Skip to comments.Aquinas vs. Luther: A Brief Excerpt from Chesterton
Posted on 06/19/2010 10:55:53 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand
...For there was one particular monk in that Augustinian monastery in the German forests, who may be said to have had a single and special talent for emphasis; for emphasis and nothing except emphasis; for emphasis with the quality of earthquake. He was the son of a slatecutter; a man with a great voice and a certain volume of personality; brooding, sincere, decidedly morbid; and his name was Martin Luther. Neither Augustine nor the Augustinians would have desired to see the day of that vindication of the Augustinian tradition; but in one sense, perhaps, the Augustinian tradition was avenged after all.
It came out of its cell again, in the day of storm and ruin, and cried out with a new and mighty voice for an elemental and emotional religion, and for the destruction of all philosophies. It had a peculiar horror and loathing of the great Greek philosophies, and of the scholasticism that had been founded on those philosophies. It had one theory that was the destruction of all theories; in fact it had its own theology which was itself the death of theology. Man could say nothing to God, nothing from God, nothing about God, except an almost inarticulate cry for mercy and for the supernatural help of Christ, in a world where all natural things were useless. Reason was useless. Will was useless. Man could not move himself an inch any more than a stone. Man could not trust what was in his head any more than a turnip. Nothing remained in earth or heaven, but the name of Christ lifted in that lonely imprecation; awful as the cry of a beast in pain.
We must be just to those huge human figures, who are in fact the hinges of history. However strong, and rightly strong, be our own controversial conviction, it must never mislead us into thinking that something trivial has transformed the world. So it is with that great Augustinian monk, who avenged all the ascetic Augustinians of the Middle Ages; and whose broad and burly figure has been big enough to block out for four centuries the distant human mountain of Aquinas. It is not, as the moderns delight to say, a question of theology. The Protestant theology of Martin Luther was a thing that no modern Protestant would be seen dead in a field with; or if the phrase be too flippant, would be specially anxious to touch with a barge-pole. That Protestantism was pessimism; it was nothing but bare insistence on the hopelessness of all human virtue, as an attempt to escape hell. That Lutheranism is now quite unreal; more modern phases of Lutheranism are rather more unreal; but Luther was not unreal. He was one of those great elemental barbarians, to whom it is indeed given to change the world. To compare those two figures hulking so big in history, in any philosophical sense, would of course be futile and even unfair. On a great map like the mind of Aquinas, the mind of Luther would be almost invisible. But it is not altogether untrue to say, as so many journalists have said without caring whether it was true or untrue, that Luther opened an epoch; and began the modern world.
He was the first man who ever consciously used his consciousness or what was later called his Personality. He had as a fact a rather strong personality. Aquinas had an even stronger personality; he had a massive and magnetic presence; he had an intellect that could act like a huge system of artillery spread over the whole world; he had that instantaneous presence of mind in debate, which alone really deserves the name of wit. But it never occurred to him to use anything except his wits, in defence of a truth distinct from himself. It never occurred to Aquinas to use Aquinas as a weapon. There is not a trace of his ever using his personal advantages, of birth or body or brain or breeding, in debate with anybody. In short, he belonged to an age of intellectual unconsciousness, to an age of intellectual innocence, which was very intellectual. Now Luther did begin the modern mood of depending on things not merely intellectual. It is not a question of praise or blame; it matters little whether we say that he was a strong personality, or that he was a bit of a big bully. When he quoted a Scripture text, inserting a word that is not in Scripture, he was content to shout back at all hecklers: "Tell them that Dr. Martin Luther will have it so!" That is what we now call Personality. A little later it was called Psychology. After that it was called Advertisement or Salesmanship. But we are not arguing about advantages or disadvantages. It is due to this great Augustinian pessimist to say, not only that he did triumph at last over the Angel of the Schools, but that he did in a very real sense make the modern world. He destroyed Reason; and substituted Suggestion.
It is said that the great Reformer publicly burned the Summa Theologica and the works of Aquinas; and with the bonfire of such books this book may well come to an end. They say it is very difficult to burn a book; and it must have been exceedingly difficult to burn such a mountain of books as the Dominican had contributed to the controversies of Christendom. Anyhow, there is something lurid and apocalyptic about the idea of such destruction, when we consider the compact complexity of all that encyclopaedic survey of social and moral and theoretical things. All the close-packed definitions that excluded so many errors and extremes; all the broad and balanced judgments upon the clash of loyalties or the choice of evils; all the liberal speculations upon the limits of government or the proper conditions of justice; all the distinctions between the use and abuse of private property; all the rules and exceptions about the great evil of war; all the allowances for human weakness and all the provisions for human health; all this mass of medieval humanism shrivelled and curled up in smoke before the eyes of its enemy; and that great passionate peasant rejoiced darkly, because the day of the Intellect was over. Sentence by sentence it burned, and syllogism by syllogism; and the golden maxims turned to golden flames in that last and dying glory of all that had once been the great wisdom of the Greeks. The great central Synthesis of history, that was to have linked the ancient with the modern world, went up in smoke and, for half the world, was forgotten like a vapour.
For a time it seemed that the destruction was final. It is still expressed in the amazing fact that (in the North) modern men can still write histories of philosophy, in which philosophy stops with the last little sophists of Greece and Rome; and is never heard of again until the appearance of such a third-rate philosopher as Francis Bacon. And yet this small book, which will probably do nothing else, or have very little other value, will be at least a testimony to the fact that the tide has turned once more. It is four hundred years after; and this book, I hope (and I am happy to say I believe) will probably be lost and forgotten in the flood of better books about St. Thomas Aquinas, which are at this moment pouring from every printing-press in Europe, and even in England and America. Compared with such books it is obviously a very slight and amateurish production; but it is not likely to be burned, and if it were, it would not leave even a noticeable gap in the pouring mass of new and magnificent work, which is now daily dedicated to the philosophia perennis; to the Everlasting Philosophy.
On a great map like the mind of Aquinas, the mind of Luther would be almost invisible.
in case youse want to ping your peeps.
I like that quote.
Chesterton: “He who believes in everything believes in nothing”
Chesterton took Aquinas over Luther and Augustine. You take Luther over Aquinus. And I will merely take all three.
I fear that Chesterton has become guilty of those very same principles which he disdains in others.
I think it was CS Lewis who said that Chesterton sometimes fell for the excesses of Belloc. Chesterton was a great writer, but he sometimes went to excess with exaggeration and caricature in his criticism.
Half truths can do more harm than out and out lies.
That is a very good point. If Chesterton had spent as much time trying to understand Luther as he did Aquinas, that last chapter on Aquinus would have been more balanced.
As I posted elsewhere, if it hadn't happened to me, I would declare it impossible (that the ignorant might ever be relieved of the terrible burden of their own infallibility...)
Not much of a point to miss. Chesterton likes philosophy. He doesn’t like theology.
lots of points. one is that a such an offhanded dismissal suggests the hamster wheel in the mind might need a little oil. For Chesterton seems to indicate, of Aquinas, that philosophy develops theology. And in that, Luther was something of a Luddite.
In Aquinas' Summa Theologica he states:
It is remarkable that Aquinas could hold a whole discourse about "evil" yet never discuss sin. In fact, rarely does he quote scripture. Had he spent a little more time in the scriptures he would have discovered that we are children of evil.
According to Aquinas' Summa Theologica man is capable of distinguishing between good and evil. This is not what the scriptures teaches. Luther was right to suggest this type of philosophy should be burned.
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values...
now then, it would seem that theology, like any other "ology," is rather meaningless apart from a philosophic framework.
but hey, A century and a half of scaling to the pinnacle of human intelligence didn't prevent Luther from successfully paganizing Christianity, so, you know, people are gonna believe just what they want to, no matter how foolish.
Hmmm, St. Paul might disagree with your statement.
Try for example Romans 2:13-15 or Romans 7:15-19.
That was poorly worded. Man is capable of distinguishing good and evil. But where Aquinas believes that man can sit and independently make a choice between doing good or doing evil, I would say (and Paul would agree) that regardless of whether we know something to be wrong, we tend to do the very things that we don’t want to do.