists in the American Declaration of Independence. There is a religious and a natural law justification.

We have to look at how Hobbes and Locke justify this and whether it is reasonable and whether we can still accept it today.

Video to this content: