The Spirit of Resistance

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere.”*

Thomas Jefferson wrote these sentences in a letter to Abigail Adams in February 1787 during his time in Paris at Minister of France.  Jefferson is referring to the events known as Shays’ Rebellion here.  Jefferson states that he hopes the rebels were pardoned, then moved on to other matters.  Later in the same year, Jefferson wrote to William Stephens Smith (John and Abigail Adams’ son in law) and expressed similar thoughts about the spirit of resistance.  He pointed out that the 13 States had existed for 11 years and only this one rebellion took place.  Jefferson then concluded famously:

And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.**

Jefferson concluded this letter with a lament that Shays’ Rebellion had influenced the actions of members of the Convention taking place in Philadelphia.  He feared an overreaction would give the government too much power under a new constitution.

*Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 22 February 1787

**Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 13 November 1787 [Emphasis added]

Posted in government, Thomas Jefferson | Leave a comment

Flattery Gets You Nowhere

I prefer to be frank and not have anyone misled by flattery. I can testify that although my shell may be hard, still my kernel is soft and sweet.  I wish no one harm, but desire everyone to carefully consider these things with me.  Just as my harshness has hurt no one, so it has deceived no one.  Whoever avoids me suffers nothing from me; whoever bears with me is profited.  In Prov. 28 [:23], Solomon says, ‘He who rebukes a man will afterward find more favor than he who flatters with his tongue.’ “*

BAG13642 Portrait of Martin Luther, 1525 (oil on panel) by Cranach, Lucas, the Elder (1472-1553); 40×26.6 cm; © Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery, UK; ( Luther (1483-1546) German religious reformer;); German, out of copyright

Martin Luther wrote these words in June 1521 when he was hiding out at the Wartburg Castle near Eisenach.  Luther and his political supporters within Electoral Saxony, part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, had made the decision to keep him there after the Diet of Worms in late April.  Condemned as a heretic and an outlaw, his temporal circumstances were precarious.  However, Luther remained quite active in his scholarly work.  During the year 1521, he translated the New Testament into German, wrote numerous letters, wrote a collection of sermons, completed commentaries on various Psalms, and responded to his theological opponents.

In the quote above Luther is responding to a theologian at the University of Louvain named Jacobus Latomus (originally named Masson).  Luther had to write this refutation without a library and quoted many things from memory.   This fact makes Luther’s long point-by-point refutation of Latomus more impressive. In so doing, Luther addressed the main theological issues of his nascent Reformation: original sin, good works, faith, law, grace, and the gospel.  When it came to theological truth, Luther asserted that frank, open debate served his opponents more than flattery and may save their souls.  As he wrote earlier in the same text:

“Now I have never insisted that anyone consider me modest or holy, but only that everyone recognize what the gospel is.  If they do this, I give anyone freedom to attack my life to his heart’s content.  My boast is that I have injured no one’s life or reputation, but only sharply reproached, as godless and sacrilegious, those assertions, inventions, and doctrines that are against the Word of God.”**

*Martin Luther, Against Latomus, Luther’s Works 32: 142. [Emphasis added]

**Ibid., 141.

Posted in gospel, grace, Martin Luther, Reformation | Leave a comment

Mercy in Moderation

In 1534 Martin Luther published a commentary on Psalm 101.  He used this commentary as an opportunity to write a manual for the Christian prince.  In August 1532, John Frederick the Magnanimous became the Electoral Duke of Saxony with the death of his father, John the Steadfast. Luther wrote often about the proper actions of Christian secular leaders and specifically addressed his own rulers often.  Here he explained how a prince must apply mercy and justice: 

“Thus David is also speaking here in courtly or princely terms about mercy and justice, that is, benefit for the pious and punishment for the wicked.  A prince and lord must use both of these.  If there is only mercy and the prince lets everyone milk him and kick him in the teeth and does not punish or become angry, then not only the court but the land, too, will be filled with wicked rascals; all discipline and honor will come to an end.  On the other hand, if there is only anger and punishment or too much of it, then tyranny will result, and the pious will be breathless in their daily fear and anxiety.”*

Here Luther examines how a leader must balance mercy and justice with his subjects.  He states that a prince must punish and display anger in order to properly discipline the people and preserve his land from criminals.  This follows the medieval tradition that a king or ruler must express righteous rage at the criminal actions of his subjects in order to properly rule the kingdom in a godly manner.**  However, according to Luther, if a prince only shows anger this will lead to tyranny and even the good subjects will be afraid.    

“This is also what the heathen say on the basis of daily experience: ‘Strict justice is the greatest injustice.’ The same may also be said of mercy: All mercy is much worse than no mercy at all.  A father cannot do a more unfatherly thing for his child than to spare the rod and let the little child have its own way.  With such stupid affection he is finally ‘raising’ a son for the executioner, who afterwards will have to ‘raise’ him in another way, namely, with a rope on the gallows.  Moderation is good in all things.  To achieve it is an art; indeed, it is a matter of God’s grace.  But because such an ideal can hardly be attained, it is good to try to come the closest to it by giving mercy priority over justice…Where a happy medium cannot be attained, it is better and safer to fall short on this side than on that; that is, too much mercy is better than too much punishment.  One can withdraw and reduce too much mercy; but punishment cannot be taken back, especially when it touches body, life, and limb.”***          

While the Bible formed Luther’s basic ideas, he often appealed to ancient Greco-Roman sources in his commentaries and sermons.  In this section he referred to ancient sayings regarding justice and moderation.  Although he did not identify them here the sources are Cicero and Aristotle.  He quoted Cicero’s De officiis (on duties) about strict justice often.  Apparently it was a Roman proverb as Cicero indicates:

“Injustices can also arise from a kind of trickery, by an extremely cunning but ill intentional interpretation of the law.  In consequence the saying ‘the more Justice, the more injustice’ has be now become a proverb well worn in conversation.  Many wrongs of this type are committed even in public affairs.”****       

Secondly, Luther refers to the concept of moderation and applies it to balancing mercy and justice.  This idea goes back at least to the Oracle at Delphi’s “nothing in excess” and became a central concept in Aristotle’s theory of ethics.  Most refer to it as the golden mean.  Aristotle famously described virtue as “a kind of mean, since, as we have seen, it aims at what is intermediate.”*****     

*Martin Luther, Commentary on Psalm 101, Luther’s Works 13:152-53. [Emphasis added]

**On this topic see Kate McGrath, Royal Rage and the Construction of Anglo-Normal Authority, c.1000-1250 (2019), 109-146.

***Luther, Commentary on Psalm 101, LW 13:153.

****Marcus T. Cicero, On Duties I. 33.  trans. Margaret Atkins (Cambridge 1991), p. 14.

*****Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics II. 6. trans. Richard McKeon (New York 1992), p. 361. 

Posted in Aristotle, Cicero, Martin Luther, Politics | Leave a comment

Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms

On April 14, 1521 Martin Luther wrote the following words in a short letter to Georg Spalatin from Frankfurt-am-Main:

I am coming, my Spalatin, although Satan has done everything to hinder me with more than one disease.  All the way from Eisenach to here I have been sick; I am still sick in a way which previously has been unknown to me.  Of course I realize that the mandate of Charles has also been published to frighten me.  But Christ lives, and we shall enter Worms in spite of all the gates of hell and the powers of in the air.*

Two days later, Martin Luther entered Worms.  The bells of Worms Cathedral announced his arrival and a large crowd welcomed him.  On this two-week journey Luther had preached to overflow crowds in Erfurt, Gotha, and Eisenach.  He did become ill during this journey and was even bled.  In 1520 Luther’s publications had made him a famous man.  However, his writings also led to his excommunication by Pope Leo X in January 1521.

The young Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, agreed to grant Luther a hearing before the Diet of Worms in 1521.  Then, Charles and the diet would decide whether Luther would become an outlaw as a notorious heretic.  Diets consisted of large meetings of the princes of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.  The German princes (both secular and ecclesiastical leaders) guarded their power and often sought to limit the emperor.

The imperial officials summoned Luther to address the gathering in the episcopal palace in Worms on the afternoon of April 17.  On that morning Luther heard an ailing knight’s confession and celebrated communion with him.  When he appeared before the august assembly of the leaders of the imperial estates, Luther did seem intimidated.  The official speaker for Charles V asked if Luther acknowledged a group of his published books and if he desired to retract anything written in them.  Luther recognized the books as his own.  However, he then requested time to consider his answer to avoid “violence to the divine Word and danger to his own soul.”  The imperial court granted Luther one day to consider.

The following day, April 18, around 6 pm, the imperial spokesman again asked Luther to acknowledge his books and if he wished to retract any of his work.   Based upon the record of his speech, it’s clear that Luther had used the extra day to refine his answer and perhaps practice his speech.  First, he acknowledged that he wrote the books and would not retract the theology expressed therein.  Then, Luther explained that his work varied in style and in content.  Some of his books, for example, addressed moral and religious topics with which no one disagreed.  Luther then explained that other books attacked the papal teachings and corruption.  Lastly, he recognized that he had written some books against private individuals and he admitted that he could err.  Luther always wanted to focus on the Holy Scriptures as he explained:

“To see excitement and dissension arise because of the Word of God is to me clearly the most joyful aspect of all in these matters.  For this is the way, the opportunity, and the result of the Word of God, just as He [Christ] said, ‘I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I have come to set a man against his father, etc.’ [Matt. 10:34-35].  Therefore, we ought to think how marvelous and terrible is our God in his counsels, lest by chance what is attempted for settling strife grows rather into an intolerable deluge of evils, if we begin by condemning the Word of God.”**

Luther concluded by reminding his hearers that all must fear God and he commended himself to the emperor and the German princes.   It was only then in response to the imperial spokesman’s statement that he should give a simple answer that Luther famously proclaimed:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or to councils alone, since it well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God.  I cannot and I will not retract anything since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me. Amen.***

*Martin Luther, Letter 71, Luther’s Works 48: 198.

**Luther at the Diet of Worms, LW 32: 111.

***Ibid., 112-113.  The last sentence in bold print above is in German in the Latin text.

Posted in Martin Luther, Reformation | Leave a comment

The Special Function of History

“Now the special function of history, particularly in relation to speeches, is first of all to discover the words actually used, whatever they were, and next to establish the reason why a particular action or argument failed or succeeded.  The mere statement of a fact, though it may excite our interest, is of no benefit to us, but when the knowledge of the cause is added, then the study of history becomes fruitful.  For it is the ability to draw analogies between parallel circumstances of the past and of our own times which enables us to make forecasts as to what is to happen: thus in some cases where a given course of action has failed, we are impelled to take precautions so as to avoid a recurrence, while in others we can deal more confidently with the problems that confront us by repeating a solution which has previously succeeded.  On the other hand, a writer who passes over in silence the speeches which were actually made and the causes of what actually happened and introduces fictitious rhetorical exercises and discursive speeches in their place destroys the peculiar virtue of history.” Polybius, The Histories XII. 25b, trans. Ian Scott-Kilvert (London: Penguin, 1979), p. 440.

Polybius wrote a history of the Roman Republic’s rise to becoming the greatest power in the Mediterranean world from 264 to 146 BC.  He was a Greek noble who spent seventeen years as a hostage among the Romans.  In Rome he became close to some of the most powerful Roman leaders including Scipio Aemilianus, who oversaw the destruction of Carthage in 146 BC.  Polybius traveled with Scipio to North Africa and most likely Spain also.

Posted in history, Polybius, Rome | Leave a comment

A Virgin Shall Conceive

“Perhaps at the time the angel came, she was holding [the text of] Isaiah in her hands; perhaps she was then studying the prophecy which declares: Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and his name will be called Emmanuel.* I think that at this moment these [words of the] Scriptures were producing a very appealing conflict in her heart.  I think that when she read that it was to come to pass that a certain virgin would give birth to the Son of God, secretly and with some fear she longed that she might be that virgin. But at the same time she considered herself utterly unworthy of being granted such a privilege.” Aelred of Rievaulx, “Sermon 9: For the Annunciation of the Lord,” in Aelred of Rievaulx: The Liturgical Sermons, trans. Theodore Berkeley and M. Basil Pennington (Kalamazoo 2001), p. 162. [Italics in original]

Aelred of Rievaulx preached on the Annunciation of the Lord to the Blessed Virgin Mary here.  As a Cistercian abbot in the twelfth century, Aelred focused on the Incarnation on Christ in his preaching and devotional texts.  Notice how he imagines that Mary was reading the text of Isaiah that prophesied Virgin’s conception and birth of Christ.  Gabriel brings God’s word to Mary but she was also reading text of holy Scripture. Later  medieval artists often depicted Mary as reading this text when Gabriel appeared to her as depicted in the Isenheim Altarpiece painting to the right (Photo taken by Matthew Phillips).  Medieval theologians emphasized Mary’s virtues.  Aelred did not differ as he concluded:

“Charity conflicted with fear, devotion with humility.  At one moment she almost despaired through overwhelming fear; at the next, through the overwhelming desire she drew from it, she could not but hope.  First, devotion moved her to presume to it, but then her great humility moved her to hesitate.  It was then, when she was in this [moment of] hesitation, this wavering, this longing, that the angel came to her and said: Hail, full of grace.”** Ibid.

*Isaiah 7:14

**Luke 1:28

Posted in Aelred of Rievaulx, Mary, medieval, theology | Leave a comment

How Students Deceive Themselves

“For the first step in learning is the capacity to doubt, nor is there anything so inimical to learning as the presumption of one’s own erudition or excessive reliance upon one’s own wits: the one takes away our interest in learning, while the other diminishes it, and in this way students unnecessarily deceive themselves.  The easiest person to deceive is one’s self, and there is no one our deceit damages more than ourselves.  This comes about because inexperienced students have not yet been permitted to assess the byways, bends and precipices which lie hidden in the sciences;* hence they either mistakenly correct many things in books which they are unable to understand well on their own, or they blame the ignorance and carelessness of scribes, passing deliberately over the numerous things they do not understand.  Effort and perseverance will shrug off such attitudes, however.” Piero Paolo Vergerio, “Character and Studies Befitting a Free-Born Youth,” in The Great Tradition: Classic Readings on What It Means to Be An Educated Human Being, ed. Richard M. Gamble. Wilmington 2007, p. 323. [Emphasis added]

Vergerio wrote this pedagogical work around 1400.  His writing represents the epitome of Renaissance learning and teaching.  Here, he points out how students often deceive themselves through presumption or ignorance.

*This word means all areas of knowledge

Posted in Learning, liberal arts, Pietro Paulo Vergerio, Renaissance, teaching | Leave a comment

The Perversity and Ingratitude of the World

“For the perversity and ingratitude of the world is so great that it often repays evil to those who have deserved good from it and sometimes even treats them very rudely; on the other hand, it elevates and honors the wicked.  So David, a holy man and very good king, was driven out of his kingdom; the prophets, Christ, and the apostles were killed.  The histories of all nations attest that many men who deserved the best from their country were driven into exile by their own fellow citizens, that they had a miserable life there, and that some of them came to a bitter end in prison.” Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians 4:6, LW 26:387.

Posted in Martin Luther, Reformation | Leave a comment

Delusion Makes You Happy

If Folly is any judge, that man is the happiest who is most thoroughly deluded.  May he remain in that state which comes from me alone and is so widespread that I doubt whether there can be found one person in the whole race of man who has been wise for every moment of his life and has never been touched by some madness or other. The reason a person who believes he sees a woman when in reality he is looking at a gourd is called crazy is because this is something beyond usual experience.  However, when a person thinks his wife, who is enjoyed by many, to be a an ever-faithful Penelope, he is not called insane at all because people know that this is a common thing in marriage.” Desiderius Erasmus, The Praise of Folly, in The Essential Erasmus, trans. John P. Dolan (New York, 1964), 128.

In this famous satire, Erasmus gives folly a voice.  Here he explains how those who are the most deluded seem the happiest in this temporal life.

Posted in Erasmus, happiness, Renaissance | Leave a comment

Burning the Bull

“Greetings.  On December 10, 1520, at nine o’clock in the morning, all the following papal books were burned in Wittenberg at the eastern gate near the Church of the Holy Cross: the Decretum, the Decretals, the [Liber] Sextus, the Clementines, the Extravagantes, and the most recent bull of Leo X; likewise the Summa Angelica, Eck’s Chrysopassus and other books by this author, writings of Emser, and certain books that were added by different people.  This was done so that the incendiary papists may see that it doesn’t take much to burn books they cannot refute.  This is the news here.” Martin Luther, Letter 67 to George Spalatin, Luther’s Works 48: 186-87. 

Martin Luther wrote these words to George Spalatin, the court chaplain and secretary to Frederick III the Wise of Electoral Saxony on December 10, 1520.   Luther wanted him and others to know that he and his colleagues had defied Pope Leo X’s condemnation of his teachings in the Papal Bull, Exsurge Domine.  Luther had received reports that some authorities had burned some of his writings in other parts of Germany.

Luther’s colleagues, Philip Melanchthon and Johann Agricola organized the event and some students attended.  Luther personally threw a printed copy of Leo’s bull into the fire.  However, the other works that Luther identified held great significance. The Decretum through the Extravagentes contained the full collection of the medieval papal canon law reaching from the mid-twelfth through the mid-fifteenth centuries.  These texts were the legal basis for papal authority and burning them was an incredible act of defiance against the papacy.  The other books included a handbook to guide priests hearing confession (Summa Angelica) and the works by two of Luther’s early papal opponents: Johannes Eck and Jerome Emser. 

If Luther’s publications were a theological turning away from the late medieval papacy in 1520, then the public burning of the bull and the canon law represented a public display of that reality.  Before the end of the year, Luther published an explanation for these actions.*  Since evil books should be burned, Luther reasoned, then destroying these false works of canon law and papal theology was the proper action.  He then listed thirty articles of errors from the papal works including the pope’s grandiose claims to authority in church and world and the confusion of papal law and the gospel.**        

*Martin Luther, Why the Books of the Pope and His Disciples Were Burned by Doctor Martin Luther, Luther’s Works 31:383-95.

**On this entire post see Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation: 1483-1521, trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis 1985), 423-26


Posted in Martin Luther, Reformation | Leave a comment