Luther Part Two

In the second part of On Secular Authority Luther deals with the extent to which the secular sword has authority. He rightly says that secular law does not have the authority to command people's hearts; that is to say, tell people what to believe and what not to believe. He says that secular authority can only command outward obedience and thus should be used to command outward obedience with moral standards. He introduces the idea that it is permissible to disobey secular authority when they try to impose their authority on the realm of Spiritual authority.

My 2 Cents Worth on Luther and Secular Authority

I agree with Luther when he says that the secular sword is meant to keep the wicked in check. The true Christian does not need the secular sword because they already act in the way the law requires them to. I also agree with his assertion that the law is not meant to be used to for the gain of him that enforces the law but specifically for the upholding of justice.

Machiavelli Quiz

"The Prince is a concise statement of Machiavell's belief that classical and Christian political theory is unworkable in a world that defines politics as the exercise of power and the struggle for power. It is also implicitly a rejection of a nihilistic counterethic, that only power and brute force matter."

Discuss to what extent you agree or disagree with this statement. What evidence can you bring to support your position?

1. (Dante Germino, Machiavelli to Marx: Modern Western Political Thought, p. 32)

I would have to agree with Germino in saying that Machiavelli deems Christian political theory as unworkable. Because man is sinful, there are always those ready to exploit the ruler who does not take certain precautions to stay in power. A Christian political theory frowns upon those who weaken others to maintain themselves. According to Machiavelli this results in disaster, rulers who are deemed effeminate are driven from power. The grace and mercy given by a Christian ruler would cause him to be construed as an effeminate leader. In essence, to rule one must be ready to use harsh or miserly measures in order to establish a lasting kingdom.

I also agree with Germino's second assertion that Machiavelli's treatise on political theory does not ascribe to the theory that only power and brute force matter. In fact, Machiavelli seems to view brute force as a tool and power as the reward of a ruler who appeases his citizens. Machiavelli seems to establish the appeasement and good favor of the citizens to be the prime goal in his practical political theory. He does say that it is better for a ruler to be feared then loved because the people are more inclined to feel obligated to carry out the commands of a man they fear. He seems to stress being feared over being loved simply because a man that is loved is not always respected, but fear always results in respect, hatred, or both. He maintains that it is most important to avoid being hated by one's subjects, so respect is most likely the desired end result. Respect fosters the most loyalty and fear is often the best way to gain respect.

It seems that in Machiavelli's political theory one must sometimes use evil means to obtain and maintain power because people can be evil. One must respond to certain actions with an equal degree or greater degree of force to maintain one's kingdom; this is often viewed as unjust. But it is often necessary according to Machiavelli. Machiavelli also shows that power and brute force are not the only things that matter in politics; but the opinion of the people, as far as their hatred fear or love of the ruler, is paramount.