Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: Martin Luther Marsilius On Secular Authority - 2,763 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Martin Luther & Marsilius on Secular Authority In this essay we are going to deal with two ancient theological theorists Martin Luther and Marsilius. We shall try to cope with their views on the issue of Secular Authority. Martin Luther was one of the greatest representatives of the Reformation era in church history. He was born in 1483 in Eisleben, Germany and got his education at Leipzig University.

Luther was an expressed protestant and he was supporting that movement thought his entire life. He was the author of many prospective writings among which we may highlight the Ninety-five Thesis, Address to the German Nobility, The Bondage of the Will, On Secular Authority and others. Luther was enjoining the secular authority due to various reasons. One of them comes from his Protestant origin. He was supporting the repetitive theory that everybody is a priest, and the Church is the State that you live in. He was addressing his ideas to the Nobility of Germany, because he was thinking that those people were the most influential mass of people and he needed their support and understanding.

Luther does not do away with obedience; he strongly condemned outward righteousness without inward renewal. In this he is preaching true righteousness. Indeed, his heavy emphasis on justification at times causes him to loose focus on the binding nature of Gods law, as is seen in his treatment of the 4 th commandment. The idea that grace somehow replaces Gods law does come through in his writings. Therefore we must not take Luthers, words without considering under what condition they were written and uphold them as if they were the inspired revelation of God on the interpretation of scripture. In his prospective writings about the issue of secular authority, Luther claimed all Christians are truly of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them except that of function.

Despite all of these facts, the notion that we all share the same status before God, there was still a need for a Church and still a need for a professional ministry who would cater to the needs of the community. By the same token, there was still need for a secular power to protect and maintain the church once it was established. In his work On Secular Authority (1523), Luther distinguished between two forms of rule. The first was that of the Church, which meant the rule of Gods Word over the believer. The true believer actually does not need a coercive form of governance, because he or she deliberately submits to the rule of law for the benefit of the Christian community.

The problem, however, as Luther saw it, was that there was very insignificant amount of people that lived according to faith. There are few true believers, he wrote, and still fewer who live a Christian life, who do not resist evil and indeed do not do evil. To make the world safe for Christians, God had imposed order over Fallen Man, and this gave a way for the second form of governance, the rule of state. He was totally disrespecting the priests that sell the forgiveness of sins to people for money and during those ancient times there were many of those. Luther was discharging the Pope and the Catholic theories as well. This is how he was enjoining the secular authority.

He was encouraging the revolution against the existing Catholic regime. Martin Luther was probably the most controversial person of the time period. Some ancient thinkers even compared his teachings to those of Jesus Christ. Anyway he was a ruthless struggler for humans prosperity and freedom. Marsilius was more attracted to the idea that people themselves need to find a way to govern their activities to the best of their abilities, and to strike for the goal of reaching the descent living conditions. Marsilius of Padua was writing during a critical time in the history of governing in Western Europe.

King Louis 14 was engaged in a heated dispute with Pope John 12 over who had authority over the people. At the request of the King, Marsilius anonymously published The Defender of the Peace, which claimed that authority came from the people. Consequently he concluded that authority should be spread amongst those people that deserve it, obviously taking into account the notion of secular authority. The main purpose of this authority would be to settle disputes that inevitably arise between citizens. Contemporary Franciscan thinkers significantly influenced Marsilius, but his most notable influence can safely be said to be the great head of all the philosophers, Aristotle. Although such prominent heads like Thomas Aquinas and John Wycliffe's had their support for Marsilius thinking development.

Concerning rule of law and justice, Marsilius followed Aristotle, who claimed that rule of law was necessary for human justice. Consequently it was beneficial to the common good, and aided political stability. Marsilius felt that a secular authority could best accomplish this sense of justice. This view was not a popular one among the church. However, other Franciscan thinkers were often in agreement.

William of Okay was one of the most influential thinkers of the time. He also had his prospective view upon the issue. He was an expressed opponent to Papal secular authority, as well as extravagant spending by the Pope. This secular claim to which Marsilius held also ran counter to another religious thinker, Augustine. Let us strike a brief overview of the historical events that happened during that time era. In the ancient Roman Empire, before it became Christian, the emperor expected to control religion.

Although when Constantine became a Christian, he joined a religious body with existing leaders, the bishops, who were believed to be the successors to the Apostles, those whom Christ, who was God, had sent to preach his message to mankind. The bishops, as Gods representatives, could not accept a position of subordination in religious matters to the emperor; rather, they expected him to submit to their instruction. On the other hand they did not claim political superiority. For a long time the accepted doctrine of the Church was that summed up in a letter of Pope Gelasius to the Emperor Anastasius in A. D. 494. The popes and bishops never sought to rule directly.

A distinction was drawn between a right of authority and a right of administration: the right of administration is power to rule directly, which the popes did not claim (except in the Papal States); the right of authority is the right to direct or advise the ruler. During this period the papacy was much under French influence. Marsilius was a university teacher in Paris during the time period of the early fourteenth century. The writing, that we hold our concern on The Defender of the Peace criticizes papal claims to fullness of power. Pope John 12 condemned his book in 1326. Marsilius quotes Aristotle's Politics extensively, and offers his own book as a supplement to Aristotle's treatment of revolution (Vol. , 5).

However, there is one cause of change in states which Aristotle could not know about, a certain perverted opinion... which came to be adopted as an aftermath of the miraculous effect (the Christian Church) produced by the supreme cause (God) long after Aristotle's time (P. 5). This opinion is that the pope has coercive power, indeed plenitude or fullness of power. Some of the Popes assert that they are over all the other bishops and priests in the world, with respect to every kind of jurisdictional authority. And some of the more recent Roman bishops make this claim not only with regard to bishops and priests, but even with regard to all the rulers, communities, and individuals in the world (P 93).

They assumed universal coercive jurisdiction over the whole world under (the) all-embracing title plenitude of power... limited by no human law (P 94). In proof that recent popes make such claims he refers to the papal bull, Unam santa. Marsilius of Padua, writings in the 1300 s, were incredibly progressive. The system of government he lays out can safely be said to somewhat mirror the one set up over 400 years later in the United States of America. Marsilius separates the ruling and legislative branch from the judicial branch.

The ruling branch is accountable to the citizens democratically, whereas the judicial branch is not. By giving The Defender of Peace a close reading, it seems as though Marsilius would lean towards a more liberal, socialist view. We are not concerned to have a long debate on the merits and pitfalls of socialism. We shall slightly try to consider that Marsilius, thinking that if he means what he writes, which we should assume he does, would today be a socialist. While socialism in contemporary America is somewhat radical, at least in its strict understanding, it was insanely radical in the 1300 s. However, it seems that many readers during his time glossed over the socialistic tendencies, while discharging his claim that the pope had no earthly authority, which we are going to address now.

As it is mentioned in the overview, Marsilius felt that the pope had no authority over earthly matters. While such a claim may seem obvious to anyone living in the 20 th Century, it was not so obvious during Marsilius time. The arguments set up to support his claim are both sound and grounded in religious text. He is correct when he claims that the concept of papal authority is neither self-evident nor comprehended through demonstration.

Despite this claim, he still argues that the priestly part has a necessary function within the community. Here Marsilius is somewhat similar to Luther in his thinking. But he is kind of scared of the existing situation and due to that reason he does not show off all his thinking to the public. His entire tract could then be branded as atheistic and thus ignored.

The meat of Marsilius tract comes when he claims that society is formed to make it possible to maintain living of the sufficient life for as many possible citizens. One entailed duty, therefore, is the handling of the conflicts, thus bringing peace around. Unfortunately there is no real argument given as to why this is so. Actually it is merely assumed. The reaction to The Defender of Peace was unambiguously negative.

Therefore, it would seem that Marsilius was on to something. Yet even if this argument is dismissed as flat out stupid, the fact remains that Marsilius grounds his thoughts philosophically and in religious texts. Marsilius was radically progressive, and it is probably possible to say that he left the world in a better state than he found it. Marsilius work lived on long after his death.

Henry 8 used him as foundational in his attempt to separate England from Catholicism. And what is the most important, it has been claimed that Rousseau was, if not influenced, anticipated by Marsilius. The concept of rule by the general will could have come, in a very bad form, from Marsilius. Concerning Luthers Bondage of the Will we may strike the following issues. Free will was no academic question to Luther.

The whole Gospel of the grace of God, he held, was bound up with it, and stood or fell according to the way one decided it. It is not the part of a true theologian, Luther holds, to be unconcerned, or to pretend to be unconcerned, when the Gospel is in danger. The doctrine of the Bondage of the Will in particular was the corner stone of the Gospel and the foundation of faith (P 40 - 41). In particular, the denial of free will was to Luther the foundation of the Biblical doctrine of grace, and a hearty endorsement of that denial was the first step for anyone who would understand the Gospel and come to faith in God. The man who has not yet practically and experimentally learned the bondage of his will in sin has not yet comprehended any part of the Gospel (P 44 - 45). Justification by faith only is a truth that needs interpretation.

The principle of sola fide (by faith alone) is not rightly understood till it is seen as enclosed in the broader principle of sola gratia (by grace alone); for to rely on ones self for faith is not different in principle from relying on ones self for works (P 59). Luther was ordered to discharge his teachings upon the threat of excommunication. Luthers reply to the order was: Unless I am convinced by Scriptures and plain reason (for Luther, this meant logic), my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything! Martin Luther shattered the structure of the Medieval Church by demanding that the authority for doctrine and practice be the Scriptures rather than popes or councils, and ignited the famous Protestant Reformation. The Roman Catholic hierarchy could not refute his logic, so they attempted to have him killed.

But Frederic protected him. These two characters: Luther and Marsilius seem to me to be the people of the common origin. They were supporting similar ideas at different times, and with somewhat different accent. Marsilius was an expressed opponent to the Secular Authority of the clergy.

His standpoint was for the protection of the individual in his thinking. Every person has to decide upon what religious preferences to choose. Luther was looking at the issue from more religious prospective. While Marsilius was giving more authority to the state government, Luther was stating that every person is a priest within himself.

The place (meaning the whole world) that we live in is the church. And everybody should live according to these rules. But it is pretty obvious that we neither live in such world, nor they lived during those ancient times. Consequently not all the people live a righteous kind of life.

His ideas made the Pope had to send him his Bull in 1521. Luther burned that thing, showing his disrespect in this case. M. Luther was considered heretic at that time.

Europe was divided into two parts that were battling each other at that time. These were Teutonic Europe and Latin Europe. That entire struggle eventually brought some great changes to religious disciplines installed back than. The core changes were: the Bible was the only authority, ecclesiology was decentralized, National independent churches arose, and people gained freedom of priests. Luthers ideas started one of the four Protestant religious movements during the time- Lutherans.

They were supporting the idea of Total Inability or Total Depravity as well as the idea of Unconditional Selection, that meant that Gods choice of certain individuals to salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in his sovereign will. The two authors of the doctrines investigated the idea of secular authority carefully. And their thinking was pretty similar as well. But Luther was highlighting the issue as one of the core ones in his movement.

On the other hand Marsilius was more creative on the side of peoples rights. He considered regular people as worthy of making their own choices in terms of religion and authority. He did not want to discharge the existing rulers in a very open way, but still his ideas had become known and he suffered horrible punishment for that. I am concluding this essay with the idea that reformation period was a necessity of those ancient times. Both Luther and Marsilius played a great role in reformational activities. Each of them at his specific timeframe and from particular vision of the issue.

From the conceptual standpoint we can state that those figures made great changes in Church history. Their views on secular authority were inevitably expressed and gave a strong push to revolutionary changes in the Catholic Church regime. It gave people more spread vision of facts and therefore more freedom to develop their plans. Moreover we still have studies on those issues in our time era.

This is because the past sometimes helps to understand the present and the future as well. Words: 2661 Bibliography: Marsilius of Padua, Defender Pacis, Part 3, translated Oliver J. Thatcher, and Edgar Holmes McNeal, eds. , A Source Book for Medieval History, (New York: Scribner's, 1905), pp. 317 - 324. Oliver J.

Thatcher, ed. , The Library of Original Sources, (Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co. , 1907), Vol. 4: The Early Medieval World, pp. 423 - 430. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, ancient. Martin Luther, On Secular Authority, ancient. Martin Luther, Appeal to German nobility, ancient.


Free research essays on topics related to: ancient times, bishops and priests, martin luther, judicial branch, rule of law

Research essay sample on Martin Luther Marsilius On Secular Authority

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com