Bossuet Vs Absolutism

537 Words3 Pages
The 17th century was a time of conflict for the European states. Not only was civil war breaking out between the country, but also religious division. For instance, the Thirty Years' War, was a religious war that divided Germany, and turned into one of the most deadliest European wars, which led to the birth of the Enlightenment. Ultimately, because of the all the conflicts 17th century Europe was facing, the state had to think and remake some of their religious and political boundaries. Due to this, the concept “Divine Right of Kings” and absolutism came into effect. This can be seen in the works of Bossuet, Locke, and Hobbes. More importantly, Bossuet and Hobbes argue that the answer to society's problems is unlimited government. Whereas, Locke, on the other hand, argues that society needs a limited government. In the Divine Right of Kings, Bossuet reasoned that when a person became king it was because God anointed them to be the king. They held a divine power, in which they should rule as God governs. However, because the king had all control he cannot do whatever he wanted. He held all the responsibilities for his people. He was to ensure their safety and peace. Also, Bossuet stated that absolute monarchy was the form of government God intended for its people. For example,…show more content…
However, he saw the government as man-made, not divine because the government's purpose was to keep law and order. In, Leviathan Hobbes argued that man in his natural state is ruthless, and needed an absolute ruler for the best form of government. For instance, he claimed that people were born with rights, but they should give them away to the government for protection. In other words. Hobbes believed that people were ruthless, so much so, that he called the state of man “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” He believed this because people act on behalf of their own

More about Bossuet Vs Absolutism

Open Document