Laura Ruiz Oltra – Writing Assignment 2 – POLS 271

What are important differences in political thinking implied by Aquinas and Luther?

The political thinking of Aquinas and Luther is somewhat alike in the sense that both of them circle

around the Bible. But more than alike, they are parallel: they both are interested in the same

concepts and try to answer to almost the same questions. Which is the best form of government?

Where is the line between religion and politics? Does following the law make you a good man?

To whom are we subject? The difference in the political thinking of these two medieval monks, in

point of fact, is their answers to these questions. My argument is that these differences are founded

on a different conception of the source of authority, which would be tradition for Aquinas

(represented in the Catholic Church and its institutions), and individual reason for Luther (depicted

by everyone’s use of reason to understand and interpret the Bible).

Both of these political thinkers were religious and based their political theory in their theology or

interpretation of the Christian Bible. And both of them share the conception that “man has a

twofold nature, a spiritual and a bodily one.” (Luther, On Christian Liberty, 344). “Consequently

the human soul needs bodily organs to derive its knowledge from bodily things.” (Aquinas, The

summa against the gentiles, Book III, Chapter 81).

Both would consider the spiritual part to be the inner part, what we call the soul; and Luther thinks

that the soul needs are only the word and praising of God. That would mean for him that no good

works are needed for the salvation of the soul. “The righteousness and the freedom of the soul

require no external things, since those could be done by any wicked person. One thing, and only

one ting, is necessary for Christian life, righteousness, and freedom. That thing is the most holy
Word of God, the Gospel of Christ. Therefore it is clear that, as the soul needs only the Word of

God for its life and righteousness, so it is justified by faith alone and not any works; for it could

be justified by anything else, it would not need the Word, and consequently not need faith”. (On

Christian Liberty, 346).

Meanwhile, following the “civil law”, or obeying the law of God also with the bodily actions and

not only being pure in thought, but also in deed, was a requirement for the soul to be saved for

Aquinas. Christians would be then obliged to obey secular authorities. “As Solomon says, “Where

there is no ruler, the people will be dispersed.” This is reasonable since the private good and the

common good are not the same”. (On kingship, 1) “One man is obliged to obey other another in

outward bodily actions.” (The summa of theology, q.105)

The question in where the line between freedom and obedience should be is placed in both cases,

but answered differently. The reason is that while for Aquinas knowing the law meant following

the law, it is not the same for Luther. For Luther, there is no need and point in trying to stick to the

law, as we are saved by our faith, and as we are condemned to sin all our lives. “The whole

Scripture of God was divided into two parts, precepts and promises. The precepts certainly teach

us what is good, but what they teach is not forth done. For they show us what we ought to do, but

do not give us the power to do it. They were ordained, however, for the purpose of showing man

to himself that through them he may learn his own impotence for good, and may despair his own

strength. For this reason they are called the Old Testament, and are so.” (On Christian Liberty,

348). But that does not mean we will never make good works; on the contrary, we will only make

good works if we are faithful, because faith is what makes a man good, and not his works. “Good
works do not make a good man, but a good man makes good works; evil works do not make a

wicked man, but wicked man does evil works.” (On Christian Liberty, 361).

On the contrary, for Aquinas, “if the intention of the legislator is directed at the true good, and

regulated according to the principles of divine justice, it follows that the law will make men good

absolutely.” (The summa of theology, 90) And obviously the law of God would be trying to direct

us at the true good, so for him it is a need to follow it for our souls to be saved.

If these approaches were followed as political theory, we could say that for Luther, civic morality

is much more important than the existence of just laws, as the law means nothing if nobody follows

it, and morally educated people will be the most likely to follow it; whereas Aquinas did not think

of this possibility, but entrusted the enforcement of the law to a hierarchical government, ruled by

one person only. “A group would not be ordered but confused if there were not different orders

within it.” (The summa of theology, 108) Hierarchy is justified in God’s eyes for Aquinas because

the Lord picked some of his servants to be higher in status. “Therefore (…) in human affairs

inferiors are bound to obey their superiors according to the order contained in natural and divine

law.” (The summa of theology, q.104) Meanwhile, Luther does not believe in hierarchical

authorities beyond oneself: he thought that our ability to reason suffices to interpret the laws and

determine whether to follow them or not.

This would result in Aquinas defending the government by one person as the best one, and Luther

not delivering an opinion on it. “The best government of a society is one that is ruled by one person.
This is clear from the end of government, which is peace.” “Likewise if the church is to be united,

all the faithful must agree on the faith.”(Aquinas, The summa against the gentiles, 13) For him,

“the final end of organized society is not merely to live a life of virtue but through a life of virtue

to attain the enjoyment of God” (On kingship, 14), statement with which Luther would agree. In

addition, from Aquinas’ point of view, “the ruler should follow the example of God’s rule”, so he

is suggesting that a confessional state would be the best one. (On kinghship, ch.14) On the other

hand, Luther thinks we can’t know if God prefers any kind of politics, as it is not specified in the

Bible, which is the only source we can rely on when talking about God’s message for him, not

even the church’s tradition. That comes from his interpretation of the book of Job. So what he

thinks is that every form of government will be fine as long as it lets us fulfill our soul with faith.

Nevertheless, Luther rejects hierarchy as the source of authority in a government. For him, “For

we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers

and judges. Are they doctors? So am I. Are they scholars? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I.

Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are

they logicians? So am I. Do they lecture? So do I. Do they write books? So do I.” (On translation)

“Hence all we who believe on Christ are kings and priests in Christ”. “For Holy Scripture makes

no distinction between them, except that those, who are now boastfully called popes, bishops, and

lords, it calls ministers, servants, and stewards, who are to serve the rest in the ministry of the

Word, for teaching the faith of Christ and the liberty of believers. For though it is true that we are

all equally priests, yet we cannot, nor, if we could, ought we all to minister and teach publicly.”

(On the freedom of a Christian) This one may be the first claim for egalitarianism is the history of

political thought, and is based on our equal ability to reason and our equality before God according

to the Bible.
To sum up, whereas for Aquinas knowing the law meant following the law, Luther is conscious

that even if we know the law by heart, we humans are not perfect, and we err and sin, so therefore

he thinks that we can’t be required to follow the law of God to be saved, even if we have been

provided with it, because nobody would then be saved, and there would have been no point in the

coming and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. These approaches applied to a civil government shall read as

follows: for Luther, civic morality is much more important than the existence of just laws, as the

law means nothing if nobody follows it, and morally educated people will be the most likely to

follow it; whereas Aquinas entrusted the enforcement of the law to a hierarchical government,

ruled by one person only. Meanwhile, Luther does not believe in hierarchical authorities beyond

oneself: he thought that our ability to reason suffices to interpret the laws and determine whether

to follow them or not.

Whilst for the first political thinker some people are closer to God depending on their status in the

Church, for the second one we are all equal in God’s eyes; which may be considered as the first

advocacy of political egalitarianism in the history of political thought. Finally, a Christian kingship

would be the best type of government according to Aquinas, but as per Luther, we do not know

what God wants of us apart from what He has told us in the Bible, and there is no statement of

which is the best type of government is the Holy Scriptures, so we can’t highlight any kind of

political form as the best one.

These are the reasons that make me conclude that the differences in the political thinking of Luther

and Aquinas are based on the difference in the sources of authority they recognize: tradition and

hierarchy for Aquinas, and the ability to reason for Luther.