The Authority Conflict: Machiavelli & Martin Luther
The Authority Conflict
Machiavelli and Martin Luther were two of the most profound and controversial historians of the sixteenth century. In The Prince, Machiavelli advocated unconventional measures and instructed the rulers of politically unstable Italy on gaining absolute power and setting aside moral values. Luther’s On Christian Liberty considers the corruption of the Holy Roman Church and promotes the split of the secular from the spiritual. He instilled complete authority in the word of God. When comparing the different solutions concerning the problem of authority proposed by these pragmatists in the sixteenth century, it is evident that they agreed to some extent on the evil nature of human beings; however, their concepts of virtue were unique and their solutions were targeted to engage and gain support from different groups and figures of authority.
Machiavelli and Luther used separate approaches and had different motives for conveying a similar message about human nature; people are inherently bad. Mankind is more prone to evil than he is to good (Taylor 23). They both agreed that men initially concern themselves with one another as means to satisfy their own desires. Luther quoted Galatians 5:17, “for the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh,” to show the struggles men face upon attempting to act moral and righteous (Luther, 4). While Machiavelli described this evil characteristic of mankind as essential to get ahead of others and hold a position of authority, Luther considered it a problem that must be resolved by believing in Christ alone. Machiavelli had no notion of human development or progress in pursuit of ends ordained by God or by nature, and he did not condemn the Church because it strayed from the path of righteousness, as did Luther, but because it was not practical (Femia 39). Machiavelli thought that Italian society could not flourish if citizens embodied traditional Christian virtues of humility and passivity. Pursuing an image of human excellence would cause good men to fall prey to others. He considered sin a political error that occurred when rulers tried to follow Christian ethics and the circumstance at hand required ruthlessness or deception (41). Machiavelli and Luther agreed that people are governed by an evil natural necessity, but the former was against thwarting these desires, while the latter believed it was necessary to accept Christ and earn the grace that turns one virtuous. Though he did recognize the importance of, and therefore promote, morals, ethics, and religious convictions in order to keep the people under control, Machiavelli thought that the ruler himself was under no obligation to live by these same morals. The ruler was duty-bound to act on whatever was necessary to keep and extend his power. Alternatively, Luther endorsed combating the evil nature of mankind and maintaining a strong spiritual side to resist temptation. He believed that faith would enlighten man on all things in him that are blameworthy, sinful, and damnable (Luther 8). While Luther thought achieving inner goodness through faith alone could achieve eternal salvation and counteract the evil nature instilled in mankind, Machiavelli focused on the external appearance of one’s character. He said that if a prince set about the task of maintaining his state, then he will be universally praised and the common people will be impressed, even if he dishonorably achieves this success (Machiavelli 58). Morality is obtained when man wishes to be, not only appears to be, what others think he is. His motives must be pure and transparent. Machiavelli states it the other way around, whereas Luther strives for Christian morality that demands doing the right thing for the right reason.
