ome designed to undertake."(Mach. p 139) Apparently he believed that the overall outcome was good therefore the way in which Numa implemented religion and in turn manipulated it, was good."how much religion helped in the control of armies, in encouraging plebes, in producing good men and in shaming the bad". (Mach. p 140) Machiavelli makes two points here. First he again displays the control religion established. More importantly he says something that Luther would later contradict. He basically said that religion disciplined the army for conquest, which he said was success. To Luther, this is not success. He was a firm believer in the teachings of Christ. Although Numa didn't introduce Christianity, Luther would have been against using the sword for the purpose of conquest. Luther states that it is permissible for one to use a sword in defense but not for aggression. He interpreted the bible strictly and did not forbid the use of the sword for defense and punishment, but he would never support any malice. "And so, even though Christ did not bear or teach the sword himself, it is enough that he did not forbid or abolish it but rather confirmed it, just as it is enough that he did not abolish the married state but confirmed it, albeit he himself took no wife and taught nothing about it". (Luth. p 19) This justifies the use of the sword, in Luther's eyes, for the uses, which he felt proper. But it is very far from Machiavelli's writings in which he describes the uses of the sword in an aggressive manner as successful.Luther was a man of fundamental belief. He felt that religion and politics should be intertwined but only with good intentions. In his opinion, the way in which Numa used religion was flat out wrong. It was not clear whether or not Numa ...
