Where Reformed Orthodox Writers Agreed & Disagreed with Aquinas

“For inquire, I pray you, of the former age, and prepare yourself to the search of their fathers (for we are but of yesterday and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow). Shall not they teach you and tell you, and utter words out of their heart?… Can the flag grow without water?”

Job 8:8-11

“…keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.”

1 Tim. 6:20-21

“Hold fast the form of sound words…”

2 Tim. 1:13

Subsections

Contra Medieval Theology’s Errors
Church History’s Reception of Aquinas

Joseph Weissman
& Travis Fentiman

2024

Order of Contents

Intro

Scripture & Canon Christ’s Person Church
Hermeneutics Christ’s Offices Church Government
Philosophy Mary Antichrist
The Faith Christ’s Life Ministers
Revelation Death Sacraments
Theology Descent Baptism
Natural Theology Session Supper
God Atonement Penance
Attributes Calling Scandal
Trinity Faith Marriage
Predestination Repentance Divorce
Election Justification Affections
Indulgences Sanctification Magistracy
Reprobation Spirit’s Gifts & Fruits Purgatory
Providence Good Works Limbos
Creation Merit Hell
Angels Perseverance Heaven
Man Assurance Resurrection
Free Choice Ethics Judgment
Evil Conscience
Law Obedience Further Reading
Natural Law Oaths
Nature & Grace Worship
Original Sin Relics
Sin Musical Instruments
Specific Sins Images
Sin Against Hoy Spirit Prayer

Intro

In the recent rise of Protestant interest in Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225 –1274), some persons, in seeking to digest his material, perplexing themselves over it, come to imbibe numerous of his Romanist doctrinal errors, sometimes without realizing it. Others, from a fear of this, and seeing his writings’ faults, from what little acquaintance they have with them, are dismissive, not perceiving the profit that may come with familiarizing themselves with Thomas’s thought.

This webpage seeks to helpfully correct both extremes. In setting Reformed Orthodox sources next to Thomas, both where they agreed and disagreed through each topic across the whole of theology, most of Thomas’s main doctrinal errors are brought forth below, removing the mystery. Likewise it is shown where many of the Reformed Orthodox learned and profited from Thomas, citing him approvingly in support of their purposes. Most of the references to Thomas in our survey were constructive and positive; none manifested a chip on their shoulder against him.

(1) Benefits of the Medieval Scholastics

One can learn the most from Thomas, indeed an immense amount, where he was best: on the foundational doctrines of God¹ and the Person and natures of Christ,² and this in a depth and detail not commonly available elsewhere in English. If philosophy from the light of nature be a handmaid to theology, as the Reformed held, philosophy consisting with, serving, confirming and buttressing God’s revealed truth, then the insights of Thomas, one of the greatest philosophers ever, may be of great value to the discerning student of theology.

¹ Compendium, pt. 1, chs. 2-68; Contra Gentiles, bk. 1; bk. 4, chs. 1-26; Summa, pt. 1, qq. 1-43
² Compendium, pt. 2, chs. 199-241; Contra Gentiles, bk. 4, chs. 27-55; Summa, pt. 3, qq. 1-33

William Cunningham, a noted professor of historical theology in the old Free Church of Scotland, remarked of the Medieval era:

“Very extraordinary mental powers… were then brought to bear upon the study of theological subjects; and it holds… that, in whatever circumstances great intellectual power has been brought to bear upon them, some useful lessons may be learned from the results that have been produced…” (Historical Theology, 1863, vol. 1, p. 417)

Specifically regarding the scholastics, Cunningham continues:

“Many of their distinctions have been found to be of great use in explaining and defending some of the doctrines of theology, and have been extensively and successfully employed for that purpose by modern theologians.” (Ibid.)

Be it noted, though, contrary to a popular opinion, as detailed below, the Reformed did disagree with Thomas on some aspects of his doctrine of God, the Trinity, Natural Theology and the Person and natures of Christ. Read below to find out how.

Next, (2) the faults of the Medieval scholastics will be turned to, in some depth, before describing (3) the survey on this page and (4) how Thomas was used by the Reformed. Then (5) Thomas’s influence through Church history will be touched upon, and we will close with (6) how one can begin reading Thomas, (7) with the Reformed.

(2) Faults of Medieval Scholastic Theology

The celebrated Dutch, reformed professor Gisbert Voet (d. 1676), one of the most scholastic of the reformed theologians, regularly using scholastic nomenclature and method in his own writings, helpfully summarized the main faults of “scholastic theology,” that is, of the Medieval scholastics, while occasionally referencing Thomas. He first treats of scholastic theology’s substance, then its external form, principle, object and manner.

Voet’s treatment is lengthy; the marrow of it will be given here due to its value, comprehensiveness and for your enlightenment and caution. Don’t worry, it’s rather entertaining. Note the bit of contrast between Voet’s perspective and the appreciative assessment of many contemporary scholars. First, the faults of scholastic theology’s substance include:

“1. Falsehood and novelty of its chief theses, or judgments, e.g. on free will and grace, on justification, on merits and human satisfactions, and on indulgences; on the worship of the saints, images and consecrated things; on the efficacy of the sacraments, on transubstantiation and the mass, on the infallibility and power of the Church and the Pope, on venial sin, and on opere operato [by the work working], on councils and monastic vows, etc…

II. The falsehood of many opinions in secondary controversies, e.g. on angels, demons, hell, heaven, creation, and the works of creation, etc.

III. Falsehood in hypothetical controversies, since, namely, they advocate for a good cause with pseudepigraphical works, and they support a truth of the faith with weak support or a false hypothesis, or from a true thesis they will draw out false conclusions and deductions or they will oppose contrary arguments with false and insufficient reasons.

IV. Innumerable twists and turns, contradictions and doubts, in which they entangle themselves and their readers, and leave them more uncertain rather than instructing them.” (Select Theological Dispuations, vol. 1, ‘Of Scholastic Theology,’ theses 7-9, tr. Charles Johnson)

The faults of scholastic theology’s external form include:

“1. That sometimes, without any need, they use barbarous and obscure words.

2. That still elsewhere, they apply terms that express the matter very little; indeed, which are less proper, suitable, and clear.

3. That the method of any head of theology in particular is purely elenctic and questionary, not positive; and therefore, they appear to labor only to accumulate some questions, and get entangled in them, without any explanation of terms by definitions, divisions, etc… they often dispute concerning things that do not exist…

4. That the universal method of the whole of theology appears to not be kept precisely enough…” (Ibid.)

Two faults are given regarding the principle of scholastic theology:

“I. That it demonstrates and determines its theological dogmas indiscriminately, partly from its false logic, and partly from the authorities of Scripture, the fathers, the writers of the Middle Ages, and Aristotle; and the later scholastics add their Canon Law, Thomas, Scotus, etc.

2. That they allege the sayings of the Scripture, of the Fathers, and of Aristotle, but mistranslated, misread, misunderstood, and often neither seen nor read by them, but only trusting in another.” (Ibid.)

Voet then elucidates four problems with scholastic theology’s object:

“1. That they have attempted to uncover and gather too very many questions and controversies.

2. That sometimes, and even professedly, they languish too much on useless, vain, curious, perilous, absurd, and thus even blasphemous, questions; of which kind are, for example… whether the Son of God could have taken on any nature, such as that of a gourd, a donkey, a snake, etc…

3. That they stuff in too many philosophical questions from foreign disciplines.

4. That, when they dwell on those things that are either absurd, or foreign, or superfluous, they plainly ignore and omit many things that belong to the very marrow and practice of faith, of which kind are those concerning the practice of faith and repentance, the art and method of prayer, temptations and spiritual desertions, and many similar questions, which we tend to handle in moral and ascetic theology, and also in ecclesiastical polity, which appear nowhere in the whole of Lombard or Thomas.” (Ibid.)

Regarding their manner of explaining, proving and refuting:

“1. That they often scribble out a lengthy instrument with ridiculous and inept explanations and proofs.

2. That they do not rarely pass over better and more solid proofs.

3. That they often commit a categorical error, and strive to prove the mysteries of the faith from reason and the light of nature, or from philosophy and human philosophical authority.

4. That, from there, they put more work into recounting doubts and opinions of every kind, than in removing and deciding them, as if, imitating Plutarch, they were to write on the dogmas of the philosophers.

5. That, going to one extreme, to quodlibetal probability [giving only a probable or plausible solution to a question], they stay there [without balancing it out on the other side], and abandon their reader.

6. That, on the other hand, going to the other extreme, they make a contentious determination in minute questions, or ones that are too uncertain.

7. That in explanations, and the reconciling of alleged authorities, or in the solving of reasons, they apply distinctions that are too delusional and weak, which do more to confuse the matter than explain it, and more to betray the cause than defend it.” (Ibid.)

Lastly, Voet gives as “the origin and occasions of this very corrupt theology”:

“1. It is the ignorance of languages, foremost of Greek and Hebrew, with which God willed for his Scripture to be written; and from this, an ignorance of sacred phraseology, and consequently, of the literal sense.

II. Ignorance of history and antiquities, chiefly ecclesiastical.

III. Ignorance of disciplines, in which, nevertheless, they became extremely haughty. For they drew their philology from the grammar of Alexandre [de Villedieu]… and similar composers of that age. Petrus Hispanus’s short summary of logic… on some parts of the logic and physics of Aristotle that were often by no means translated well… [which ennumerated authors] exhausted the whole of philosophy together with its kindred arts… For languages and those disciplines, those who were taught went to Lombard, and many went no further.

IV. A lack of praxis [practice] and exercises, both of piety, and of ecclesiastical concerns. For the greater part of them were doctors that were purely speculative and concerned with shadows.

V. Ignorance of the Scriptures (that is, of the only principle of theology) and infrequent reading, meditation, comparison, etc. of them — either one-and-done, or none at all. We gather this from various indications:

1. That the doctors themselves, even being 50 years old, tend to profess in the schools that they have never read the Scriptures…

2. That, in place of bible reading, they satisfied themselves with a glut of ecclesiastical history. They polluted sacred history with their foolish patches…

3. That they twisted and perverted the Scriptures throughout with senseless and inept interpretations…” (Ibid.)

(3) About this Survey

While this (growing) survey, including mostly primary and some secondary sources, has many limitations, the reference list is designed to be helpful for the purpose, and we trust will be. It is not intended to be a definitive statement of these things, or to limit looking into them, but to encourage and further that end. Reformed authors included in this survey are:

Vermigli, Musculus, Calvin, Zanchi, Willet, Tossanus, Bownd, Perkins, Piscator, Bucanus, Polanus, Hommius, Scharp, Ames, Wolleb, Rivet, Polyander, Thysius, Wallaeus, Gillespie, Rutherford, Durham, Voet, Maccovius, Ussher, Leigh, Cocceius, Gale, Owen, Clarkson, Turretin, Mastricht, Heidegger, Witsius et al.

The term “Reformed Orthodox” is used broadly. The Reformed authors (mostly in English, some from Latin), were chosen mainly from convenience.¹ The authors may not always be representative, but are a sampling. Nor has the material of every author necessarily been exhaustively appropriated. Many references to Thomas can be difficult to categorize.

¹ If you have more time and energy than we do, and desire to put in a lot of work, please contact us.

Many more reformed authors could be cited on the subjects. If one were to research a dissertation on each point, they would likely find some variation in Reformed Orthodoxy on most points. Sometimes Reformed authors both support and criticize Thomas on seemingly the same particular; there is usually merit in both assessments.

The below survey includes (many) points where Thomas was not found to be cited directly, but his teaching still either agrees or disagrees with the majority of the Reformed. As this survey is not exhaustive or comprehensive, the ratios of its numbers do not mean much, but for what its worth, on the theological points there are:

265+ Agreements
16+ Mixed or Indifferent Views
200+ Disagreements

The agreements (as well as the disagreements) are artificially high because many of those teachings were not unique to Thomas, but a staple of the Medieval tradition. Many of those agreements got passed down to the Reformed, including from the early Church, as part of the common, catholic inheritance. Many of the questions Thomas takes up (and their answers) he inherited from Peter Lombard (d. 1160), besides others. Likewise many of the same teachings are found in John Duns Scotus (d. 1308), though he is sometimes thought of as at the polar opposite end of the spectrum of philosophical theology than Thomas.¹ Finding which particular points Thomas was truly unique on would be quite the task.

¹ One example from below is that Lombard, Thomas, Scotus and a significant portion of the Reformed all agreed that God’s revealed will (voluntas signi) is only God’s will improperly: Scotus, Summa, pt. 1, q. 19, art. 11.

Most of the referenced primary sources in English can be found on EEBO-TCP, and the Latin ones on Google Books. PRDL is helpful.

(4) How Thomas is Used

To give only a few general remarks, the use of Thomas by the authors is usually dependent, besides on the particular author’s background and training, on their purpose in that particular book. Thomas was sometimes recognized as a maintainer of Augustinianism, such as on the doctrine of election by grace by the Reformed at the Colloquy of Thorn (1645).

John Calvin only refers to Thomas twice in his Institutes, once critically and once indifferently. We have not been able to find a single reference to Thomas in Beza’s works in English. Continuing in Geneva, searching for “Aquinas” in John Diodati’s commentary on the Bible yields nothing. The later Genevan professor, Francis Turretin, in his elenctics, found satisfaction, as others, in citing Thomas against Romanist positions.

Regarding some of the English: William Ames, who was arguably very dependent on the thought of Thomas in some places, only mentions Thomas once in his Marrow of Theology, on justification, where “Thomas and his followers are completely mistaken.” (1.27.8) Edward Leigh kept Thomas as a close companion in writing his 870 page System of Divinity, referencing him throughout it around 60 times in the body of the text, almost all of which instances were positive or indifferent.

John Owen cites “Aquinas” very infrequently (eighteen results come up on EEBO-TCP), given Owen’s sixteen plus volumes of Works and another seven volumes on Hebrews. In arguing against Romanism on perseverance, Owen employs Thomas as a useful prime example of Romanist teaching, both favorably, commending him where he was right (following Augustine), and yet lamenting Thomas’s significant deviation from the Word on the issue.

David Clarkson, Owen’s pastoral successor, also references Thomas as a leading proponent of Romanist teaching. Clarkson exposes the soul-damning leaven in Thomas’s ethics with around 90 citations in The Practical Divinity of the Papists Discovered to be Destructive of Christianity & Men’s Souls. Thomas’s extreme, lax moral teachings and antinomianism truly are shocking; read many instances below (such as under ‘Repentance’ and ‘Inward Affections’). But you also need to straight-up read Clarkson’s Practical Divinity of the Papists¹ to see that mystery of iniquity uncloaked for what it is (2 Thess. 2:7).

¹ See especially the table of contents, below. Here is a detailed table of contents. Clarkson’s documentation is meticulous:

1. Real worship of God not necessary in the Church of Rome 9
2. Christian knowledge is not necessary for Romanists by their doctrine 47
3. Their doctrine makes it needless to love God 62
4. There is no necessity of saving or justifying faith by the Romish doctrine 75
5. There is no necessity of true repentance for Romanists by their doctrine 82
6. Their doctrine leaves no necessity of holiness of life, and the exercise of Christian virtues 103
7. Many heinous crimes are virtues, or necessary duties, by the Romanist doctrine 122
8. Crimes exceeding great and many are but slight and venial faults by the Popish doctrine 143
9. Many enormous crimes are no sins at all in the Roman account 199
10. The Roman doctrine makes good works to be unnecessary 250

Continuing on to the Scots: George Gillespie cites Thomas only positively. He used Thomas constructively to build his arguments against his ecclesiastical opponents. Samuel Rutherford, in discoursing more at large in his books on the treated of issues, pro and con, positively and negatively cited Thomas more or less equally, or in an indifferent way, showing proof of his scholarly homework. James Durham’s handful of references on this page (not exhaustive), are only negative, he seeming to have a pastoral regard in mind.

Besides Clarkson in some respect, none of the authors went about to give sustained critiques of Thomas for its own sake, his influence not being their main target. Even in polemical works, such as Andrew Willet’s 625 page volume systematically refuting the whole of Romanist theology point by point, it only cites Thomas a little more than a handful of times. William Perkins’s Reformed Catholic, which does about the same, in a more modest way, doesn’t cite Thomas in the text’s body at all, as with many other voluminous reformed authors. Lucas Trelcatius, Jr., in his highly scholastic, Brief Institution of the Common Places of Sacred Divinity (1610), against a Romanist opponent, does not refer to Thomas either.

The main adversaries of our authors were not Thomist Dominicans, except for an instance in Jerome Zanchi, who quotes Thomas frequently against his Dominican opponent with glee. Zanchi had received a Thomistic training in an Augustinian monastery before being enlightened by the Reformation.

In general Thomas citations were infrequent and incidental in the authors. The Dutch reformed professor, Johannes Cocceius, in his large Doctrine of the Covenant, only references Thomas four times, not on the most important topics. The later Dutch reformed professor Herman Witsius only cites Thomas a handful of times in his many English volumes. None of the authors, besides Zanchi, and to a lesser extent Vermigli, appeared to be significantly dependent on Thomas for their theology or philosophy. For all the citations of Thomas, he is often quoted right along with many others, usually less than them.

In general the Reformed authors were not scared of Thomas, nor avoided him like the plague, nor did they goggle at him with stars in their eyes, but, being interested in the truth, when it suited them they affirmed Thomas where he was right, noted where he led into error, and, where they learned something from him, used the form of sound words and made a critical and constructive appropriation of his material for the purposes of reforming all things unto the Word of God. Almost every time the authors accurately cited Thomas, who was often nuanced.

We encourage scholarship being furthered with more synthetic, detailed and careful treatments of how Thomas was received in that era, which is greatly needed, yet we also ask why other figures, who are referenced more frequently by the very eclectic Reformed, are not receiving the same zeal in scholarly output for how they have been received. The contemporary rise in focus on how Thomas was received in the Post-Reformation era, amidst all the other commonly quoted figures, seems to be an interest largely externally imposed on that era rather than deriving proportionably from it.

(5) The Influence of Thomas through Church History

Likewise, it is easy to think Thomas’s influence has been greater through Church history than it has been. Our purpose is not here to give a balanced survey of Thomas’s influence since his time, as books have been written on that topic, but only to highlight a few points, correct some misconceptions and provide a few explanations. Richard Cross, a Medieval scholar, in addressing the Middle Ages says:

“…outside the Dominican order (and, for that matter, inside it too at least until the middle of the fifteenth century), there never was a ‘Thomistic atmosphere.'” (‘An Accidental Reformation?’)

While there have been revivals of Thomism since the Reformation (whereas the same cannot be said of Duns Scotus, for example), yet, according to Cross, “we do not pervasively find the kind of narrative,” involving a “Thomistic atmosphere,” “until after Leo XIII’s Aeterni patris of 1879.” This praising of Thomas’s works by the Pope lead to a translation of the Summa into English in 1911. In 1914 the Roman Church:

“adopted the scholastic philosophy as her official philosophical teaching, [and] that by scholastic philosophy the Church understands not only chiefly but exclusively the philosophy of St. Thomas, and that St. Thomas’ philosophy stands for at least the twenty-four theses approved and published by the Sacred Congregation of Studies.” (ed. P. Lumbreras, ‘The Twenty-Four Fundamental Theses Of Official Catholic Philosophy’)

The translation of the Summa and subsequent translation of the rest of Thomas’s works undoubtedly made his writings most convenient to turn to as a representative figure of the Middle Ages, in contast to the tomes of other Medievals still in Latin. Cross continues:

“it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this encyclical itself had something to do with bringing about the anachronistic centering of Aquinas in our medieval intellectual history.”

Nonetheless, it is affirmed that Thomas’s thought has been influential upon and interacted with by many theologians (including Protestants) through the centuries, attaining an abiding, relevant precedence not many others can claim. For a brief overview of Thomas’s influence through history in Romanism and philosophy (with a description of the modern schools of Thomism), see Edward Feser, ‘The Thomist tradition’, pt. 1 & 2.

(6) Reading Thomas

Thomas’s works are mostly all online, but we don’t recommend new Christians read them, nor Christians that are new to these things and do not have much experience and grounding. Thomas’s popular works (sermons, expositions, etc.) are his most readable and can be edifying, if you can stomach the constant Romanism. Most people, though, prefer eating their oatmeal without a healthy mixture of sand in it.

Thomas’s Biblical commentaries, such as on Job, Psalms (1-54), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Matthew, John and the Pauline epistles, emphasizing the literal sense, do have much sensible material in them.

Most persons would not like reading Thomas’s systematic material, nor could tolerate it, nor would get very far. However for those who are well grounded in theology reformed to God’s Word, know something about philosophy, are not itching to latch onto, follow or be tantalized with something new, and can read critically for profit, you might be able to bear the tediousness of short segments. It really is difficult to plow through, and the opposite of spiritually refreshing. Dry is an understatement.

Thomas has four main systematic works. The unfinished Compendium is the easiest to read. Contra Gentiles comes in second. The Summa, also unfinished, the work of the last part of his life and Thomas’s main body of divinity, is composed of essentially mini-disputations. The question is stated, objections to Thomas’s view are listed. “On the Contrary” succinctly states Thomas’s answer to the question, usually as supported by a church father. Then, in “I answer that,” Thomas explains and elaborates on his answer; the last line is usually Thomas’s succinct conclusion. In the next sections Thomas answers the initial objections, which often gives fuller insight and depth into his view. This polemical format is subsequently repeated hundreds of times over without fail.

Early in his career Thomas wrote a Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard (d. 1160), a standard textbook of Medieval theology. Thomas’s format is similar to that of the Summa, but, being a commentary on another work, it has that extra layer of contextual complexity.

Pick which topics interest you (or open up some that are linked below), skip around, look for Thomas’s answers in “On the contrary” and “I answer that,” and then move on to the next question of interest. Besides the great complexity of his material, Thomas’s polemical structure against opposing views is so cumbersome and difficult, exactly zero of the Reformed imitated him in this.

It is not easy to pick up and understand well Thomas’s philosophy from reading him directly, as most of his writings only incidentally use his philosophy, rather than systematically explain it. For gaining appreciation for Thomas’s philosophy, which may arguably be more important and interesting than his theology, one ought to pick up introductions to Thomas’s thought, which will undoubtedly be much more engaging than Thomas himself. It has been said that to understand Thomas thoroughly, it takes more than a decade of reading him.

As Thomas is most interested in metaphysics in his systematic writings, you will not likely enjoy or appreciate them much unless you are capable of appreciating metaphysics as well. That is something we do recommend growing in. To the Reformed in her classical era, you could not be a good theologian without having a grounding in, and some adeptness with metaphysics. So much of theology treats of things that are not material. Metaphysics (a real and necessary discipline, the reality of which cannot be denied) allows one to go that much further and deeper into theological realities, describing and understanding them in their nature and relations, and distinguishing errors about them, that much more precisely and closely.

For most people we recommend reading Thomas as appropriated and popularly explained by Reformed teachers, such as in Credo Magazine, vol. 12, issue 2, What can Protestants Learn from Thomas Aquinas? (2022), but try to avoid the hagiography and bandwagon: spiritual faults cause spiritual problems, and Thomas had more than you desire.

(7) Reading the Reformed

Part of the value of this webpage is in showing the superiority of Reformed teachings over that of Thomas. Why not read what is better, and true?

If you are looking for characteristics found in Thomas’s works, but in Reformed systematics, such as a logical comprehensiveness and methodology, with conciseness, solid definitions, distinctions and metaphysical precision (without the excessive speculation), yet with a practical focus, one can start with the English puritan, William Ames’s, The Marrow of Theology. Voet recommended it.ª

ª Voet, Exercises & Library for the Student of Theology 2nd ed. (Utrecht, 1651), p. 37

Another valuable one volume systematic, Biblically grounded, with an emphasis on precise metaphysical distinctions (though on the advanced side of things), is the anthology of Reformed Orthodox authors (an invaluable English source for them) by the 1800’s German theologian and Church historian, Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics.

For something with even greater depth, we recommend the best systematic currently in English, the mulitple volumes of the Theoretical-Practical Theology of the Dutch Reformed, Peter van Mastricht. Through every chapter Mastricht (1) derives the subject matter from Scripture (unlike Thomas), (2) then has a positively presented doctrinal section (unlike Thomas), (3) then delves into very instructive polemics the way it should be done, with comprehensible and solid argumentation, in great detail, and lastly (4), unlike Thomas, he sweetly, with much spiritual savor and devotion, applies the whole to the growing Christian’s practice. Mastricht truly makes philosophy a handmaid to theology, using the most helpful metaphysical principles, with great precision, to serve and buttress the teachings of the Word. Mastricht, in common with the via antiqua (“the old way”), and Thomas, was a “realist” in philosophy.

For something in Latin, even more comparable to Thomas, but scholastic teaching done right, as it was done in the Reformed schools, peruse the five volumes of Gisbert Voet’s Select Theological Disputations.

To read the first two-thirds of a Protestant Summa (still in Latin), by one of the most Thomistic Reformed theologians, see the works of Jerome Zanchi below under Further Reading.

All this given, it is yet affirmed there are treatments in Thomas that have not been repeated or surpassed by Reformed authors in English. As most authors that have made valuable contributions, Thomas is not replaceable.

Just by reading through this webpage you will learn A LOT of true, clear, precious, and some of the most detailed and indepth theology. This collected reference list will be very helpful to you in assessing and seeking to profit from both Thomas and the Reformed in coming to understand better the things of our Lord and Savior, in order to live more closely for and unto Him.

The Lord’s blessing be upon you. (Ps. 133:3; Prov. 10:22)

“…Apollos… an eloquent man and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord… whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.”

Acts 18:24-26

Scripture’s Authority & Canon

Agreements

Love for First Good & Truth

Leigh: “As the first goodness is to be loved for itself, so is the first truth to be believed for itself, says Aquinas,” which Leigh applies to believing Scripture for its own authority. (System of Divinity, p. 17)

Scripture: Primary Authority

“…Whitaker’s Disputatio de Sacra Scriptura (1588)… Whitaker both facilitated the integration of key points of Aquinas’ hermeneutics into later Reformed hermeneutics and, through his frequent citation of Aquinas’ biblical commentaries in support of the authority of Scripture, encouraged by example a more thorough acquaintance with Aquinas as an exegete. The argument for hermeneutical influence is sustained by a comparison with the works of Amandus Polanus, Matthias Martini, Bartholomäus Keckermann, André Rivet, Johannes Maccovius, and others. While Whitaker argued many continuities between the hermeneutics of Aquinas and Reformed theology, as a humanistically trained Protestant he remained critical of Aquinas’ philological weakness due to his dependence on the Vulgate.” (Sytsma, ‘Abstract’ of ‘Thomas Aquinas & Reformed Biblical Interpretation’ in Aquinas Among the Protestants)

Owen: “…Aquinas himself confesses the Scripture is called canonical because it is the rule of our understanding in the things of God; and such a rule it is as has authority over the consciences of men to bind them unto faith and obedience because of its being given of God by inspiration for that purpose.” (Exercitation 1 to Hebrews, §5)

Certain Books are Non-Canonical

Leigh: “…for the Papists as well as we reject for Apocryphal the third and fourth Book of Ezra, the prayer of Manasses, the third and fourth of Maccabees, as Thomas Aquinas, Sixtus Senensis, Bellarmine, and so the Council of Trent confess when they omit these and reckon up the whole Canon.” (System of Divinity, p. 54)

Disagreements

Necessary to Know Bible

Clarkson denies Thomas’ argument that it is not necessary for a Christian confessor to read or know the Bible. (Practical Divinity of Papists, p. 80)

Apocrypha is Not Canonical

Thomas: “It would seem that there is not a Purgatory after this life. For it is said (Apocalypse 14:13): ‘Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord. From henceforth now, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors.’… On the contrary, It is said (2 Maccabees 12:46): ‘It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.’… Therefore after this life, there are some not yet loosed from sins, who can be loosed therefrom;” (Summa, suppl., app. 2, art. 1)

For the Reformed: ‘On the Apocrypha’.

Hermeneutics

Agreements

God Accommodates his Language to Creatures

“John Calvin’s view on Divine accommodation has been studied intensively… The theory was not new at that time: with respect to creation similar statements from Thomas Aquinas, for example, are quoted by Herman Bavinck… Voetius certainly accepts the accommodation of an infinite God to a finite manner of speaking.” (Goudriaan, Reformed Orthodoxy & Philosophy, pp. 134-35)

Literal Sense

Turretin affirms Thomas on the literal sense. (Institutes 1:150)

Best Commentaries

Leigh: “Not many, but a few, and those the best commentaries [on Scripture], are to be consulted with… 4. For Popish Expositors. Aquinas is esteemed by the Papists as the oracle of the Romish school, whom for his profound learning and search into the mysteries of all divinity they surnamed ‘Angelical’.” (System of Divinity, pp. 112, 116)

“The commentaries of Thomas Aquinas… also enjoyed something of a renaissance. Thomas had been somewhat eclipsed in the later Middle Ages by the intellectual influence of the Franciscans, but his commentaries proved popular during the early modern period. In large part, this was the result of the fact that he was a significant figure in the increasing emphasis placed upon the foundational normativity of the literal sense from the twelfth century onward. His sober exegetical judgments thus resonated with a later generation of Reformed Protestants who wished to avoid the speculative excesses of allegory (Stump 1993; Muller 2003a).” (Carl Trueman in Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, p. 188)

Whitaker cites Thomas’s Commentaries

Disagreements

Ignorance of Greek & Hebrew

“[The Lutheran] Johann Gerhard’s Method of Theological Study (1620), for example, contains a representative summary of Protestant criticisms of scholastic theology, which also reflects the criticisms of earlier Reformed theologians William Whitaker and Antoine de Chandieu. These post-Reformation Protestants criticized medieval scholastics, including Aquinas, for their ignorance of biblical languages (leading to misunderstood texts used as authorities), the improper use of philosophical axioms in drawing theological conclusions, and addressing vain or curious questions.” (Sytsma, A ‘Sounder Scholastic’)

Non-Literal Senses

Rutherford denies Thomas (Summa, pt. 1, q. 1, art. 10) on the spiritual, allegorical and mystical senses of Scripture. (Spiritual Antichrist, pt. 1, ch. 35, p. 326)

Philosophy & Reason

The Reformed Orthodox were generally eclectic in their philosophy, though with some variation in patterns and emphases.

Agreements

Reason Subject to Biblical Authority

“The theology of the Reformation clearly subjected human reason to biblical authority, and this essentially had also been the view of medieval Catholicism as represented by Thomas Aquinas and others. In the period extending from Voetius’s ministry to Driessen’s death [1748] a number of philosophical views contributed to an emancipation of human reason.

One of these views stressed philosophy’s independence from theology and vice versa, as was the strategy of several Cartesians. Another declared human reason or philosophy the main authority in deciding how the Bible should be interpreted…” (Goudriaan, Reformed Orthodoxy & Philosophy, p. 29)

Upholds Right Reason

Thomas: “For it is by the virtue of understanding that we know self-evident principles both in speculative and in practical matters. Consequently just as right reason in speculative matters, insofar as it proceeds from naturally known principles, presupposes the understanding of those principles, so also does prudence, which is the right reason about things to be done.” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 58, art. 4, ‘I answer’)

For the Reformed: ‘Scripture Upholds Nature’s Light & Law, & Right Reason’.

Revealed or Acquired Knowledge

“Following Aquinas’s duplex notitia [twofold knowledge] distinction (S.T. I-I, 1, 1), Vermigli divides all knowledge into two principle categories: ‘All our knowledge is either revealed or acquired. In the first case it is theology, in the other philosophy.’” (Grabill, Rediscovering Natural Law, p. 104)

Sources of Knowledge

“Both Aquinas and the Reformed orthodox writers begin with prolegomenal discussions in which Scripture is set forth as the primary authority in doctrinal matters–so that both actually do begin biblically. Neither Aquinas nor the Reformed orthodox begin with the ‘ontological Trinity’ because both recognize that the proper beginning point of knowledge (as distinct but not separate from faith) cannot be a point of doctrine like the Trinity that is neither self-evident nor demonstrable. [Scott] Oliphint has confused the principium essendi [principle of being] with the principium cognoscendi [principle of knowing], and has failed to recognize that cognitive principia [principles], more generally understood, are self-evident, incontestable notions, some directly available to reason, some given by revelation.” (Muller, Aquinas Reconsidered, pt. 2)

Epistemology & Apologetics

“…inasmuch as the Westminster Confession of Faith and Reformed Orthodoxy in general are largely in agreement with Aquinas on issues of epistemology, natural theology, doctrine of God, and, indeed, apologetics…” (Muller, Aquinas Reconsidered, pt. 3)

Voet:

“As a result, our faith and theology can be called completely rational, not in that it a priori demonstrates its truth necessarily with arguments in opposition to those who deny the basic assumptions of the Christian religion, but in that it demonstrates its conclusions from the authority of Scripture and with arguments derived from Scripture in opposition to those who accept something [aliquod] of the things that are revealed in a divine manner; and in that it at least refutes the arguments of those who accept nothing of it, namely those arguments by which they charge our faith with contradiction and absurdity, as Thomas [Aquinas] correctly distinguishes in his Summa theologiae, part I, quaestio 1, article 8 [‘Whether Sacred Doctrine is a Matter of Argument’].

Add to this that [reason], by directly attacking false theology, consequently and indirectly defends true theology, that is, by clearing away impediments and prejudices, and so paving the way to the truth.

A similar defense of the fatih can be seen in Athenagoras, Justin Martyr… in the medieval writers Thomas Against the Pagans [Summa Contra Gentiles] and the other scholastics, if one with discretion and discernment takes the more solid excerpts… the scholastics who treat quaestiones and the commentators on Lombard and Thomas…” (van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, App. 2, pp. 229-30)

Geneva’s Library

“A recent study of the library of Calvin’s academy at Geneva has stressed the possession of many works of the Thomist school and the total absence of nominalist works.” (Donnelly, Calvinst Thomism, p. 453)

Zanchi: Calvinist Thomist

“At bottom Zanchi is a Calvinist in dogmatics and a Thomist in his philosophy and theological methodology.” (Donnelly, Calvinst Thomism, p. 452)

Nature of Reasoning

“Like Aquinas Junius affirmed in De theologia vera [Of True Theology] the tight relation between God’s reason and human reason by arguing that God ‘endowed our minds with a divine reasoning process.’” (Seung J. Lee, Orders of Nature & Grace, p. 71)

Use of Reason

Polanus cites Thomas positively that arguments from natural reason can serve to elucidate our theology but not prove it. (Syntagma, bk. 1, ch. 14)

Consequences

Gillespie affirms Thomas that there are two kinds of consequences: 1. Necessary and certain, and 2. Agreeable and convenient, which Gillespie applies to Scripture. (Miscellany Questions, 1649, pp. 239-40)

Bucer: Logical Predication

“In addition to direct citations, Bucer’s works from this time [1529-1536] also reflect Thomist points such as a defense of a realist theory of logical predication…” (Sytsma, A ‘Sounder Scholastic’)

Disagreements

Critical of Human Powers of Reason

“In each case, the Reformed scholastics seek out a position more critical of the powers of human reason and more traditionally Augustinian than that of Aquinas, without, however, moving over into a fully nominalistic perspective.” (Muller, PRRD 1.450)

Honest View & Use of Aristotle

Voet: “We have not sworn allegiance to anyone’s words, or learned to elevate anyone’s authority and reputation to the point that, like Thomas Aquinas, we interpret the Church Fathers and Aristotle not as they actually thought, but as they supposedly should have thought (which I remember Cajetan saying about Aquinas somewhere).” (Select Theological Disputations, 5.465, tr. Michael Lynch)

Avoid Dreadful Terms & Philosophical Demonstrations in Faith

Mastricht: “At least at that time [11th century] this philosophical theology was more modest, but afterward, when quite dreadful philosophical terms were contrived, gradually it became more impudent, all the way up to Peter Lombard in his Four Books of Sentences, and from there to Albert the Great and his disciple Thomas Aquinas. By Aquinas, without any shame, not only were those quite dreadful philosophical terms augmented to an enormous extent, but also, disregarding the Scriptures, the heads of the faith began to be demonstrated by philosophical reasons, and even Aristotle, Averroes, and others began to be considered equal to the Scriptures, if not preferred over them.” (TPT, vol. 1, ch. 1, §25, p. 85)

Pernicious Philosophic Infusions

Gale: “But that which rendered this University of Paris more famous was the College of the Sorbonne, instituted… about the year 1270. Here the Schoolmen, Albertus Magnus, Hugo the Cardinal, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura, and the rest of that gang seated themselves, making it their business to defend the Pope’s doctrine and authority by their philosophic distinctions and disputations; wherein they found at first great opposition from more sober divines and professors of the University at Paris; specially from Gulielmus de sancto Amore [1202-1272], a pious reformer, who flourished about the year 1260, and greatly declaimed and writ against those school-divines their philosophic infusions, as that which was likely to prove pernicious to the Church: wherein indeed he was a true prophet.” (3.154)

Vain & Curious Questions

Not Thomist on Universals

“…the Reformed did not, by-and-large, hold to a ‘Thomist’ view of universals or metaphysics. On the contrary, the Reformed were generally interested in studying Aristotle himself, rather than through the lens of medieval schools of interpretation, so their outlook was less Thomist, Scotist, and Ockhamist, and more purely Aristotelean. But if one must pick one single medieval school of interpretation, it is Scotus, and not Thomas, that wins the day. Consider the following points…” (Charles Johnson, ‘Are the Reformed Philosophically Thomist?’)

The Faith

Agreement

Need for More Defined Articles of Faith

Witsius: “It admits of no doubt, that under the bright dispensation of the Gospel, a more extensive and more explicit knowledge is necessary to salvation, than was required under the Old Testament economy… On this subject, the expressions of Thomas Aquinas deserve to be quoted: ‘The articles of faith,’ says he, ‘have increased with the lapse of time, not indeed with respect to the faith itself, but with respect to explicit and express profession. The same things which are believed explicitly, and under a greater number of articles, by the saints in latter days, were all believed implicitly, and under a smaller number, by the fathers in ancient times.” (Apostles’ Creed, diss. 2, §4)

Need for New Terms

Turretin: “Hence Thomas Aquinas says, ‘The necessity of disputing with heretics compelled them to invent new terms expressing the ancient faith.’” (1.259)

Disagreement

Unity of Faith does Not Consist in 2,610 Conclusions

Owen: “Protestants do not conceive this unity [of faith] to consist in a precise determination of all questions that are or may be raised in or about things belonging unto the faith, whether it be made by your [Roman] Church or any other way. Your Thomas of Aquine, who without question is the best and most sober of all your school doctors, has in one book given us five hundred and twenty-two articles of religion, which you esteem miraculously stated… All these have at least five questions, one with another, stated and determined in explication of them; which amount unto two thousand six hundred and ten conclusions in matters of religion. Now, we are far from thinking that all these determinations, or the like, belong unto the unity of faith, though much of the religion amongst some of you lies in not dissenting from them.” (14.261)

Revelation

Agreements

Revealed or Acquired Knowledge

Will of Sign & Good-Pleasure

Turretin affirms the distinction between God’s will of sign (revealed will) and that of good-pleasure (or decree), “used by all the Scholastics, and especially by Thomas Aquinas… and, when properly explained, retained by our theologians.” (1.223)

Revealed Will is Only Improperly God’s Will

Thomas:

“The will of God is one, since it is the very essence of God. Yet sometimes it is spoken of as many, as in the words of Ps. 110:2: ‘Great are the works of the Lord, sought out according to all His wills.’ Therefore sometimes the sign must be taken for the will…

Some things are said of God in their strict sense; others by metaphor, as appears from what has been said before (q. 13, art. 3). When certain human passions are predicated of the Godhead metaphorically, this is done because of a likeness in the effect. Hence a thing that is in us a sign of some passion, is signified metaphorically in God under the name of that passion… In the same way, what is usually with us an expression of will, is sometimes metaphorically called will in God; just as when anyone lays down a precept, it is a sign that he wishes that precept obeyed. Hence a divine precept is sometimes called by metaphor the will of God, as in the words: ‘Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven’ (Matt 6:10)… Therefore in God there are distinguished will in its proper sense, and will as attributed to Him by metaphor. Will in its proper sense is called the will of good pleasure; and will metaphorically taken is the will of expression [signi], inasmuch as the sign itself of will is called will…

Expressions [signa] of will are called divine wills, not as being signs that God wills anything; but because what in us is the usual expression [signa] of our will, is called the divine will in God. Thus punishment is not a sign that there is anger in God; but it is called anger in Him, from the fact that it is an expression [signum] of anger in ourselves.” (Summa, pt. 1, q. 19, art. 11)

For Ames, Rutherford, Leigh, Twisse, Maccovius and Baxter, as well as numerous medievals and Post-Refomation Romanists on this, see ‘The Revealed Will as Improperly God’s Will’.

Revealed Will expressed in 5 Ways

Thomas, Summa, pt. 1, q. 19, art. 12

Ames: “There are five signs included in that old verse: He instructs, forbids, permits, counsels, and fuliflls. Because counseling coincides with instruction, it would have been better to have substituted: He promises.” (Marrow, 1997, bk. 1, ch. 7, sect. 54, p. 100)

Means of Revelation

Owen, with a qualification, affirms “the Schoolmen, after Aquinas,” that “commonly reduce the means of revelation unto three heads… 1. By our external senses; 2. By impressions on the fantasy or imagination; 3. By pure acts of the understanding.” (3.135)

Impossible to See God in this Life

Willet: “…whether that in our mind and understanding here in this life, we may attain to the sight and knowledge of God: where that position of Thomas Aquine is to be held… ‘It is impossible for the soul of man in this life to see the essence of God.'” (Hexapla on Ex. 33, quest. 46, p. 659)

False Teachers can Prophesy

Turretin affirms Thomas that prophetic light was sometimes given to false teachers. (3:115)

Theology

Agreements

Theology: Taught by God, Leads to God

“Theology is taught by God, teaches of God, and leads to God; a phrase of Thomas Aquinas frequently cited with favor by both the Reformed and Lutheran scholastics as a basic characterization of theology.” (Muller, Dictionary, Theologia a Deo docetur)

De Moor: “Theology, says Thomas Aquinas, is taught by God, teaches God and leads to God.” (Continuous Commentary, 2014, vol. 1, p. 48) The exact phrase is not in Thomas, but was often attributed to Thomas. Other sources say it was common among the Medieval scholastics. The phrase does summarize Summa, pt. 1, q. 1, art. 7.

Archetypal vs. Ectypal Theology

“According to Sinnema, the epistemological distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology reflects the influence of Thomas Aquinas so that Thomas is a direct source of Junius’s archetypal / ectypal scheme.” (van Asselt, ‘Introduction’ in Junius, True Theology)

Polanus cites Thomas positively on the distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology. (Syntagma, bk. 1, ch. 3)

Theology is Wisdom

Polanus cites Thomas (Summa, pt. 1, q. 1, art. 6) positively as saying theology is wisdom (scientia). (Syntagma, bk. 1, ch. 2)

Theology: Doctrine of Living Well

Peter Ramus “defines theology as ‘the teaching (doctrina) of living well’ inasmuch as it identifies God as the source of all things and conduces to the ‘good and blessed life.’ The definition is not highly original–it has echoes, for example, in Aquinas’ short exposition of the Apostles’ Creed…” (Muller, PRRD, 2003, 1.150)

Thomas: “The third good that comes from faith is that right direction which it gives to our present life. Now, in order that one live a good life, it is necessary that he know what is necessary to live rightly… But faith teaches us all that is necessary to live a good life.” (The Apostles’ Creed, Prologue)

Theology: on the Way or Heavenly

“Much after the fashion of the medieval doctors beginning with Thomas Aquinas, the Protestant scholastics also make an initial division of human theology into two basic categories… or, in the language used by Aquinas in his prologue to the Sentences, between our knowledge in via, on the way to our heavenly goal, and our knowledge in patria, in the heavenly ‘homeland.'” (Muller, PRRD 1.256)

Natural vs. Supernatural Theology

Polanus quotes Aquinas positively on the distinction between natural and supernatural theology. (Syntagma, bk. 1, ch. 10)

Reading Scholastics for an Abundance of Precious Truth & Protestant Doctrine

“The puritan Richard Baxter (1615–1691), himself an eclectic scholar, aptly remarked, ‘Our students would not ordinarily read Aquinas, Scotus, Arminensis [Gregory of Rimini], Durandus, etc. If there were not in them abundance of precious truth which they esteem… There are very few points of the Protestant doctrine, which I cannot produce some Papist or other to attest.’ (Baxter, A Key for Catholicks (London: R.W. 1659), 365–66)” (Ballor, ‘Why did Reformed Scholastics retrieve Aquinas?’)

Junius Reflects Thomas’s Arguments on Nature of Theology

“[Donald] Sinnema further argues that the Heidelberg formulations [of Francis Junius on the nature of theology] reflect the arguments of Thomas Aquinas on this subject.” (van Asselt, ‘Introduction’ in Junius, True Theology, 2014, p. xxv)

Bucer on Natural Law, Free Choice & Predestination

“Martin Bucer, a former Dominican [which order held to Thomism]… saw lines of continuity between Augustine and Aquinas… The young Bucer’s early studies have been characterized as ‘deeply rooted in the Thomist school’ as evident in the large number of works he owned by Aquinas and later Thomists, as well his later writings, which show a first-hand knowledge of Aquinas’s works. Although Bucer distanced himself from Aquinas in the early days of the Reformation, from around 1529 he began to cite Aquinas favorably in his commentaries on the Psalms (1529) and Romans (1536). In those works, Bucer cited Aquinas on such topics as natural law, free choice, and predestination… Bucer supplemented his pattern of positive citations with the introduction of the term saniores scholastici, or ‘sounder scholastics.’” (Sytsma, A ‘Sounder Scholastic’)

Disagreements

Theology Not Merely Theoretical

Mastricht held theology to be fundamentally practical, in contrast to “those who want theology to be a merely theoretical habit, such as Aquinas [Summa, pt. 1, q. 1, art. 4; pt. 2 of 2, q. 182] and his followers…” (TPT, vol. 1, ch. 1, §48, p. 106)

They Owe more to Logic than Theology, are Purely Polemical, Accumulate Entangling Questions & Debate Hypothetical Questions

Voet: “We consider the form of scholastic theology… Its extrinsic form includes its style, or phrases, and its external order, and the arrangement of its parts, in which things, even though many of them belong more to the censure of logicians than theologians, nevertheless… 1. That sometimes, without any need, they use barbarous and obscure words. 2. That still elsewhere, they apply terms that express the matter very little; indeed, which are less proper, suitable, and clear. 3. That the method of any head of theology in particular is purely elenctic and questionary, not positive; and therefore, they appear to labor only to accumulate some questions, and get entangled in them, without any explanation of terms by definitions, divisions, etc…. it happens that they often dispute concerning things that do not exist… So that it should not be taken begrudgingly if our logicians and methodologists throw off the method of Thomas (amongst whom is Keckermann, bk. 1, Gymnas. Logici).” (Select Theological Disputations, vol. 1, ‘Of Scholastic Theology,’ theses 7-9, tr. Charles Johnson)

Vain Questions & They Omit Many things of the Marrow & Practice of Faith

Voet: “1. That they have attempted to uncover and gather too very many questions and controversies. 2. That sometimes, and even professedly, they languish too much on useless, vain, curious, perilous, absurd, and thus even blasphemous, questions… 3. That they stuff in too many philosophical questions from foreign disciplines. 4. That, when they dwell on those things that are either absurd, or foreign, or superfluous, they plainly ignore and omit many things that belong to the very marrow and practice of faith, of which kind are those concerning the practice of faith and repentance, the art and method of prayer, temptations and spiritual desertions, and many similar questions, which we tend to handle in moral and ascetic theology, and also in ecclesiastical polity, which appear nowhere in the whole of Lombard or Thomas.” (Select Theological Dispuations, vol. 1, ‘Of Scholastic Theology,’ theses 7-9, tr. Charles Johnson)

Object, Definitions & Genus of Theology

“Turretin distanced himself specifically from Aquinas in the discussion of the objectum theologiae [object of theology] and the definitions given to theology by Junius were indebted more to Scotus than to Aquinas. In the discussion of the genus theologiae [genus of theology] there is also explicit divergence from a Thomist perspective.” (Muller, PRRD 1.328)

Object of Theology: God as Savior Also

Turretin on the object of theology: “Nor is He to be considered exclusively under the relation of deity (according to the opinion of Thomas Aquinas and many Scholastics after him, for in this manner the knowledge of Him could not be saving but deadly to sinners), but as He is our God (i.e. covenanted in Christ as He has revealed Himself to us in his Word not only as the object of knowledge, but also of worship). True religion (which theology teaches) consists of these two things.” (1.16)

Thomas: Defender of the Pope’s Doctrine

False Articles of Doctrine

“In 1574, the Genevan Consistory received a request to print Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. The Consistory denied the request, but its response is both revealing and representative of the state of Protestant opinion: one must ‘discern among [Aquinas’s] works, some of which were admissible or tolerable, and others not.’… The Consistory said that Summa theologiae II-II contains ‘a number of articles of false doctrine.’ [see this also in pt. 3 and Supplement]” (Sytsma, A ‘Sounder Scholastic’)

Natural Theology

Agreements

Trinity cannot be Demonstrated from Reason

Polanus, Leigh and Mastricht appeal to Thomas to confirm that the Trinity cannot be either searched out, or solidly demonstrated, by natural reason. (Syntagma, bk. 3, ch. 7; System of Divinity, p. 204; TPT, vol. 2, ch. 24, §21, pp. 516-17)

Salvation Unknown from Nature & Limitations of Reason

Owen: “…as Thomas said… The will of God, the mystery of his love and grace, as to the way whereby He will bring sinners unto glory, is unknown to the sons of men by nature.” (Hebrews 2:11-13, §IV)

“For Aquinas, reason, ‘the light of nature,’ is itself a gift of God to human beings in the original creation of humanity that is capable of knowing not only that God exists, but that God is good, wise, and powerful. Where reason falls short, because of its finitude, its rootedness in sense perception, and the errors brought about by sin, is that, without the aid of revelation, it cannot know the truths of salvation. This ‘Thomistic’ assumption should have a familiar ring in Reformed circles. It is paralleled by the very first sentence of the Westminster Confession–as also by the second article of the Belgic Confession, and Calvin’s commentary on the passage.” (Muller, Aquinas Reconsidered, pt. 1)

The 5 Proofs for God’s Existence

“We can also find some Lutheran scholastics such as Johann Gerhard, and Reformed scholastics such as Franciscus Junius and Gulielmus Bucanus, drawing on Aquinas’s five proofs for God’s existence.” (Sytsma, A ‘Sounder Scholastic’)

First Mover

Gale: “This Platonic and Aristotelian demonstration may be thus drawn forth: Does not all motion proceed either from some prime Motor, or else from an innate and self-originated principle of motion? If from an innate self-originated principle of motion, then must not such a motion necessarily be eternal? and if eternal, then can a thing that so moves ever cease to move? Can anything move, that was not at first moved by some prime Motor, or that does not infinitely and eternally move itself?…

This demonstration R. Moses Maimonides, in summa Talmud, lib. de fund., Leg. c. 1, thus expresses: ‘The Heaven is always moved: but it cannot be moved without a Motor: and the Motor is God blessed without hand or body.’ This argument from a prime Motor is well-improved by Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, bk. 1, ch. 13 & bk. 2, ch. 6.” (4.229)

All Derives its being from God

Gale: “That God made all things is strongly demonstrated by Aquinas [from natural causes], Contra Gentiles, bk. 2. ch. 15…” (4.227)

Argument for God from World’s Preservation

Leigh, in arguing that the preservation and continuance of the world makes it manifest there is a God: “This is Aquinas his reason: Natural bodies which want [lack] knowledge, work for a certain end, because they frequently work after the same manner; therefore there must be a mind, understanding and governing all things, and directing them to that special and chief end. The whole world does aptly conspire together for the attaining of one end, the good and benefit of man.” (System of Theology, p. 126)

Known by Way of Negation

Gale: “The best natural way or degree of knowing God is by negation or remotion: for the divine essence, by reason of its immensity and infinitude, exceding all the ideas or notions our intellect can form of it, cannot better be apprehended than by removing all imperfections from it. So Aquinas, Summa, pt. 1, q. 10, art. 1.

Things simple are best defined by negation; not as if negation were essential to them, but because our intellect, which first apprehends things composite, cannot arrive to the cognition of things simple, but by the remotion of all composition. The same he more fully explicates, Contra Gentiles, bk. 1, ch. 14.” (4.303)

Function of Gentiles’ Knowledge of God, Rom. 1

“Aquinas’ exposition of Romans 1:19-20, moreover, is much like that of Calvin, Vermigli, and various of the Reformed orthodox: there is knowledge of some truth concerning God among the Gentiles, to the end that they are left “without excuse” in their ungodliness. This limited knowledge of God cannot indicate “what God is [quid est Deus]” inasmuch as it arises only from the light of reason and sense knowledge–although such aspects of God as his goodness, wisdom, and power can be known. In their guilt, human beings fail to use the knowledge of God that they have and with ‘perverse reasoning’ change true knowledge of God into false teachings. Contra [Scott] Oliphint, Aquinas has not ‘wholly misread and misunderstood what Scripture is arguing’…” (Muller, Aquinas Reconsidered, pt. 1)

Disagreements

All Men Know God before Use of Reason

Polanus: “From these very many arguments, it can be clear to any, even one ignorant of the Holy Scriptures, that God exists. And thus, absolutely all men know that God exists from the touch of the divinity, before any use of reason. And thus, Thomas Aquinas and other scholastics deny in vain that God is known in Himself.” (Syntagma, bk. 2, ch. 4, tr. Charles Johnson)

God is Self-Evident & Argument from Existence

“…there was a medieval debate on whether the existence of God is self-evident. Augustine, Anselm, and Bonaventure reply that it is. Thomas says it can only be known by second causes, and that Anselm’s ontological proof is invalid. Many of the Reformed side with Anselm, including Polanus and Heidegger.” (Charles Johnson, ‘No, Roman Catholic authors are not better on the doctrine of God’)

God

Agreements

God Needs Nothing

Turretin cites Thomas in support that God, as He is perfect in Himself and in need of nothing, “wills other things from Himself, not to be absolutely necessary, but only from supposition (ex hypothesi).” (1.119-20)

Creatures will Never Know God Perfectly

Leigh: “The glorified saints in heaven, though they know God to their own perfection… yet they shall never know God to his perfection… ‘For something is said to be understood when one reaches the end of its comprehension, and this is when the thing is known as perfectly as it is knowable.’ Aquinas.” (System of Divinity, p. 122)

God’s Decree is his Essence

Mastricht agrees with Aquinas (Contra Gentiles, bk. 1, ch. 73) and other Scholastics that the decree of God is his very essence, with some qualifications. (TPT, vol. 3, ch. 1, §28, p. 13)

Divine Will: Not Separate from Divine Wisdom

“Like Aquinas and Scotus, Zanchi attests that ‘divine will is not separate from divine wisdom.’” (Grabill, Rediscovering the Natural Law, 2006, p. 136)

God’s Will has No Cause

Maccovius: “The will of God is said to be free from any external impulsive cause. Thomas Aquinas and the rest of the scholastic doctors held this conclusion to be valid and firm: the will of God cannot in any way have a cause; so that, even though he was overly favorable to human merits (and on that account, he is a more worthy witness in this cause), Summa I, q. 23, art. 3 says, ‘No one is so insane as to say that merit is the cause of divine predestination on the part of the predestining act.’ Indeed, for our doctors, that there is no cause of the divine will outside of God is as certain as that nothing exists prior to God.” (Thesium Theologicarum per Locos Communes Disputatarum Pars Altera, Disp. 26, p. 119, tr. Charles Johnson)

Gale: “Because the divine will is eternal, but all things else [are] of finite duration: and is it possible that what is temporal and finite should influence what is eternal and infinite? That there can be no cause of the divine will, see Aquinas, Summa, pt. 1, q. 19, art. 5 & Contra Gentiles, bk. 1, ch. 87.” (4.343)

Wendelin: “Let Thomas be considered, Summa, pt. 1, question 19, article 5. Whose assertion is: ‘The Will of God in no way has a cause, who, even if he favors human merits too much, yet thinks no one to be so insane, that he would say that merits are the causes of divine predestination, on the part of the predestinating act.’ See also Zanchi, de attributis divinis, book 3, chapter r, question 11: ‘One question is’, says he: ‘whether there is some reason for the divine will? But it is another question, whether there is some moving cause of the same, or some efficient cause? The first we acknowledge: for the will of God is not able to be ἄλογος, without reason, etc. But we deny the second,’ etc.

See also Tilenus, Syntagmate, part 1, disputation 13, §26; Ames, in his Rescriptione, pages 26, 27; Maccovius in his Volume of thesium, part I, disputation 27, §8; Moulin, Enodatione, page 187. The words of Arminius are also express, disputatione de Deo, §51: God is not moved by an external cause to will, nor by another efficient, nor by an end outside of Himself, not even by an object that is not Himself. Neither did Luther acknowledge any cause of the divine will, as I have shown in my Exercitation.” (Christian Theology, ‘Secondary Attributes of God,’ pt. 2)

Revealed Will is Only Improperly God’s Will

Thomas:

For Ames, Rutherford, Leigh, Twisse, Maccovius and Baxter, as well as numerous medievals and Post-Refomation Romanists on this, see ‘The Revealed Will as Improperly God’s Will’.

Saints Knowing All Things through Seeing God is a Fable

Turretin contends against, “as the papists wish… the imaginary mirror of the Trinity, which they feign (as if saints, seeing all things in the essence of God saw all things done here) [to support the intercession of the saints]… It displeased not a few of the distinguished papists: Lombard, Thomas Aquinas…” (2.43)

Disagreements

No Discussion of God’s Names

This is a big difference, as the Reformed explaining and elaborating on the names of God allowed them to discourse on how God is our Savior, and all that He does for us, in relation to us, and that from Scripture, being founded on and deriving therefrom, in contrast to purely what He is in Himself.

“1. The medieval scholastics that Roman Catholics turn to for the doctrine of God, such as Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure, were completely ignorant of Greek and Hebrew, so they are incapable of giving a useful discussion of the names of God. Only one question of Aquinas’s Summa is devoted to the names of God ([pt. 1] q. 13), and it doesn’t actually state what his names are and what they mean, how they are used in Scripture, etc. Instead, it focuses on scholastic questions like “Whether any name can be applied to God substantially?” and “Whether what is said of God and of creatures is univocally predicated of them?” Protestant writers, meanwhile, such as Zanchi, Polanus, etc, give lengthy and profound analyses of the names of God in Greek and Hebrew.” (Charles Johnson, ‘No, Roman Catholic authors are not better on the doctrine of God’)

God’s Attributes

Agreements

Calvin: “I am that I am”

“There also appears to be great continuity between Calvin’s exegesis and that of the medieval doctors. Calvin’s exposition of Exodus 3:14 (“I am who I am”), for example, shows great similarities with the exegesis of Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus.” (van Asselt, Intro to Reformed Scholasticism, 2011, p. 82)

Incomprehensibility

Gale: “So Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, bk. 1, ch. 3, proves from our ignorance of things sensible, how ignorant we are of the supreme Being.” (4.295)

God is One

Gale: “See more of God’s unity, Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, bk. 1, ch. 42.” (4.251)

Pure Act & Perfection

Gale:

“But now God’s essence being the most perfect pure act, containing in it all perfection, hence it necessarily follows that his active virtue must extend itself to all things capable of any perfection, i.e. which imply not a contradiction or repugnance of existing. See Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, bk. 2, ch. 22.” (4.363-64)

“Again, every essence is so far perfect as it is in act: thence the divine essence being [Greek] in a most transcendent singular and infinite degree actual, it must needs be infinitely perfect. Thus Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, bk. 1, ch. 28:

‘Every thing is so far perfect as it is in act, but imperfect as it is in power, with privation of act. That therefore which is no way in power, but pure act, must needs be most perfect: such is God.” (4.269)

For more of the Reformed, see Christopher Cleveland, ch. 2, ‘The Thomistic Concept of God as Pure Act in John Owen’ in Thomism in John Owen Pre (Routledge, 2013), pp. 27-69, as well as, ‘On God as Pure Act’.

God’s Simplicity

“…the doctrine of simplicity also needs to be present. And it is present in Aquinas’ theology, and was present in the major patristic and Reformed orthodox formulations concerning the Trinity.” (Muller, Aquinas Reconsidered, pt. 2)

Attributes: Only Distinguished Rationally

“The attributes are, nevertheless, truly and properly predicated of God. Thus, the attributes are not distinct from one another or from the divine essence realiter, really, as one thing is distinct from another; nor are they distinct merely rationaliter, rationally, in the reasoning of the finite subject only… In denominating the attributes, the human mind rests its conclusions on the exercise of divine power in the world and on the explicit revelation of God, so that the attributes are predicated of God and distinguished from one another on the basis of a reasoning founded in the reality of the thing under consideration… This distinctio rationis ratiocinatae, or distinction of ratiocinative reason… also called a distinctio virtualis [virtual distinction] is taught by nearly all the Lutheran and Reformed scholastics. It is, incidentally, the solution to the problem of predication proposed by Thomas Aquinas and Henry of Ghent.” (Muller, Dictionary, 1985, attributa divina)

Polanus:

“Like how the essential properties of God are not really distinguished, so also, neither are they distinguished from the nature of the thing; but they are distinguished in reason, or manner, rather; that is, in our conception and comprehension, or our manner of understanding.

To be distinguished, or to differ, in reason is said ambiguously. For those things are said by William of Ockham, Gabriel Biel, and others to be distinguished or differ in reason which have an existence that is only objective, or imaginary or fictitious, and not, rather, real. For this reason, according to their doctrine, there is not a rational distinction in the Deity, for all things that are there are one thing, the supreme being. Moreover, a thing is not distinguished in the reason from a thing, just as reasons, as such, are not really distinguished from reasons, as Gabriel Biel says in Prolog. super primum Sententiarum, q. 2.

However, for Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and others, to be distinguished in the reason is the same as for things to be distinguished in their definition and the manner of conceiving of them in our intellect: for our intellect conceives of a different thing with the noun ‘mercy’ than it does with the noun ‘justice.’” (Syntagma, bk. 2, ch. 7, tr. Charles Johnson)

Absolute & Relatve Attributes

God’s absolute attributes are one’s like his omnipotence, omniscience, etc., things that God is in Himself. Relative attributes are ones due to Him in relation to the creation, like Creator, Governor, Redeemer, etc.

On Thomas’s view: “Because of God’s aseity and immutability, He relates to creation without taking on any new properties, which reside only on the creaturely side of the relation. While all relations between the triune God and creation have this ‘mixed’ or asymmetric quality…” (K.J. Drake, ‘Beyond the Flesh’)

For the Reformed on this, see, ‘On Absolute & Relative Attributes’.

Analogical Predication of Attributes

“Musculus, in short, denied univocal predications of God and creatures and left little room for analogy… Zanchi poses a question (given that many terms referencing God are predicated of creatures and many terms referencing creatures are predicated of God): how ought these predications to be understood?

His answer, like that of Hyperius, is that ‘the terms [nomina] that are predicated of God and creatures are neither univocal nor simply equivocal, but are predicated αναλογικα [analogically]’… Zanchi’s view was carried forward by Daneau and probably also Beza, who denied the univocal predication of attributes to God and creatures and, specifically following Aquinas on the point [Compendium of Theology, bk. 1, ch. 27], affirmed analogical predication.” (Muller, Not Scotist, p. 131)

God’s Being is Analogical with the Creatures’ Being

“…the majority of Reformed writers held to the basic denial of univocity of being [held to by Scotus and Suarez]… The greater number of writers examined echoed Aquinas by grounding the analogy in a doctrine of participation and arguing an analogy of proportionality: God is being essentialiter, creatures have being by participation… A lesser number, including Musculus at the time of the Reformation and Crakanthorpe, Revius, and Maresius in the era of orthodoxy, denied both univocity and analogy and argued for an equivocal predication of being with respect to God and creatures. Grebenitz’s affirmation of univocity is the single clear exception…” (Muller, ‘Not Scotist’, p. 145)

Life of God

Gale: “God is Life itself. For God’s Life being his essence, as actuose and independent, He does not only live, but is Life in the abstract. Whence Plato, Phaedo, p. 106, calls God, [Greek], the very species, form, or idea of life, as before. Creatures live, but they are not life itself; because they have their life by participation: and every being by participation must be reduced to somewhat that is such of itself: therefore the life of the creature must be reduced to God, who is Life itself.

Thus Aquinas, Summa, pt. 1, q. 18, art. 3. God being essence itself and intelligence itself, therefore life does chiefly belong unto Him. For the clearing whereof we are to consider that, seeing things are said to live so far as they operate of themselves and are not moved by others, therefore by how much the more perfectly this mode of self-operating does belong to any thing, by so much the more perfect its life is—Hence those things that have understanding have the most perfect mode of living; because they have the most perfect mode of self-moving: but albeit our intellect does in some things act itself, yet in some things it is acted by others— Therefore that which in its own nature is intelligence itself, and is not determined or moved by any other, that obtains the highest degree of life, and is indeed Life itself.” (4.310-11)

Atemporal Eternity

“The Boethian conception of time as an eternal present for God enabled Aquinas and the Reformed in general to assert that God’s knowledge of contingent things is necessary, because God is their ‘first cause’, while the things themselves remain contingent upon the ‘proximate causes’, which occur in time.” (Guy Richard, Supremacy of God, p. 91)

Gale: “…but now eternity being existent all at once, does compass about all time: whence all things that are in time are present to God from all eternity, not only as the reasons of all things are present with Him, but because his intuition is from eternity cast on all things as they are in their presentiality.” (4.329)

Nature of God’s Knowledge

Polanus: “Fourthly, He knows all things at once, with one eternal and immutable act of understanding, and in one moment; that is, by one simple act of understanding; not discursively, or by discourse; not successively, so that He knows one thing after another; nor by reasoning, deducing and understanding some things from others; nor by proceeding from what is known to what is unknown, as Thomas rightly teaches in the first part of the Summa, q. 14, art. 7; nor, finally, in time, and with motion.” (Syntagma, bk. 2, ch. 18)

Divine Understanding: Measure of All Truth

Gale: “The truth of our understanding is mutable, because dependent on external objects and mediums; but the truth of the divine understanding [is] immutable, and therefore the measure of all truth, as Aquinas well notes.” (4.325)

Infinite Knowedge

Gale: “The divine science [knowledge], albeit it be one most simple act in itself, yet it is most universal and infinite as to its object. Thus Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, bk. 1, ch. 78, proves that God’s knowledge extends to an infinity of things, because God perfectly knows his own virtue and power, which is infinite.” (4.331)

Knowledge of All Contingencies

Reflecting Thomas on the Divine Ideas

Zanchi “…poses the question, whether God perfectly knows all other things distinct from himself. Inasmuch as God is ‘the efficient cause of all things,’ he must have their ‘the idea, and form, and exemplar’ in his understanding. Thus must be the case inasmuch as there can be no artisan who does not have conceptually in his mind the ‘ideas & forms’ of what he makes—and God, as that first and efficient cause must have in his understanding a perfect idea of all things. This was understood, Zanchi adds, by Plato and taught by Augustine… further, God knows all things inasmuch as they are beings created by him: for he knows himself as the first and highest being in whom, as first and highest, reside the natures of all other things. He therefore knows all things universally and generally in himself.

Although he has not cited Aquinas at this point, the entirety of Zanchi’s argument echoes Aquinas’ understanding of the ideas in the divine essence as exemplars or exemplary forms by the imitation of which individual things are constituted. (Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ia, q. 15. A. 2. C…)” (Muller, ’Calvinist Thomism Revisited’ in From Rome to Zurich, p. 106)

Muller goes continues on the next page to give some evidence of a Thomistic influence related to the topic continuing through Junius, Polanus and Scharp, though, “Others, like Gulielmus Bucanus, William Perkins, and Lucas Trelcatius, Jr. do not appear to have discussed the issue.” Muller goes on: “Of this generation of writers, perhaps the most significant extended discussion of divine ideas came from the pen of William Ames the English puritan…” (p. 107)

Muller goes on to analyze Ames’s discussion, pointing out where it reflects Thomas’s thought. He concludes that Ames’s treatment “has been seen to display a fundamentally Thomistic approach to the ideas…” (p. 117) Muller notes that Ames had a “notable influence” “on this particular issue” on Maccovius and Mastricht. “Similar argumentation would also appear in shorter form in the theologies of such writers as… Cloppenburg… Maresius… Essenius… and Stephen Charnock.” (pp. 107-8)

Against Middle Knowledge

Turretin approvingly quotes an argument of Thomas against Middle Knowledge. (1.215)

No Passive Power in God, All Active

Thomas: “Power is twofold—namely, passive, which exists not at all in God; and active, which we must assign to Him in the highest degree… For active power is the principle of acting upon something else; whereas passive power is the principle of being acted upon by something else, as the Philosopher [Aristotle] says (Metaph. v, 17).” (Summa, pt. 1, q. 25, art. 1)

Gale: “Thus Aquinas, Summa, pt. 1, q. 25, ‘Seeing God is most in act, and simply perfect, it’s most agreeable to Him, that He be the principle of acts, and active power, but not passive.’” (4.358-59)

For more of the Reformed: ‘On the Distinction Between Passive Power (Denied) & Active Power (Affirmed) About God’.

Power is Infinite

Gale: “Hence it follows that God’s power is infinite. (1) The magnitude of power answers in proportion to the magnitude of essence: whence, where there are no terms of essence, there can be no terms of power. Essence and power in God are the same: wherefore his essence being infinite, his power also must be so. Creatures are limited in their essence, and therefore in their power: but the great God having no terms to his essence can admit none as to his power. What can be too difficult for the divine power, which brought all things out of nothing?… Thus Aquinas, Summa, pt. 1, q. 25, art. 2.

It’s necessary that the active power of God be infinite: for by how much the more perfect the form of any agent is, by so much the greater is his power in acting: whence the divine essence (whereby God acts) being infinite, his power also must be infinite. The like he adds, Contra Gentiles, bk. 1, ch. 43. Every thing acts according to its form, which is its essence, or a part thereof. Whence God’s essence being infinite, his power also is such.” (4.363-64)

Absolute vs. Ordained Power

“…the dominant medieval Nominalist distinction between the potentia Dei absoluta et ordinata… While it obviously reflects the traditional Aristotelian approach to being (comprised of potency and act), it appears not to have been used explicitly until Aquinas used it to differentiate between God’s hypothetical power per se and the power by which he works out his decrees…

William Twisse, whose thinking is very similar to Rutherford’s on this and other fronts, provides us with a good post-Reformation definition of these two terms… Although Rutherford uses the terminology of this distinction only sparingly… his strong voluntarism clearly evidence its influence.” (Guy Richard, Supremacy of God, pp. 97-98)

That this distinction was standard fare amongst the Reformed, see: ‘On the Power & Omnipotence of God’.

No 1st & 2nd Acts of Power in God

The first act of a power was considered the latent power, or capacity in something to do something. The second act was the exercised act, doing that thing.

Gale: “But to discourse more distinctly of the power of God, we must remember that God being a pure act, active power cannot in a proper strict notion be ascribed to God, as it denotes a first act, or principle of operation, distinct from the second act, or operation itself; but only as it respects the creature, which is properly said to receive the impressions and influences of God’s power. God is said to have an active power in regard of the effects produced by Him, as Suarez, Metaph. disp. 30, §17, p. 144… And more fully, Contra Gentiles, bk. 2, ch. 10, he [Thomas] informs us:

‘That power in God is not as a principle of action, but only as a principle of fact. And because all power imports respect to another as a principle, it is manifest, that all power is affirmed of God with respect to facts or things made, according to truth; and with respect to action, only according to our manner of understanding; as our intellect does, by diverse conceptions, consider both, namely the divine power, and its action. Whence if any actions agree to God, which pass not into some fact or effect, but remain in the agent; there can no power be affirmed as to such actions; more than according to our manner of understanding, not in truth. Such as are the actions of understanding and willing, which imply no power in God. The Power therefore of God, to speak properly, respects not such actions, but only effects.’

And the reason is evident; because power in God is the same with his essence, and therefore a pure act, not distinct from the second act, but only from the effect.” (4.358-360)

God can do Whatever can be Done, but Not what Cannot be Done

Leigh: “‘These things cannot be done,’ rather than ‘God cannot do them,’ says Aquinas.” (System of Divinity, p. 193)

Gale: “But now God’s essence being the most perfect pure Act, containing in it all perfection, hence it necessarily follows that his active virtue must extend itself to all things capable of any perfection, i.e. which imply not a contradiction or repugnance of existing. See Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, bk. 2, ch. 22.” (4.363)

Hatred & Wrath: Not Properly in God

Thomas, Summa, pt. 1, q. 19, art. 11

While the Reformed sometimes used a variety of language and conception about this, yet this teaching was not uncommon amongst the Reformed: ‘That Wrath, Hatred & Other such Negative Qualities Attributed to God are Not Proper to God or in Him, or Part of his Nature or Essence’.

Not a Respecter of Persons

Gale: “Acception of persons cannot have place in the distribution of good things merely gratuitous and free; but only in such as are of debt: But now God’s distributions of good things are merely gratuitous. Thus Aquinas: Acception of persons is only of a thing due; and therefore it cannot be ascribed to God.” (4.373)

Only God can do a Miracle

“…the definition stresses that God alone is able to perform miracles. Voetius was not singular in claiming this… In book III of his Summa contra gentiles Thomas Aquinas devoted a particular chapter to the rational demonstration Quod solus Deus facit miracula (that God alone does miracles, Chapter 102), and in the seventeenth century William Ames argued in his Medulla theologica: “…hence God only is the author of true miracles.” (Goudriaan, Reformed Orthodoxy & Philosophy, pp. 198-99) See also Thomas, Summa, pt. 1, q. 114, art. 4.

Perkins: “Now the effecting of a miracle in this kind is a work proper to God only. And no creature (man or angel) can do anything either above or contrary to nature, but He alone who is the Creator… God has reserved to Himself alone the power of abolishing and changing nature, the order whereof He set and established in the creation.” (Damned Art of Witchcraft, 1610, pp. 13, 18)

Trinity

Agreements

Trinity Not known from Nature

Distinction of the Divine Persons

Polanus cites Thomas positively on the distinction of the divine Persons. (Syntagma, bk. 3, ch. 8)

Zanchi Defining Essence & Persons

Zanchi on ousia, or “essence”: “The Latins understood it this way as well. Consider Augustine’s On the Trinity. (5.8-11) Thus also the Scholastics assert from Aristotle. (Aquinas, Summa, 1.29.2) ‘οὐσία signifies the quiddity [whatness] of a thing, which the definition signifies.’ Also ‘the essence is that which is signified by that definition. The definition, however, encompasses the individual principles.’ (Ibid.)” (Triune Elohim, p. 30)

Zanchi: “…it must now be explained what these words signified to the Fathers, beginning concerning οὐσία καὶ ὑπόστασις. These two words οὐσία (that is essence) and ὑπόστασις (that is subsistence)… About these same words, see Peter Lombard (Sent bk 1, dist 23-26) and Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologicae (1.29.2).” (Triune Elohim, ch. 2, p. 29)

“Several times in his defense of the Trinity Zanchi points out the harmony of his teaching with that of Saint Thomas. Zanchi like Thomas understands the three persons of the Trinity as three subsistent relations [which was distinct language amongst other views].” (Donnelly, Calvinst Thomism, p. 450)

Son Begotten by Father, not God’s Essence

Polanus teaches the essence of God does not beget the Son, but rather the Person of the Father does, citing Thomas. (Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ch. 6, §21, p. 122)

Spirit Proceeds from Father & Son

For Thomas, see ch. 24, ‘That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son’ in Contra Gentiles, bk. 4. For the Reformed, see, ‘On the Filioque Clause: the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father “and the Son”’.

All this is in contradistinction to Eastern Orthodoxy, which holds that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, albeit through the Son. There was some variation of detail amongst the Reformed.

Disagreements

Definition of Divine Persons: followed Medieval Reformulations

On the definition of ‘persons’ in the Trinity: “Both the Lutheran and the Reformed discussions manifest careful reading of the medieval systems, with the Reformed drawing more broadly on medieval reformulations and the Lutherans following the more conservative path marked out by Thomas Aquinas.” (Muller, Dictionary, persona)

Problems with a Psychological Model of the Trinity: the Son as the Father’s Self-Reflection & the Spirit as the Love Between Them

“4. Aquinas makes mistakes on the doctrine of God that are corrected by the Reformed, including… that the Son is the Father’s self-contemplation, and the Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son [Summa, pt. 1, qq. 35 & 37; Compendium of Theology, bk. 1, chs. 45 & 46], which the Leiden Synopsis takes exception to. As for the first part of that, Polanus carefully distinguishes the ways the generation of the Son is similar and dissimilar to self-knowledge or self-reflection, which is much better than Aquinas’s careless adoption of the teaching.” (Charles Johnson, ‘No, Roman Catholic authors are not better on the doctrine of God’)

“Taking the Leiden Synopsis as a standard manual of Reformed theology, the differences highlighted there on the doctrine of the Trinity primarily center around whether one may attempt to explain the inner workings of the Trinity, either by analogy or otherwise. Thesis 7.14 reads…

‘Therefore, the manner/mode of this mystery, unable to be explained to human reason, is rather to be adored with a humble faith, than defined with perilous forms of speech.’

One such perilous form of speech that the authors had in mind is psychological model of the Trinity, employed by Augustine and repeated in all subsequent Roman scholastic writers, that the generation of the Son by the Father is like when our own minds conceive of and understand themselves through self-reflection, and form some self-image, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both by a kind of reciprocal love, and that the Son is on this account called the Word of God, and the Spirit is the love of God. (See the Synopsis 8.15-17).

There are a couple problems with this manner of conceiving of the Trinity. One is that Scripture calls the Spirit the power of God, rather than his love (Luke 1:35). The other is that Scripture simply does not ever explain the doctrine of the Trinity in this way, and it’s a relatively complex speculation on something that is way beyond our understanding… We simply have no way of knowing if it’s on the right track, and the danger of promoting a false conception of the Trinity is obvious. Accordingly, the Leiden Synopsis concluded its mention of this doctrine with the words:

‘However, because Holy Scripture does not very clearly and distinctly assert this, we judge that a faithful profession of ignorance is preferable to a fearful assertion, and we prefer to await that day in which we shall look upon God face to face, and we shall perfectly and fully know what we here know in part.’ (Ibid. 8.17)” (Charles Johnson, ‘Reforming the Doctrine of the Trinity’)

See also Voet, Select Theological Disputations, vol. 2, ‘Exercitation on Thomas,’ pt. 2, p. 1215 (bot).

The Mode of the Personal Relations

Thomas, Summa, pt. 1, q. 29-44. Some of these sections of Thomas may be the most penetrating, deep, detailed and minutely precise teachings on the Trinity in Church history commonly available in English, or they may be the height of curious, presumptuous, unfounded and tenuous, vain, esoteric, philosophical speculation on the Trinity, a real spiritual danger not to be entangled with. The difference, and whether Thomas is right or not, and how far we should go with him in faithfulness to the Bible, or abstain, is not easily evaluated but by a trusted expert in the field laying out the issues clearly, reaching sensible conclusions manifest to all.

Fortunately Voet, recognizing this problem, does go through this section of Thomas, gleaning what is profitable and solid and casting out the chaff in Select Theological Disputations, vol. 5, ‘Notes & Excercitations on Thomas, Summa, pt. 1, Questions 27-44, on the Divine Persons,’ pt. 1, pp. 136-148.

The oultline is: (1) Division of the Disputations (Questions) of Thomas, (2) Terms used in his Disputations, (3) On Question 27, article 1, ‘Whether there is Procession in God?’, (4) Articles 3 & 4.

Predestination

Agreements

Thomas more Tolerable on Predestination

Tossanus: “Thomas Aquinas… In him two things are laudable: Firstly, that he argued very methodically. Secondly, that as well in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, as in his Summa Theologica, he has disputed more tolerably of justification and predestination than any of the rest [of the Medieval scholastics].” (Synopsis, p. 81)

Vermigli Reflecting Thomas

“Recent scholarship argues that Gregory of Rimini’s influence is greater than Aquinas [on Vermigli’s doctrine of predestination]. This essay provides strong evidence to the contrary for the influence of Aquinas on Vermigli’s early exposition of predestination… Vermigli not only drew upon Aquinas’s doctrine in general, as he does elsewhere, but reproduced the details of Aquinas’s article in the Summa on whether foreknowledge of merits is the cause of predestination.” (Sytsma, Abstract of “Vermigli Replicating Aquinas”)

Cannot be Voided

Thomas: “Then, when he says ‘and whom He predestined,’ [Rom. 8:30] he mentions what happens on the part of the saint as a consequence of predestination. First, he mentions the call, when he says, ‘whom He predestined, them He also called.’ For predestination cannot be voided: ‘the Lord of hosts has sworn: as I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand’ (Isa 14:24).” (On Romans, ch. 8, lect. 6, vv. 28-32, §707)

Includes All Contingencies

Gale: “There is nothing so contingent or free as to any second cause, but it is determined and foreordained by divine providence, as Aquinas accurately demonstrates, Contra Gentiles, bk. 3, ch. 72-74.” (4.455)

Efficient & Permissive

“Unlike Bullinger, Vermigli cast the doctrine of predestination in a far more scholastic form, exhibiting considerable dependence upon a Thomist construction of the divine counsel with its distinction between God’s ‘efficient’ and ‘permissive’ will.” (Venema, Bullinger & the Doctrine of Predestination, p. 74)

Gale: “The divine will also physically permits the moral pravity and obliquity of sin as that which may conduce to the advance of divine glory. For this greatly conduces to the illustration of divine providence, to permit some defects that may render the whole more beautiful, as Aquinas at large demonstrates, Contra Gentiles, bk. 3, ch. 71.” (4.458) For more of the Reformed on this, see ‘On the Effective Permission of Sin’.

‘Sounder Scholastics’; Relation of Predestination to Foreknowledge

“In one place [Jerome] Zanchi contrasts the ‘entirely Pelagian’ theology of William of Ockham and Gabriel Biel with the ‘sounder scholastics’ Lombard, Aquinas, Gregory of Rimini, and others who he says agree with Augustine on the relation of predestination to God’s foreknowledge of good works… elsewhere Zanchi wrote that in the “doctrine of God’s grace Thomas was purer than many other scholastics, for he followed Augustine when he could.” (Sytsma, A ‘Sounder Scholastic’)

Conditional Predestinarian Necessity with Contingent Secondary Causes

Turretin approvingly quotes Thomas in support that the length of life is variable according to secondary causes, but is immovable from divine foreknowledge, “not by an absolute but by a conditional necessity.” (1.323)

De Moor: “Thomas Aquinas will respond, Summa, part I, question CXVI, article III… ‘Fate, with respect to second causes, is movable: but, as it is subject to divine providence, it shares in its immobility, not indeed of a necessity absolute, but conditioned: according to which we say that this conditional is true and necessary: If God foresaw it, it is going to happen.” (Continuous Commentary, 6.12, ‘The Object of the Divine Decrees,’ pt. 2)

Disagreement

Soteriological & Christological

“Thus, the doctrine of predestination [for Bullinger] belongs, within the structure of the Second Helvetic Confession, not to theology proper, but to soteriology and Christology. Predestination is Christologically defined as an election in Christ, and is not treated within the context of a consideration of the divine decretum as part of the doctrine of God. Unlike the traditional order of theological topics followed by Thomas Aquinas and earlier scholasticism, predestination is not treated simply as a providentia specialis [special providence], but as the foundation for and expression of God’s saving grace in Christ.” (Venema, Bullinger & the Doctrine of Predestination, p. 92)

Election

Agreements

Predestination of Christ: Before Believers’

Owen appears to affirm with Thomas that “in the order of nature the predestination of Christ is antecedent unto the election of other particular or individual persons;” yet Owen adds the qualification, “but withal that it is consequential unto the decree concerning the permission of the fall of Adam.” (Exercitation 26 to Hebrews, §17) What Owen says in the few pages after these statements, under his more preferred view, does not contradict them.

Election by Grace

Colloquy of Thorn (1645): “Therefore, we hold fast to the conception of this deep mystery of election by grace, which, according to Scripture, Augustine defended in ancient times against Pelagius, and to which the most excellent teachers of the Roman Church themselves hold even today, especially followers of Thomas Aquinas.” (ed. Dennison, Reformed Confessions 4.217)

Unconditional Election

Thomas: “Yet why He chooses some for glory, and reprobates others, has no reason, except the divine will. Whence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi. in Joan.): Why He draws one, and another He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.” (Summa, pt. 1, q. 23, art. 5)

Thomas: “Regarding the order between foreknowledge and predestination some say that foreknowledge of good and of evil merits is the reason for predestination and reprobation, in the sense that God predestines certain ones, because he foresees that they will act well and believe in Christ. According to this the present text [Rom. 8:29] reads: ‘those whom he foreknew to be conformed to the image of his Son, he also predestined.’…

But under predestination falls every salutary benefit prepared for man from all eternity by God; hence all the benefits he confers on us in time he prepared for us from all eternity. Hence, to claim that some merit on our part is presupposed, the foreknowledge of which is the reason for predestination, is nothing less than to claim that grace is given because of our merits, and that the source of our good works is from us and their consummation from God.” (On Romans, ch. 8, lect. 6, vv. 28-32, §703)

On the Reformed, see: ‘Unconditional Election’.

Disagreement

No Predestination through Merit

Calvin: “Nor let us be detained by the subtlety of Thomas, that the foreknowledge of merit is the cause of predestination, not, indeed, in respect of the predestinating act, but that on our part it may in some sense be so called, namely, in respect of a particular estimate of predestination; as when it is said, that God predestinates man to glory according to his merit, inasmuch as He decreed to bestow upon him the grace by which he merits glory.” (Institutes 3.22.9)

Reprobation

Agreements

“Predestination” may encompass Foreordination of Reprobates

Perkins uses Aquinas as support that “predestination” may be spoken of to encompass the foreordination of reprobates. (Golden Chain, 1600, ch. 50, Error 1 of Papists, p. 149)

God’s Will: Ultimate Cause of Reprobation

Thomas: “For He could justly damn all people, and therefore it is no injustice if He elects some and reprobates others, between whom there was no difference in prior merits.” (Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 46, q. 2, art. 2, resp. to quaestiuncula 2, reply to obj. 5)

Polanus: “The orthodox fathers… and the very schoolmen themselves, Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas… do prove that the cause of eternal reprobation is not sin… Aquinas… evidently proves that there is no cause besides his will only why He chose the one or refused the other.” (Eternal Predestination, p. 153)

Reprobation does not Cause Sin

Polanus: “The effect of reprobation is not sin: and this does Thomas Aquinas acknowledge 1st part, q. 23, art. 3, and is clear by these reasons: 1. Because reprobation is the holy work of God and therefore not the cause of sin. 2. The Devil is the principal cause of sin. 3. Sin is not God’s effect, nor therefore of reprobation.” (Eternal Predestination, p. 190)

Disagreements

Number of Reprobates is Certain

Bucanus: “The error of Thomas Aquinas, who thought the number of the elect indeed to be certain, but the number of the reprobate uncertain.” (Institutions, ch. 36, p. 449)

Providence

Agreements

Only One First Principle

Witsius: “Reason, in this, concurs with Scripture. For if there were any cause besides God which could act independently of Him, it would follow, there were more first principles than one, as Thomas Aquinas reasons well… whose reasoning, as it is both solid, and very much to the purpose, we shall not scruple to give in his own words…” (Economy, bk. 1, ch. 8, §§16-17)

God Conserves All

Gale: “Now to say God has made a creature which needs not his conservative influx, what is this but to say that God made a creature which yet was not made by Him? So essential is divine conservation to the very essence and existence of a creature, as Bradwardine, p. 162. Thus also Aquinas demonstrates (Summa, pt. 1, q. 104), That it is not a thing communicable to any creature that it should conserve itself in being without God.” (4.462)

Gale: “That God is the necessary Conservator of all things, see Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, bk. 3, ch. 65.” (4.463)

Gale: “If God educed all things out of nothing by his efficacious wil, then it necessarily follows that the will of God must be the Conservatrix of all things: For all things are so far, and so long existent, as God wills they shall be. Indeed what is conservation but continued creation, or the continuation of a thing made in being? Is it not necessary then, that the same divine will that at first gave being to any thing, conserve the same thing in being? Thence Aquinas, pt. 1, Quaest. 104, proves that God conserves every thing by the same virtue and operation by which He produced it, i.e. by the efficience of his.” (4.462-63)

Providence is Certain & Perfect

Gale: “That the providence of God is most perfect [and certain], see Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, bk. 3, ch. 94; Alvarez, de Auxil., Disp. 28, p. 270.” (4.458)

God may Will One Thing Conditioned on Another

Voet agrees with and commends Thomas’s teaching that, while created things are not the antecedent cause of God’s will, yet God does will one thing as conditioned upon another willed thing. (Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ch. 5, §24, p. 85)

Leigh: “‘One may with the same will continuing immutable’ (says Aquinas) ‘will that now, this thing be done, and after the contrary; but the will should be changed if one began to will what he willed not before.'” (System of Divinity, p. 151)

Secondary Causes Ordered & Dependent on First Cause

Turretin affirms Thomas on Christian fate, being the “order of causes depending on divine providence by which it produces its own effects.” (1:497)

Necessary from First Cause, Free by Particular Causes

Turretin quotes Thomas to support that all things are necessary according to the First Cause, but may be free or contingent in relation to proximate and particular causes. (1.321)

Physical Predetermination & Concurrence

“Rutherford and the Reformed in general were concerned to defend a Thomistic harmonization of human free will with divine sovereignty.” (Guy Richard, Supremacy of God, p. 91)

Turretin affirms the position of “the Thomists and Dominicans” as “the orthodox approach”, “who urge a physical predetermination, that all second causes are predetermined to acting by God, and He not only acts with the second cause in the effect, but also immediately on itself, and so the will is by Him determined to will or nill this in particular, not only in good but also in evil actions.” Turretin then quotes Thomas and lists out five principles in which “he places the concourse of God in.” (1.502-3)

Gale: “So De Potentia Dei, q. 20, he [Thomas] proves that God is the cause of every action both natural and voluntary five ways:

(1) By giving virtue to act.
(2) By continued conservation of that virtue.
(3) By moving the agent to act, and applying the virtue to the action.
(4) As he is the principal Agent in every act, and all other agents but instruments.
(5) As He acts immediately in all acts of second agents.” (4.454)

On Points 4-5, see Rutherford, ‘Whether each wicked action, which is from sinning instruments, is done by God as by the principal agent? We affirm with a distinction against the Remonstrants.’ in Rutherford’s Examination of Arminianism: The Tables of Contents with
Excerpts from Every Chapter, trans. Charles Johnson & Travis Fentiman (RBO, 2019), pp. 67-69.

Gale:

“The will of man cannot be the solitary cause of its own act so as to exclude the efficience of the prime cause… It’s true, the will is a total cause in its own kind, yet not so as to exclude the total influx of God as the first cause. Yea, God is not only the total, but also the immediate cause of all voluntary acts; which argues the will’s total and immediate dependence on God in all its acts…

Thus Aquinas: Seeing every mutable and multiform must be reduced to some immobile principle, as unto its cause; and the intellect and will of man appear to be mutable and multiform, it’s necessary that they be reduced to some superior, immobile, immutable, and uniform cause. Yea, he says, that God is most intimely present to the will, and as it were acting in it, whiles He moves it to act.” (4.523-524)

“The sober scholastic divines have ever owned and approved a totality of divine concourse. So Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, bk. 3, ch. 70. It’s manifest, says he, that the same effect is ascribed to the natural and second cause and to the divine efficacy; not as if it were partly from God and partly from the natural agent; but the whole effect is from both in a different mode: as the same effect is attributed totally to the Instrument and yet totally to the principal cause.” (4.419)

“Every dependent as such is posterior to that on which it depends: so the creature as to God. Aquinas tells us that all second causes act by virtue received from the first cause, as instruments act by the direction of art; wherefore it is necessary that all other agents, whereby God fulfils the order of his gubernation [governance], act by virtue from God; and thence that they are posterior to Him.” (4.519-520)

Disagreements

Predestination Encompasses Smaller Things & Events

Turretin: “Thomas Aquinas especially asserts this: ’Although God may know the number of individuals, yet the number of oxen and gnats and other similar things was not preordained by Him’ (ST, I, Q. 23, Art. 7, p. 131).” (1.497-98)

Creation

Agreements

God does Not Need Creation, which is Contingent

“…[Junius taught that] the Scriptural knowledge reveals that creation relates to God by necessity, but God relates to them by ‘the freedom of His own will.’ This point is seen in Aquinas’s Summa as well, as he also argued that ‘there is no real relation in God to the creature; whereas in creatures there is a real relation to God.’” (Seung J. Lee, Orders of Nature & Grace, p. 4)

Only God can or does Create

Leigh: “Aquinas, pt. 1, q. 44, art. 1, has this question, ‘Whether it is necessary for every being to be created by God?’. The Schoolmen much dispute whether God may not give a creating power to a creature, and answer: no creature can be so elevated as to concur to the execution of an almighty act. In Scripture it is always made the work of God…” (System of Divinity, p. 225; see also Turretin 1.434)

Turretin affirms Thomas that the exclusivity of creative power belongs to God alone. (1:434)

Creative Act vs. Creation

Leigh: “…we must distinguish between the action itself and the work. God’s act in creating is the act of his will that such a creature should stand up in time; ‘[The act of] Creation is but the divine essence in relation to the creature.’ Aquinas. But if we consider opus, ‘the work’ itself, so the creatures have a being one after another.” (System of Theology, p. 148)

Creation owes its being to Participation in the Communicable & Communicated Attributes of God

For articles of Thomas teaching this, and resources of many of the Reformed following him in this, see ‘On the Communicable Attributes & Participation’.

God Created in 6 Regular Days

Thomas, Summa, pt. 1, qq. 67-74

The dominant Reformed view was six day creation:

WCF 4.1: “It pleased God… to create… the world, and all things therein… in the space of six days…[c]…

[c] Gen. 1. Heb. 11:3. Col. 1:16. Acts 17:24.

The Account of our First Parents & the Fall Historically Happened

Thomas: “As Augustine says (City of God, xiii, 21): ‘Nothing prevents us from holding, within proper limits, a spiritual paradise; so long as we believe in the truth of the events narrated as having there occurred.’ For whatever Scripture tells us about paradise is set down as matter of history; and wherever Scripture makes use of this method, we must hold to the historical truth of the narrative as a foundation of whatever spiritual explanation we may offer.” (Summa, pt. 1, q. 102, art. 1)

For the Reformed: ‘Commentaries on Genesis’ and ‘On the Fall of Man’.

Disagreement

Creation cannot be Eternal

Polanus and Turretin deny Thomas on the possible eternity of the world. (Syntagma, bk. 5, ch. 7; Institutes 1:436)

Angels

Agreement

Exist in Different Kinds of Time

Thomas, Quodlibet 2, q. 3, ‘Whether the time which moves a spiritual creature is the same as the time which measures the motions of corporeal things’ [No]

Mastricht: “the duration of their existing, and its measure, through which they are not under time, by which such things are measured which by their nature admit of a beginning and end; nor under eternity, which belongs only to him who by nature can experience neither beginning nor end; but under aevum, ‘forever’ [see also vol. 2, ch. 11, §8, pp. 217-18], by which those things are measured which include a beginning by nature, but exclude an end. This aevum is congruent with time, tempus, in this, that not only does it imply a beginning of duration, but also flux or succession; this aevum is congruent with eternity in that it excludes an end of its duration. It differs from time in that it excludes an end, and from eternity in that it includes a beginning and flux.” (TPT, vol. 3, bk. 3, ch. 7, §17, p. 184)

Nature of an Angel Assuming a Body

“… examples such as the angels of Genesis 18 and 19. But, because we know that the angels and humans are different kinds, the relationship that the angels have to these bodies is not like the relationship that your soul has to your body (Heb. 2:14-17). Rather, the relationship between an angel and the rarefied body it ‘assumes’ is an extrinsic relationship produced by divine power for God’s purpose in sending a message (ST I.50.2). In contrast, your relationship to your body is intrinsic and is based on the way God made you a human person.

These distinctions, which he [Thomas] works out in some careful detail, capture the tradition of reflection to his point in history, as found in John Damascene (De Fide Orthodoxa), Gregory Nazianzen (Carmina 1.1.7), Augustine (Enchiridion 59), Jerome (Contra Jovinianus 2.27). They are reflected without critical explanation also in Luther (Table Talk 565) and Calvin (Institutes 1.14.5).” (Gilhooly, ‘Angelic Doctor’s Angelic Doctrine’)

Mixed & Indifferent

Not in a Place Strictly

Heidegger: “Angels have limits both to their essence and to their operation, or, as it is termed, a sphere of activity. But it is difficult for us to understand… It is at least certain that they are not in a place strictly or locally so as to be extended or diffused in it; for they are not bodies, which alone are extended in space of their own and commensurate with it… Thomas [Quodlibet 1, q. 3, art. 1] is more correct [than Duns Scotus] in denying that they are in a place without operating, because they are everywhere and operate by knowledge and will, even ad extra, by glorifying God, and serving Him among men and all other creatures. So that they may be said to be in a place not because they are bounded by a place, but because they themselves rather bound the place by their operation, as Thomas rightly says… Therefore angels whom no medium resists must move very swiftly… Nor does it follow from this that angels move in a moment or by deserting their localization acquire a new one in a moment… as well as the distance between the termini, which involves some measure of delay.” (Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ch. 10, §§21-22, p. 209) Compare Mastricht, TPT, vol. 3, bk. 3, ch. 7, §15, pp. 183-84.

A Prime Angel led First Revolt, Millions Following

Leigh: “It was in all likelihood some prime angel of Heaven that first started aside from his station and led the ring of this highest and first revolt; millions sided with him and had their part both in his sin and punishment… Aquinas, part 1, q. 63, art. 8. Yet Voetius seems to doubt of this.” (System of Divinity, p. 281)

Good or Bad Angels Stronger?

Leigh: “The Devil is very powerful, Eph. 6:12. The devils are called ‘principalities and powers.’ Alexander of Hales says they have as great power as the good angels; wicked men may be stronger than the saints. ‘Sin does not remove nature,’ say the Schoolmen. Yet the Schoolmen generally say that the lowest order of good angels is stronger than the highest order of the evil angels. And Aquinas part 1, q. 109, art. 4, says, ‘The good angels have precedence [praelationem] over evil ones.'” (System of Divinity, pp. 282-83)

Disagreements

Angels Differ Not in Species

Thomas, Disputed Questions, Spiritual Creatures, art. 8

On Thomas: “The ‘angelness’ of a particular angel – say, Michael – belongs only to Michael according to Aquinas. Since he has no body, his ‘form’ is what distinguishes him from the other angels. Yet, we can also speak of the nature that is ‘shared’ among all the creatures that are called ‘angels.’ This fact is the reason, of course, that the angels can all be called ‘angels.'” (Gilhooly, ‘Angelic Doctor’s Angelic Doctrine’)

Mastricht says the angels “differ not as species, as the Thomists among the papists suppose, from the fact that individuals are not constituted except through materia signata, ‘designated matter,’ which is not present in angels, but as singulars, because they partake of the common nature of a spirit—a distinction that is especially evident in separated souls.” (TPT, vol 3, ch. 7, p. 184)

Cannot Know the Intricacies of the Orders of Angels

Turretin: “…we do not deny that there is an order among the good angels… But this [cautious approach] is not the opinion of the Romanists and especially of the Scholastics. The more easily to obtrude their figment of an ecclesiastical hierarchy, they have feigned another hierarchy of angels in heaven, whose orders, duties and properties they describe as if they had lived there for many years and had learned accurately that whole polity… Thomas Aquinas and all Scholastics have drawn the same.” (1.551-52)

Demons are Irrecoverable Not by Nature or Absolutely, but by God’s withholding Grace

Turretin: “Thomas Aquinas, Cajetan and others are deceived, who think that they [angles] could not (if it so pleased God) be restored to their former state because they are inflexible in their own nature. For what is in its own nature inflexible (if it seems proper to God) can be bent by the powerful efficacy of divine grace (as was done in the case of men’s sins). Therefore the true cause of that severity is to be sought nowhere else than in the most free good pleasure of God…” (1.603)

Leigh:

“They fell irrecoverably being obstinate in wickedness. The Schoolmen and Fathers give reasons why they fell so, and not man. Aquinas gives this reason from the condition of an angel’s will, whose nature is such (they say) that what it has chosen with full deliberation, it cannot refuse it again: but this is no good reason, because the choice made cannot alter the nature of the will…

The best answer is this, when they had sinned, God out of his justice refused to give them any help of grace, by which they might rise from sin, and without which it was impossible for them to recover: and this is the apostle’s argument [2 Pet. 2:4], If God were so severe that He would not give these so great and noble creatures time of repentance, neither would He others. The angels were intellectual spirits, dwelling in heavenly places in the presence of God, and the light of his countenance, and therefore could not sin by error or mispersuasion, but of purposed malice, which is the sin against the Holy Ghost and irremissible. But man fell by mispersuasion, and being deceived by the lying suggestion of the spirit of error.” (System of Divinity, p. 281)

Angels cannot have Offspring with Humans, Gen. 6

Mastricht held that the “sons of God” (Gen. 6:2) were the posterity of Seth, the foundation of the Church. Thomas and “the majority of Scholastics”, with Zanchi, held that angels can “generate in assumed bodies,” which Mastricht denies. (TPT, vol. 6, bk. 8, ch. 1, §17)

No Promise of a Particular Guardian Angel for every Human Person

Thomas: “…guardianship is due to all men from the infusion of the rational soul, through which they are ordered to the end of salvation, up till death… Even the Antichrist will have a guardian angel. For a universal law should not be changed on account of a single person.” (Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 11, art. 3)

The Reformed, as early as Calvin, affirmed the ministry of angels to God’s saints (as is seen through Scripture), yet they rightly taught there is no Scriptural warrant that every saint, much less every human person, has one particular guardian angel assigned to him or her:

Voet

Syllabus, sect. 1, tract 3, Appendix (1), ‘Of the Guardianship of Angels’
Select Theological Disputations, vol. 1, 46. ‘Of the Heavenly Hierarchy & of Guardian Angels’, pp. 882-906

Turretin: “Why and for what does God use the ministry of angels? Is a particular angel assigned as a perpetual guardian to each believer? We deny.” (1.555-60)

H. Venema, Institutes of Theology, ch. 21, pp. 369-70

Man

Agreements

Junius on Human Nature

“Junius’s construal of the perfection of human nature manifests various layers of natural, mereological, and teleological acts, which, not surprisingly, was how Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–74) formulated the concept…” (Seung J. Lee, Orders of Nature & Grace, p. 4)

Why Man Stands Upright

Leigh: “It was convenient for man to have an erect stature, 1. Because the senses were given to man not only to procure the necessaries of life, as they were to other living creatures, but also to know; 2. That the inward faculties may more freely exercise their operations, while the brain is elevated above all the parts of the bo∣dy. Aquinas part 1, q. 91, art. 3, he gives two more reasons there of it.” (System of Divinity, p. 291)

In Integrity Adam’s Bodily Desires were Subjected to Virtuous Reason

Thomas: “As a result of original justice, the reason had perfect hold over the lower parts of the soul, while reason itself was perfected by God, and was subject to Him. Now this same original justice was forfeited through the sin of our first parent…” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 85, art. 3, ‘I answer’)

Turretin:

“So far is the inferior part of the soul [the carnal desires] from contending of itself with the superior [that which is rational and spiritual] that on the contrary (according to the Philosopher [Aristotle]), it was born to obey (peitharchein pephyke) and is naturally subordinated to it (Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics 10.9.4 [Loeb, 628-29]).

The propensions of both can be diverse, but not contrary in themselves (rather only accidentally on account of sin). Man could be carried naturally towards both sensible and spiritual good, but in their own order and without a rebellion between the flesh and the spirit. Thus the soul would always hold dominion and the flesh obey and subject all its own motions and inclinations to it.” (1.473)

Psychology: Irascible (Passions) vs. Concupiscible (Desires)

Thomas:

“Again, there are four of the soul’s powers that can be subject of virtue, as stated above (q. 61, art. 2), viz., the reason, where prudence resides, the will, where justice is, the irascible, the subject of fortitude, and the concupiscible, the subject of temperance.

Therefore insofar as the reason is deprived of its order to the true, there is the wound of ignorance; insofar as the will is deprived of its order of good, there is the wound of malice; insofar as the irascible is deprived of its order to the arduous, there is the wound of weakness; and insofar as the concupiscible is deprived of its order to the delectable, moderated by reason, there is the wound of concupiscence.” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 85, art. 3, ‘I answer’)

Turretin: “God has planted two principles in the mind of man: the avoidance of evil and the desire of good; the irascible (to thymikon) and concupiscible appetite (to epithymetikon). Viewed in the genus of being and physically, these are neither good nor bad, but mean and indifferent, drawing all their moral goodness and evil from the quality of the objects about which they are exercised.” (2.134)

“Voetius approvingly cites what the Jesuit theologian Martin Becanus regarded as uncontroversial between himself and his Calvinist opponents, that namely original sin–as Thomas Aquinas indicated–includes ‘four wounds of nature’: ‘ignorance in the intellect, malice and aversion in the will, weakness in the appetitus irascibilis [passions], and concupiscence in the appetitus concupiscibilis [concupiscence].'” (Goudriaan, Reformed Orthodoxy & Philosophy, p. 42)

Natural vs. Sinful Concupiscence

Thomas: “…concupiscence is natural to man, insofar as it is subject to reason: whereas, insofar as it is goes beyond the bounds of reason, it is unnatural to man.” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 85, art. 3, reply to obj. 1)

Musculus:

“Before the sin of our first parents, the concupiscence in our nature was simple, natural, orderly (and necessary, like as other affections were, so that it was subject unto no malice: such as that which is in us yet, as when we be hungry we be desire meat; when we thirst, drink; when we be a cold, we desire warmth… and this we do by the only course of nature, without any matter of sin. But after that our first parents had drunk of the poison of the Serpent, this strength of concupiscence is depraved in our hearts, and thereby it came that (passing the limits of nature and necessity) it extends itself unto those things which it is not lawful to desire…

Therefore the affections of concupiscence are of two sorts, natural and corrupt. The natural be set in us by God, and so much not unlawful, but that they be also necessary… The corrupt affections of concupiscence be they when the limits of necessity are exceeded and men follow pleasures, curiosity, glory, ambition and other vices, and that contrary unto the law of charity and the purity of holiness.” (Common Places, 1563, The Tenth Precept, fol. 103.a – 104.a)

Turretin:

“Therefore, we must accurately distinguish here the appetite (which was natural and ordinate) from that which was preternatural and inordinate. The latter is repugnant to reason, but not equally the former.” (1.473)

“God has planted two principles in the mind of man: the avoidance of evil and the desire of good; the irascible (to thymikon) and concupiscible appetite (to epithymetikon). Viewed in the genus of being and physically, these are neither good nor bad, but mean and indifferent, drawing all their moral goodness and evil from the quality of the objects about which they are exercised.” (2.134)

Tree of Life: no Innate Power for Immortality

Turretin: “Some maintain that it [the Tree of Life] was so called effectively because it had an innate power of vivifying man… and of conferring upon him absolute immortality (the opinion of Bellarmine and other papists, but deservedly rejected by Scotus, Thomas Aquinas and others). A finite power could not have an infinite efficacy of extending life to an infinite time.” (1.580)

Eve as a Helpmeet

Leigh: “She was not made of his head, because she should not rule over him; nor of his feet, because she should not be servilely subject to him. So Aquinas.” (System of Divinity, p. 288)

Souls are Created Immediately by God

This is in contrast to the soul passing over from the parents to the child (Traducianism). On Thomas, see Contra Gentiles, bk. 2:

86, ‘That the Human Soul is Not Transmitted with the Semen’
87, ‘That the Human Soul is Brought into Being Through the Creative Action of God’
88, ‘Arguments Designed to Prove that the Human Soul is Formed from the Semen’
89, ‘Solution of the Preceding Arguments’

Creationism was the majority view of the Reformed (with some exceptions). See ‘On the Origin of the Soul: Creationism, Traducianism etc.’

Relation of Body & Soul

For some examples of Thomas’s Aristotelian hylemorphism, that a human person is composed of matter (the body) and form (the soul):

Summa, pt. 1

q. 75, art. 5, ‘Whether the soul is composed of matter and form?’ [No, only form]
q. 77, art. 8, ‘Whether all the powers of the soul remain in the soul after death?’ [No]

Disputed Questions

Soul, q. 1, ‘Whether the human soul can be a form and a particular thing’ [Yes]
Spiritual Creatures, art. 4, ‘Whether the whole soul is in every part of the body?’ [Yes]

“Gisbertus Voetius’s view of soul and body was formed before [Renee] Descartes developed his dualistic conception, and when the Utrecht theologian became aware of the Cartesian view he rejected it. In fact he remained rather close to the conception that Thomas Aquinas formulated in his Summa theologica. In short, Voetius held that in the human being soul and body are united in a substantial way–not accidentally–that is to say, soul and body are two essential parts of the human being that is composed of them as form (the soul) and matter (the body)…

Van Mastricht shares his predecessor’s [Voet’s] definition of the soul as a form. Consistently, his view is that the human soul is the informing form (forma informans) of the body, and not–as Plato’s comparison with a ‘skipper (nauclerus)’ seems to suggest–its assisting form (forma assistens, such as ‘does not bestow essence, but only operation’).” (Goudriaan, Reformed Orthodoxy & Philosophy, pp. 234, 243) For more, see ‘On a Hylemorphist View of the Soul’.

Mixed or Indifferent

Whether the Soul is Immortal in Itself

“The natural immortality of the human soul was hotly debated in the sixteenth century, especially by many [Romanist] Paduan Aristotelians. Cardinal Cajetan and Peter Martyr did not think immortality could be proved rationally; Calvin hardly attempts a demonstration. In contrast Zanchi defends immortality passionately; he provides a careful exegesis of fourteen passages from Aristotle to show that the philosopher did not oppose immortality, then advances twenty-five arguments for the immortality of the soul, most of them strictly metaphysical, many echoing Saint Thomas.” (Donnelly, Calvinst Thomism, p. 449)

Nature of the Intellect

Zanchi: “…it does not escape me what others have written, chiefly the Scholastics, and especially Aquinas in Quaestionibus Disputatis, where he defines the potential intellect, neither as substance nor accident, but something in between both. Whatever the truth may be, it is not my task to dispute it in these books.” (‘To the Reader’ in Triune Elohim, p. 7)

Number of Man’s Internal Senses

“Zanchi’s whole philosophical psychology follows Thomas closely, except that he posits three instead of four internal senses.” (Donnelly, Calvinst Thomism, p. 449)

Disagreements

Image of God is More than in the Mind

Thomas: “…this image of God is not found even in the rational creature except in the mind;” (Summa, pt. 1, q. 93, art. 6)

Turretin: “The image consists antecedently in nature (as to the spirituality and immortality of the soul); formally in rectitude or original righteousness; consequently in the dominion and immortality of the whole man (which was the brightness of that shining image and the rays striking out in all directions which illumined the whole man).” (1.466)

Original Righteousness was a Concreated Gift in Adam

“superadded gift; specifically, the gift of grace superadded to human nature after creation but before the fall… Aquinas maintained that the donum superadditum was part of the original constitution of man and that its loss was the loss of the original capacity for righteousness… The Reformers and the Protestant orthodox reject the idea of any remaining ability in man to do good and argue the necessity of an effective gratia paeveniens, or prevenient grace. In place of the idea of doum superadditum, they argue that the original righteousness of Adam and the posse non pecarre, or ability not to sin, was a donum concreatum, a gift given in the original constitution of man.” (Muller, Dictionary, donum superadditum)

Owen: Adam’s original righteousness consisted of “An ability of mind and will, with a readiness of compliance in his affections, for a due regular performance of all duties, and abstinence from all sin. These things belonged unto the integrity of his nature, with the uprightness of the state and condition wherein he was made. And all these things were the peculiar effects of the immediate operation of the Holy Ghost; for although this rectitude of his nature be distinguishable and separable from the faculties of the soul of man, yet in his first creation they were not actually distinguished from them, nor superadded, or infused into them when created, but were concreated with them—that is, his soul was made meet and able to live to God, as his sovereign lord, chiefest good, and last end.” (Works 3.102)

Turretin: “Was original righteousness natural or supernatural? The former we affirm, the latter we deny against the Romanists.” (1.470-73)

Time of Ensoulment in Womb

“Mastricht received and defended the dominant view of his own day, as well as much of Christian antiquity, that human life did not begin at conception, but at around forty-two days thereafter, roughly when the heart begins to beat and limbs and distinctive human features of the embryo begin to appear. At this time God infuses the soul into the prepared body… Mastricht defended this view from Scripture and natural philosophy though he was aware of alternate positions…

The Medieval scholastics, holding to hylemorphism with Mastricht, that the soul is the form of the body in the Aristotelian sense [Thomas, Summa, pt. 1, q. 76, art. 5], largely thought that the zygote develops with a soul capable of growth and reproduction (a vegetative soul), to a soul exercising motion and sensation (a sensitive or animal soul), to a human soul. Mastricht denied this…” (Travis Fentiman, ‘An Introduction to Peter van Mastricht on Christ’s Human Nature as Non-Personal, the Time of Ensoulment in the Womb…’, RBO, 2024, p. 10)

Free Choice

Agreements

How Intellect & Will Interrelate

Gillespie affirms Thomas that “the will applies the understanding unto, or hinders it from the discerning of good and evil; yet the will itself has not light in itself, but is guided by the light of the understanding,” and “the goodness of the will depends on right reason as its rule.” (Miscellany Questions, 1649, p. 145)

Will’s Choices are Determined by God

Freewill of Itself has no Power but to Sin

“Zanchi insists that his teaching on human freedom after original sin agrees with that of Thomas and claims that Thomas teaches that free will of itself has no power but to sin.” (Donnelly, Calvinst Thomism, p. 451)

Faith is Partly in the Will

Turretin denies Thomas on faith residing solely in the intellect (2:564), saying “Bellarmine and other Romanists falsely place faith so in the intellect as to deny it to be in the will” – and then he quotes from Thomas.

Agreement with a Qualification

Nature & Kinds of Free Choice

Calvin: “4… Peter Lombard, and the Schoolmen… First, they agree that the term will (arbitrium) has reference to reason, whose office it is to distinguish between good and evil, and that the epithet free properly belongs to the will, which may incline either way. Wherefore, since liberty properly belongs to the will, Thomas Aquinas says (Part I, Quaest. 83, Art. 3) that the most congruous definition is to call free will an elective power, combining intelligence and appetite, but inclining more to appetite. We now perceive in what it is they suppose the faculty of free will to consist, viz., in reason and will…

5… The schools, however, have adopted a distinction which enumerates three kinds of freedom (see Lombard, Lib. II, Dist. 25 [and Thomas, Sentences Commentary, bk. 2, dist. 25]), the first, a freedom from necessity; the second, a freedom from sin; and the third, a freedom from misery: the first naturally so inherent in man, that he cannot possibly be deprived of it; while through sin the other two have been lost. I willingly admit this distinction, except in so far as it confounds necessity with compulsion [as Thomas, Sentences Commentary, bk. 2, dist. 25, art. 2]. How widely the things differ, and how important it is to attend to the difference, will appear elsewhere.

6. All this being admitted…” (Institutes 2.2.4-6)

Disagreement

Essence of Liberty

Leigh cites Thomas positively on this topic, but that is the exception, as most of the Reformed disagreed, such as Rutherford and Turretin below.

Leigh: “[Freewill is] A mixed power of understanding and will, says Mr. [William] Perkins. It can be only in an intelligent nature, as Bellarmine proves, lib. 3, de Grat. & Lib. Arb., c. 15, and the understanding though it be not formally free, yet it is radically, and the liberty of the will arises from the indifferency of the judgement. The liberty of the will properly consists in choosing that which the understanding judges best. ‘The root of liberty is constituted in the free judgment of reason.’ Aquinas.” (System of Divinity, p. 495)

Leigh: “All liberty must proceed from Liberum judicium [a free judgment], a judgement of the understanding not mislead by sensitive objects. Aquinas.” (System of Divinity, p. 542)

Rutherford: “I deny that liberty of contradiction belongs to the essence and nature of liberty. It’s enough to make liberty, that

1. It proceeds not from a principle determined by nature, to one kind of action, so the sun is not free to give light.
2. That the principle be free of all foreign force, the malefactor goes not freely to the place of execution, when hailed to it.
3. That it proceed from deliberation, reason, election, and wisdom, seeing no essential connexion, or necessary, or natural relation, between the action and the end thereof of themselves, but such as may be dispensed with;

If these three be, though there be a necessity, in some respect, from a free decree, and a free promise, though there be not liberty of contradiction, simply to do, or not to do, yet is not any degree, of the essence of liberty removed.” (Christ Dying, p. 266)

Turretin: “Whether every necessity is repugnant to freedom of will. We deny against the Papists and Remonstrants.’ (Institutes, 1.661-65) See also on the Reformed: ‘On Free Choice’.

Evil

See also on Evil above.

Agreements

Slights Majesty of God

Witsius: “For ‘the sinner,’ as Thomas justly said, ‘as much as in him lies, destroys God and his attributes,’ slighting that majesty of God…” (Economy, bk. 1, ch. 5, §23) For the same: Cocceius, Doctrine of the Covenant, ch. 2, §43.

A Partial Privation

Heidegger and Bucanus, in answering whether sin is a privation or something positive, use a distinction of Thomas between a pure, or total, privation, and a non-pure privation, or one that is partial. Sin is a non-pure, or partial, privation, “because it leaves something original in the habit [inward being and disposition], namely a propension and proclivity to all evil, and the actual (sin) removes not action, but rightness of action. (Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ch. 15, §6, pp. 323-24)

Distinction between Mortal & Venial Sin

Thomas taught the distinction between mortal and venial sins (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 88). The Reformed typically affirmed the categories as well, but defined them in different, true and appropriate respects; see ‘On the Classifications & Degrees of Sin, & the Distinction Between Venial & Mortal Sin’.

Natural vs. Sinful Concupiscence

Wolleb appears to rely on Thomas in distinguishing natural, lawful concupiscence from sinful concupiscence. (Compendium, ch. 10, prop. 3 in ed. Beardslee, p. 69 fn.)

Consent to Others’ Sins

Gillespie affirms Thomas that we may consent to the sins of others two ways: 1. Directly by counseling, approving, etc. 2. Indirectly, by not hindering when we can. (Sermon on Aug. 27, 1645, p. 17)

Disagreements

All Sins are Mortal

Turretin: ‘Whether all sins are of themselves and in their own nature mortal. Or whether any venial sin can be granted. The former we affirm; the latter we deny against the papists [including Thomas, Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 88].’ (1.596)

The Will’s Full Consent is Not Necessary to Sin

Thomas:

“And wherever there is concupiscence, there is either venial or mortal sin, provided that it is allowed to dominate the reason… sin rules in the flesh when, by giving consent to it, concupiscence reigns in the heart.” (On the Ten Commandments, 10^th Commandment)

“…sin is nothing else than a bad human act. Now that an act is a human act is due to its being voluntary…” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 71, art. 6)

For the Reformed: ‘On Concupiscence, & that Desires of & Pre-Motions to Sin are Sinful, Even Without an Explicit Consent of the Will’.

Specific Sins

Agreements

Pride

Leigh: Pride “is Inordinatus appetitus propriae excellentiae, ‘an overweening conceit of a man’s own excellency,’… The root of all other sins (says Aquinas) ex parte aversionis is superbia, ex parte conversionis avaritia [from the part of aversion is pride, from the part of conversion is avarice]. (System of Divinity, p. 370)

Divination

Leigh provides a definition by Thomas for divination: “Divination is some pre-announcement of future things.” (System of Divinity, p. 354)

Witchcraft is Real

Thomas: “certain people have said that witchcraft did not exist in the world, except in the impressions of men… But this is against the authorities of the saints, who say that demons have power over bodies and over the imaginations of men, when they are permitted to by God. And this is how sorcerers can do certain works of magic through them. Now the opinion mentioned above proceeds from a root of lack of faith, or disbelief, for they do not believe that the demons exist except in the imagination of the common people alone… But these notions are repudiated by the true faith…” (Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 34, art. 3)

The main share of the Reformed held witchcraft could be real, though note the opposing minority, protestant opinion:

Beeke, Joel & Todd Rester – Preface, ‘Defense of the Reality of Demons & Magic’ in Peter van Mastricht, Theoretical Practical Theology (RHB, 2021), vol. 3, pp. xxxix-xliii

Blasphemy

Definition of Blasphemy

Leigh: “The School divines thus describe it [blasphemy], If one deny anything concerning God which agrees to Him, or affirm any thing of Him which does not agree to Him; or when that is attributed to the creature which belongs to the Creator. See Aquinas, secunda secundae, q. 13, art. 1.” (System of Divinity, p. 343)

The Damned Blaspheme

Leigh: “Its a question among the Schoolmen, Whether the damned blaspheme? Aquinas thinks it credible that after the resurrection they shall vocally blaspheme, as the saints shall vocally praise God: And some say, ‘So long as the damned blaspheme God, in this they sin, because they are bound to an eternal law.’ After this life the demerit of sin ceases, [as] you shall give an account for the things done in the body, 2 Cor. 5:10. The soul sins after, but shall not be judged for those sins; as in Heaven good actions ‘pertain to the reward of blessedness,’ so in hell evil actions ‘pertain to the penalty of damnation,’ says Aquinas in the same place.” (System of Divinity, p. 344)

Usury

Leigh refers to Thomas (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 78), amongst other authors, on usury. (System of Divinity, bk. 4, ch. 24, ‘Usury’, p. 386)

Lying & Slander

Turretin: “in a certain case, as Thomas Aquinas acknowledges, it is not only lawful, but also praiseworthy ‘to keep secret the truth, when you are not bound to bring it forward; still it is lawful in no case, says he, to declare a falsehood to anyone.’” (2:73)

Turretin affirms Thomas on what constitutes the nature of a lie. (2:129-30)

Leigh divides the kinds of lying, as far as its end, into “hurtful, officious, and [a] merry lie,” citing Augustine and Thomas. “The end of a pernicious lie is to hurt, of an officious lie to profit, of a merry lie to delight.” (System of Divinity, p. 366)

Leigh defines slander from Aquinas: “Detraction is the disparagement of another’s reputation through words.” (System of Divinity, p. 380)

Mixed

Taking Interest (or Usury)

Thomas held all taking of interest is wrong: Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 78, art. 1.

The Reformed were mixed on whether taking some interest was lawful or not:

Against: Musculus, Elton, Bacon, Downame, Knewstub, Fenton.

For: Calvin, Rivet, Zanchi, Perkins, Willet, Ames, Voet, Hall, Turretin.

See ‘On Usury & taking Interest’. Voet gives many more references.

Disagreements

Blasphemy from Sudden Passion: Not Venial

Clarkson: “They determine in their schools that of all sins those are the greatest and most heinous… Now it will be but a venial fault to blaspheme the divine Majesty in such a manner, when it is out of lightness of mind; or when it is sudden from passion: so Sylvester, after Aquinas. (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 13, a. 2)” (Practical Divinity of Papists, pp. 221-22)

Sin Against the Holy Spirit & Sin unto Death

Agreements

Worse than Adam’s First Sin

Leigh: “That first sin of his [Adam] (excepting only the sin against the Holy Ghost) was in sundry respects the most heinous sin that ever mortal man did commit; Hildersham on Ps. 51:5, Lect. 57; See Aquin 2. q. 163, art. 3.” (System of Divinity, pp. 305-6)

Relation to Holy Spirit

Leigh says to see Thomas, after quoting Rivet, to support the statement: “It is called the sin against the Holy Ghost, not that it is only against the third Person in the Trinity, the three Persons make but one Divine essence; but because it is a direct opposition and resistance of the light of knowledge with which the Holy Ghost has enlightened it.” (System of Divinity, p. 345)

Is the Same as Sin unto Death

Thomas:

“Objection 5… But sin unto death is sin against the Holy Spirit, as the Master [Peter Lombard] says….

Reply to Objection 5… so also among sins it is only those sins among mortal sins that are called “sins unto death” that, as far as they themselves go, are unforgivable. Therefore, sin is called “mortal” from the first death, but “unto death” because of the second death.” (Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 43, q. 1, art. 2; the ‘Exposition of the Text’ on this Distinction confirms this)

For the Reformed: ‘That the Sin unto Death is the Same as the Sin Against the Holy Spirit’.

Disagreements

What it is

Thomas: “to sin through malice is to sin against the Holy Ghost.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 14, art. 1)

Turretin: “We say it is a universal apostasy from true Christianity or of the truth of the Gospel (of which one is convicted in his conscience); a total and persevering denial, hatred and resistance (whether sophistical or tyrannical) proceeding not from a common human weakness, but from special and deliberate wickedness and direct, diabolical hatred of it, joined with a contempt for all the means of salvation and final impenitency.” (1.647)

Turretin’s view was the dominant view of the Reformed: ‘Of the Sin Against the Holy Spirit’.

Sin unto Death: Not to be Prayed for

Thomas: “‘I do not say that anyone should pray for him.’ [1 Jn. 5:16]… then it must be understood in the sense that not just anyone should pray for such a sinner, since the conversion of these kinds of sinners is, as it were, miraculous. Hence just as not just anyone should pray for miracles to be performed, except great and holy men, neither should just anyone pray for the conversion of these kinds of sinners. Even so, according to the form of the words, it is not forbidden for there to be prayer for such a person.” (Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 43, ‘Exposition of the Text’)

WCF 21.4: “Prayer is to be made for things lawful,[n] and for all sorts of men living… but not for… those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death.[q]

[n] 1 John 5:14
[q] 1 John 5:16”

Not Forgivable

Turretin denies Thomas on sin against the Holy Spirit being possibly forgiveable, while affirming him saying it won’t actually be forgiven. (1:650)

Christ’s Person & Natures

Agreements

Christ’s Divinity

Gale: “This heresy of Samosatenus denying the divinity of Christ was revived by Arius, and that from the very same foundation of Platonic philosophy, yea in the very same school of Alexandria. This is well explicated by Aquinas, Summa, pt. 1, q. 32, art. 1.

We find, says he, in the books of the Platonists, that in the beginning the Word was: by which ‘Word’ they understood not a person in the Trinity, but an Ideal Reason, by which God made all things — whence sprang the error of Origen, and Arius who followed the Platonists herein. So again in what follows, q. 34, art. 1, Aquinas assures us that Origen laid the foundation of Arianism by affirming that the Word in divine matters signified only metaphorically, not properly…” (3.139)

Personal Union: Created

The personal union of Christ’s natures, being something that had not existed before the incarnation, can hence only be a created relation. Aquinas, Article 7, ‘Whether the Union Itself is Something Created? [Yes]’ in Summa, pt. 3, question 2, ‘Of the Mode of Union of the Word Incarnate’. Matthew Martinius (d. 1630; Reformed), Thelogia de Unica Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, pp. 578–79, §8, ‘Whether the Union is Something Created? [Yes]’.

Extra Calvinisticum

“Thomas Aquinas begins Summa Theologicae Part III with reflections on the Incarnation of Christ… This section of the Summa reinvigorated Chalcedonian Christology in the West… Aquinas repeatedly affirms that Christ remains omnipresent according to his divine nature even while taking to himself a finite and circumscribed human nature, what will come to be known as the extra Calvinisticum in later centuries. Christ’s presence extra carnem, beyond the flesh, in no way separates the person of Christ but rather secures his presence with the Church.” (K.J. Drake, ‘Beyond the Flesh’)

Christ’s Human Nature: an Individual Thing

Aquinas: “…although this human nature [of Christ] is a kind of individual in the genus of substance, it has not its own personality, because it does not exist separately, but in something more perfect, viz. in the Person of the Word.”

“[Zanchi:] ’…He is not therefore to be said to have assumed either a persona or an huphistamenon [a susbsisting person], but–a nature en atomo, i.e. existing in a fixed individuum [individual thing]…’ Keckermann 315: ‘(Christ’s human nature is) an individuum distinct from the divine nature, though not a distinct person… person differs from nature, and so an individuum from a person, yet so that the human nature is not a person, but is meanwhile an individuum, or as the Logicians say, a first substance…’ So it must be said (Alsted 517) that: ‘He assumed not a person but a nature, and it considered as an individuum…’” (Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 416-18)

Voet: “Whether there are two beings [esse] in Christ, or a twofold existence and individualness? It is affirmed with a distinction.” (Syllabus problematum, tract II, subtitle II, De consequentibus et effectis unionis)

Communication of Properties

“Both Vermigli and Zanchi try to show [contra the Lutherans] that their interpretation of the communicatio idiomatum [communication of properties of Christ’s natures in his Person] agrees with that of Aquinas.” (Donnelly, Calvinst Thomism, p. 450)

Human Nature Circumscribed, Not Everywhere, contra Lutherans

“Aquinas repeatedly affirms that Christ remains omnipresent according to his divine nature even while taking to himself a finite and circumscribed human nature… Peter Martyr Vermigli explicitly invokes Thomas in his Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ to support the unity of the person of Christ and the circumscription of the body against Lutheran claims of an omnipresent human nature.” (K.J. Drake, ‘Beyond the Flesh’)

2 Wills & Operations unto the Same Effect

Thomas and the Reformed both taught, in accord with the 5^th and 6^th ecumenical councils, that Christ has two wills (divine and human, with the human subordinated to the divine), and in his mediatorial works, Christ exercises two operations to the same effect. See ‘Christ’s Mediatorial Operations, Divine & Human, unto the Same Work’.

Disagreements

Incompatible Chistologies on Some Points

“…Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed theologians have developed Christologies that cannot be harmonized on some points.” (Mark Jones, Knowing Christ, 2015, p. 46)

Curious Inquiries

Owen: “And I shall herein wholly avoid the curious inquiries, bold conjectures and unwarrantable determinations of the schoolmen and some others. For many of them, designing to explicate this mystery, by exceeding the bounds of Scripture light and sacred sobriety, have obscured it. Endeavouring to render all things plain unto reason, they have expressed many things unsound as unto faith and fallen into manifold contradictions among themselves. Hence Aquinas affirms that three of the ways of declaring the hypostatical union which are proposed by the Master of the Sentences [Peter Lombard], are so far from probable opinions, as that they are downright heresies.” (Works 1.224)

Christ’s Two Existences & the Adjunct Nature of his Humanity

“Differences emerge, though, in how enhypostasis [in the person] is defined. Reformed theology tended to follow in the trajectory of the medieval divine, John Duns Scotus, emphasizing the independence of the eternal Son and the adjunct nature of his humanity.¹ The Lutherans and many of the Romanists followed what was inchoately in Thomas Aquinas, emphasizing the continuity of the being, or existence, of the eternal Son with Christ’s human nature. This position involves a divine feature in some sense taking the place of the missing, parallel, created feature.

¹ This trajectory came into reformed theology through Philip Melanchthon and Peter Martyr Vermigli; see Cross, Union and Communion, ch. 6. On Mastricht’s use of the concept of adjunct, see 1.5.4 §VII…

…
Rather than the human nature sharing in an unique sense in the existence of the divine Person, as per the Thomists, Mastricht teaches in the trajectory of his reformed forebearers that the human nature has its own finite and created existence, or being. Existence may be distinguished from personhood, as persons may or may not exist and existence is not personhood. If the three Persons of the Trinity have only one existence, as they do, per their one nature, then existence must follow nature and not Person. Hence, Christ’s human nature must have its own created, contingent existence, distinct from the absolute and necessary, divine existence. As the divine existence, by its simplicity, cannot be separated from the divine attributes, so if the divine existence were communicated to Christ’s human nature, his human flesh would take on the divine attributes, making his flesh no longer human, nor common with our humanity. Hence the union of Christ’s natures must not be one of existence per se, but a personal one only.” (Travis Fentiman, ‘An Introduction to Peter van Mastricht on Christ’s Human Nature as Non-Personal…’, RBO, 2024, pp. 3, 7)

The followers of Thomas tended to insist that Christ has only one existence (or being, esse). While Thomas can be defensibly interpreted as having allowed some form of two existences, yet even here he confessed that truly and properly speaking, Christ has only one substantial existence, the divine existence of the eternal Word. The reformed trajectory of the one Person of Christ necessarily having two existences (divine and human) reflects the metaphysical tradition of Scotus. See ‘On the Manner of Christ Existing as God & Man’.

“As I shall show, the Lutheran theologians [on the metaphysics of the Person of Christ] follow Aquinas, as mediated by Cajetan, and the Reformed theologians follow Scotus (the result of Peter Vermigli’s (1499‒1562) importing Scotist Christology into the Reformed tradition).” (Richard Cross, Union & Communion, p. 8)

Second Person Communicated Passively to his Human Nature, not Actively

“In the late sixteenth century numerous major reformed divines spoke of Christ’s person being communicated to the human nature, and of the human nature subsisting in the eternal Word. It quickly became clear, however, that they meant something different by this historical language than what their Lutheran and Romanist opponents meant by it. Hence, when the reformed came to explain themselves further, many of them carefully distinguished that Christ’s human nature is only improperly said to subsist in the Word,¹ and that this communication was passive, not active, transitive or outgoing.² That is, the divine Person, remaining independent and unaffected, was able to receive the human nature, without being changed by it; the whole difference and change lay in the created nature itself, and its relation to the divine Person. Consistent with this, [Peter van] Mastricht speaks of the human nature as “not incommunicable,” the nature being “added”, in a sense, to the divine Person, it being “terminated by” the Person, as well as of the “two modes of subsisting” of “the God-man”.

¹ See ‘On the Manner of the Subsisting of the Human Nature’.
² See ‘Christ’s Personality Not Properly Communicated to Human Nature’.

The Lutherans and Thomists, in holding the human nature to be enhypostatic [in the Person] in a maximal sense, posited a positive communication of the eternal Person to the human nature… Mastricht gives five main arguments against such a communication of the eternal Person…” (Travis Fentiman, ‘An Introduction to Peter van Mastricht on Christ’s Human Nature as Non-Personal…’, RBO, 2024, pp. 4-6)

Christ’s Human Nature cannot be in Multiple Locations

In relation to transubstantiation, which is claimed to be miraculous, Thomas, asserts and splices metaphysics to say that Christ’s body in the mass “is not there locally,” but rather is there “in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions.” Nonetheless, for the substance of Christ’s flesh to be contained in multiple places, though by a miracle, is to destroy his human nature and make it no longer the same as ours. Thomas says:

“…the whole dimensive quantity of Christ’s body and all its other accidents are in this sacrament.” (Summa, pt. 3, q. 76, art. 4) Christ’s flesh “is in heaven under its own species, and on many other altars under the sacramental species.” (art. 5) “Christ’s body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions;” (art. 5)

Willet: “The Papists… are… are not far off from being in the same error [as the ubiquity of the Lutherans].” Papists “say his flesh is in many places at once by a miracle… that it may be if Christ will.” (Synopsis Papismi, 18th Controversy, pp. 597, 599)

See also Guy de Brès, ‘How our Lord Jesus Christ according to his Humanity, cannot be but in One Place’ in The Staff of Christian Faith… for to Know the Antiquity of our Holy Faith… gathered out of the Works of the Ancient Doctors of the Church… (London, 1577), pp. 25-28

Offices of Christ

Disagreements

Christ is Mediator by Both Natures

Leigh, Turretin, Stapfer and the reformed generally denied Thomas’ claim (Summa, pt. 3, q. 26, art. 2), and the Papists’ teaching in general, that Christ was only a mediator according to his human nature, but not his divine nature. (System of Divinity, pp. 410-11; Institutes 2:379; Institutes of Polemical Theology, vol. 4, ch. 14, §147)

Christ’s Office as Prophet

The Medievals generally held out Christ as Mediator to be a King and Priest, but his being ordained as a Prophet in that relation did not generally become popularized until Calvin exposited the threefold nature of Christ’s mediatorial office.

Thomas, Summa, pt. 3, q. 22 (priest); q. 59, art. 4, reply to obj. 1 (king). For the Reformed: ‘On the Prophetic Office of Christ’.

No Other Salvific Mediators besides Christ

Thomas: “Prayer is offered to a person… secondly, as to be obtained through him… we pray to the saints, whether angels or men… that our prayers may be effective through their prayers and merits.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 83, art. 4)

For the Reformed:

‘On the Intercession of Saints’
‘On Corruptions of Christ being the Only Appointed Mediator between God & Man’
‘Prayer to Saints & Angels is Unlawful’

Mary

Agreement

Immaculate Conception of Mary

“immaculate conception; viz., the doctrine that the Virgin Mary was conceived sinless in order that she be a fitting vessel for the conception of Christ… Thomas Aquinas denied the concept [Summa, pt. 3, q. 27, art. 3]… The immaculate conception is universally rejected by the Reformers as unnecessary to the sinless nature of Christ.” (Muller, Dictionary, immaculata conceptio)

Disagreements

Mary Committed Actual Sins

Thomas: “We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial…” (Summa, pt. 3, q. 27, art. 4; also ‘On the Angelic Salutation, ‘Hail Mary”) See Willet, ‘Whether the Virgin Mary was void of original and actual sin? [No]’ in Synopsis Papismi, 9th Controversy, pt. 2, 9th Question.

Mary is Not to be Worshipped

Thomas:

“we say that not any kind of dulia is due to her, but hyperdulia.” (Summa, pt. 3, q. 25, art. 5)

“…the flesh of Christ… it should be adored with the adoration of dulia; not any kind of dulia, such as is given to other creatures, but with a certain higher adoration, which is called hyperdulia.” (Summa, bk. 3, q. 25, art. 2)

“…among all the other notions of excellence, that by which a created thing is honored by reason of its union to its Creator is the chief one, as is Christ’s humanity and the things that pertain to it. And therefore it is named with the special name hyperdulia, as though it were above dulia and approaching latria [divine worship].” (Sentences, bk. 3, dist. 9, q. 2, art. 2)

For the Reformed: ‘On Mariolatry’.

Mary had a Normal, Painful Birth, though the Vaginal Canal

Some of the early Church, Medievals and Romanists held that not only was Mary a virgin before (ante partum) and after pregnancy (post partum), but also in pregnancy and delivery itself (in partu); her womb remained perpetually virgin, unmarked by normal human delivery. They held that Mary did not go through birth pangs, her hymen did not tear, and in fact her cervix remained always closed: the birth was miraculous. See Thomas affirm and argue this in Summa, pt. 3, q. 28, art. 3; also ‘On the Angelic Salutation, ‘Hail Mary”)

The reformed, apparently universally (we have found no evidence to the contrary), affirmed that Mary’s pregnancy and delivery was after the normal human mode, under the pains and labor of Eve’s curse. See ‘In Partu’.

Perpetual Virginity of Mary Not ‘of the Faith’

“The perpetual virginity of Mary is often thought to be a distinctively Romanist doctrine, though it has become more well-known that most of the reformers and some early reformed confessions held to it.¹ What is not so well-known is that by far and away most protestants in the seventeenth century maintained at least a qualified acceptance of Mary’s perpetual virginity.² While Mastricht does not clearly affirm the perpetual virginity of Mary, leaving the question open, in that it “cannot be determined with certainty from Scripture”, yet he does find the opposite view “less probable.” Mastricht affirms that Mary did not have any children after Jesus.

¹ Rhaetian Confession (1562), Confession of Tarcal and Torda (1562–1563), Second Helvetic Confession (1566), Sandomierz Consensus (1570) and the Colloquy of Thorn (1645)… The general assembly of the Church of Scotland approved of this teaching of the Second Helvetic Confession in 1566; The Works of John Knox… Volume Sixth, ed. David Laing (Edinburgh: James Thin, 1846), 546–48.

² See ‘Was Mary a Perpetual Virgin?’.

Though protestants denied that the perpetual virginity of Mary was de fide, formally of the faith, as revealed for our salvation by the Lord, as Romanism [and Thomas, Summa, pt. 3, q. 28, art. 3] held, yet they often counted it a pious, human, historical and ecclesiastical belief which was probable or true, especially in light of “the consent of the ancient church”. (Turretin, Institutes, 345)…

Mastricht, along with the reformed generally, argued that this perpetual virginity was not due to a personal vow of Mary, as the Romanists [and Thomas, Summa, pt. 3, q. 28, art. 4] held…” (Travis Fentiman, ‘An Introduction to Peter van Mastricht on Christ’s Human Nature as Non-Personal… & the Perpetual Virginity of Mary’, RBO, 2024, pp. 17-18, 21)

Assumption of Mary: a Myth

Thomas: “The third curse [of sin] is common both to man and woman in that both shall one day return to dust. The blessed Virgin was spared this penalty, for her body was raised up into heaven, and so we believe that after her death she was revived and transported into heaven: ‘Arise, O Lord, into your resting place, you and the ark which you hast sanctified.’ (Ps 131:8).” (On the Angelic Salutation, “Hail Mary”)

Willet, Quest. 9, pt. 3, ‘Of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary’ in 9th Controversy, pt. 2 of Synopsis Papismi, pp. 401-2

Life of Christ

Agreements

Christ would not have been Incarnated apart from Sin

“Over against this view, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and, in the Reformation, both Lutheran and Reformed theologians argue that Scripture teaches only one purpose of the incarnation, viz., the redemption of man… Both Lutheran and Reformed orthodox explicitly reject the Scotist and the Osiandrian views as speculative excess.” (Muller, Dictionary, Si homo non periisset)

Owen cites Aquinas, and Calvin, as opposing the teaching of numerous medieval scholastics that Christ would have been incarnated apart from the sin of man. Mastricht mis-cites Thomas as teaching that Christ would have become man apart from sin. According to Mastricht, “the orthodox maintain the negative,” though “some of the Reformed seem to hold a different opinion,” such as Zanchi, Bucanus and Willet (who agreed with the majority of the Medieval scholastics). Thomas did argue Christ would not have become man apart from sin, but Thomas also held Christ could have been incarnated apart from sin (Summa, pt. 3, q. 1, art. 3). (Exercitation 26 to Hebrews, §9, 16; TPT, vol 4, ch. 4, §17, pp. 142-43; cf. Leigh, System of Divinity, p. 400)

Mixed

Could Christ have gotten Sick?

Thomas said ‘No’ due to Christ’s flesh being incorruptible (Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:27, 31); the Reformed were mixed on the issue; see ‘Could Christ have gotten sick?’

Disagreements

Gestation in the Womb

“There were two main paradigms. The medieval [including Thomas, Contra Gentiles, bk. 2, chs. 43–44, 89] held that not only was Christ’s conception miraculous, but so was his gestation… they held that, if the personal union unites the Word to a human nature, and that from conception, then… Christ must have had a fully formed, human nature, body and soul, at conception. While his body was held to grow in size over the course of nine months and beyond, yet the philosopher-speak of Christ having a perfect and unchanged form, at least in the popular mind, got translated, or painted into baby Jesus being a homunculus, a little man. This theological paradigm (not necessarily the popular, portrayal of it) was the dominant view taught by the early reformed orthodox in the late-sixteenth century up to the second quarter of the seventeenth century [citing Zanchi (reproducing a section of Thomas), Kimedoncius, Perkins, Martinius, Polanus and Wolleb]¹…

¹ ‘The View that Christ had a Formed Body from Conception, when occured the Uniting of it to his Soul, Person & Divine Nature in the Hypostatic Union’

The second view arose and spread in popularity with the Renaissance (fourteenth to seventeenth centuries). Baby Jesus became plump, cuddly and cute, like any other baby. Art increasingly gravitated towards a realistic naturalism and was done by and for the growing middle class, who wanted their babies to look familiar and appealing…

By the mid-seventeenth century, the tide had clearly turned amongst the reformed. Christ’s gestation came to be regarded as natural and as normal as that of any man, for “in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren”, “yet without sin,” (Heb. 2:17; 4:15) and “miracles ought not to be invented rashly beyond and outside of the Scriptures.” As the Word was made flesh, and not a thing, so the personal union of the divine and human natures occurred at Christ’s ensoulment in the ordinary time, at around forty-two days [see the above section on the Creation of Man]. That “holy thing” (Lk. 1:35), notice the neuter, “which shall be born” of Mary, in the future, “shall be called the Son of God”.” (Travis Fentiman, ‘An Introduction to Peter van Mastricht on Christ’s Human Nature as Non-Personal, the Time of Ensoulment in the Womb…’, RBO, 2024, pp. 13-14)

Christ did Not have the Beatific Vision in this Life

“Aquinas could argue, on the basis of Jesus’ sinlessness, that Jesus possessed the beatific vision and, on the basis of the hypostatic union, that Jesus’ visio Dei was virtually infinite… These two perspectives–the Thomist and the Lutheran–appear as negated views in the Reformed discussion of the theologia unionis [theology of union].” (Muller, PRRD, 1.248, 253)

On the Reformed, see, ‘Did Christ Experience the Beatific Vision in his Earthly Life? No’. Leigh was an exception:

“Christ in respect of his soul was comprehensor [one comprehending the highest blessedness], though viator [a pilgrim] in respect of his body. See Aquinas, part 3, q. 9, art. 2.” (System of Divinity, p. 873)

Suffering & Death of Christ

Agreement

Agonies on the Cross

Rivet: “Aquinas grants that Christ’s soul experienced everything that causes grief… and He took upon Himself every sorrow, the greatest gried in absolute quantity, and all the way to the point of death He not only bore in Himself the slanderings, tauntings, scourings, and shameful humiliations, but with patience, humility, and while enduring his harshest chastisement, He also appeased the wrath and anger of God that burned against mankind.” (Synopsis, Disp. 27, §6)

The Divine Second Person Remained United to his Soul & Corpse through Death

Thomas teaches this in Compendium, ch. 229; Mastricht teaches it in TPT, vol. 4, ch. 13, §13, pp. 466-68. See also, ‘On the Hypostatic Union in Christ’s Death’.

Disagreements

Christ Suffered in the Higher Parts of his Soul on the Cross

Thomas: “He suffered indeed as to all His lower powers… But Christ’s higher reason did not suffer thereby on the part of its object, which is God, who was the cause, not of grief, but rather of delight and joy, to the soul of Christ.” (Summa, pt. 3, q. 46, art. 7-8)

Turretin: ‘Did Christ suffer only corporeal punishments for us in the body or in the soul, but only as to its lower and sensitive part? Or did He in truth also bear the spiritual and infernal punishments of sin themselves (in the superior as well as in the inferior part) properly in Himself and from a sense of God’s wrath? We deny the former and affirm the latter against the papists.’ (2.352)

Christ Remained truly a Man in his Death

Mastricht relates that Thomas denied that Christ was in his death, with body and soul separated, a man, in the true and proper sense of that term, though Thomas confessed Christ was then a dead man (Compendium, ch. 229). Mastricht, speaking on behalf of “the Reformed”, acknowledges Christ was then a dead man, yet that He was also a man in the true and proper sense. (TPT, vol. 4, ch. 13, §13, p. 466)

Descent into “Hell”

Disagreements

The ‘Descent’ does not refer to the Place of Hell, Old Testament Saints were in Heaven and Christ did not Deliver them at his Death from the Limbo of the Fathers

Thomas did not believe in a local descent of Christ’s soul to Hell. He said, “Christ… penetrated to all the lower parts of the earth, not passing through them locally with His soul, but by spreading the effects of His power in a measure to them all…” (Summa, pt. 3, q. 52, art. 2, reply to obj. 1) He did believe, though that Christ delivered the Old Testament saints in the Limbo of the Fathers to Heaven (Summa, pt. 3, q. 52, art. 5).

The Reformed, contra the Romanists, believed, ‘The Old Testament Saints went Directly to Heaven upon Death’ and denied any ‘Limbo of the Fathers’. Likewise, Reformed treatments of the descent did not include Christ descending locally or by his power to Hell, or delivering anyone therefrom. Ussher below takes a common Reformed view fo the Descent, but leaves the question open further than many or most of the reformed did (note his connection to the Church of England, which was often characterized by latitudinarianism in that era).

Ussher: “That He descended not into the Hell of the damned by the essence of his soul or locally, but virtually only by extending the effect of his power thither, is the common doctrine of Thomas Aquinas and the rest of the School… I leave it to be considered by the learned… if the words of the article of Christ’s going to Hades or Hell may well bear such a general meaning as this, that He went to the dead, and continued in the state of death until the time of his resurrection… and the particular limitation of the place unto which our Savior’s soul went (whither to the place of bliss or to the place of torment, or to both) be left, as a number of other theological points are, unto further disputation. In the articles of our faith common agreement must be required: which we are sure is more likely to be found in the general than in the particular.” (Answer to a Jesuit, pp. 374-76)

Christ’s Ascension & Session (his Sitting at the Right Hand of God)

Agreement

Totus vs. Totum

When Christ was dead: “What are we to say regarding Christ’s presence during this period? Is He in the tomb, in hell, or in paradise?

One must answer in some sense all three, yet this cannot be said simply but must be specified. Peter Lombard presents this question in his Sentences and addresses it using a distinction between Christ being present “totus” vs. “totum.” These Latin adjectives both mean “whole” but totus is in the masculine and totum in the neuter grammatical gender; according to both Lombard and Aquinas when discussing Christ, the masculine adjective refers to the person while the neuter refers to the natures.

A similar mode of expression in English is used when persons are referred to with “he/she” while inanimate objects generally are called “it.” Thus, the question can be reframed as the whole Christ (totus Christus) vs. the whole of Christ (totum Chrsti). The whole Christ (totus) is the person of the eternal Son who is everywhere by dint of the divine omnipresence and is the one who is joined with the human nature everywhere (even if that nature considered on its own is not in all places). The whole of Christ (totum Christi), i.e. Christ considered on the level of natures and the parts of the human nature, is not in all places since this specifically references the human body, which is spatially finite.

So, where was Jesus during the three days? We can give a threefold answer. According to his person and divine nature, the whole Christ is everywhere, and in that sense, He is with the thief in paradise. Likewise, the whole Christ was in the tomb since the body was united with Him and according to divine omnipresence… However, the whole of Christ, considered on the level of parts, was not in the tomb… since only part of the human nature was present there…

Calvin makes use of the totus / totum distinction to explain the nature of Christ’s presence after the ascension, although he generically references ‘the scholastics.’ (Institutes IV.17.30)” (K.J. Drake, ‘Beyond the Flesh’)

Disagreement

Christ Only Sat at the Right Hand after his Ascension

Turretin: “When did He begin to sit? From eternity? as Thomas Aquinas [Summa, pt. 3, q. 58], Maldonatus and others wish who interpret the sitting of the Son’s equality with the Father… or only after his resurrection and ascension? which we hold with the orthodox.” (2.371)

Atonement

Agreements

The Satisfaction of Christ the Head belongs to all the Members of his Mystical Body

Bucanus: “…the righteousness [of Christ] is also ours, inasmuch as the very subject thereof, namely, Christ, is ours, and therefore by faith spiritually He is made one with us, not by an actual transfusion, or running of the body and soul of Christ within us, or by pouring out, transfusion or essential or actual conjunction of any quality inherent in Christ, but by the communication which we have by the bond of the Holy Ghost with Him which is our head, and of whom we also are member, Eph. 5:30. Hereupon Aquinas says very well, ‘The head and the members are as it were one mystical person and therefore the satisfaction of Christ belongs to all the faithful as to his members.'” (Institutions, ch. 31, p. 342)

Infinite Worth of Christ’s Work

“The argument most often found among the Protestant scholastics, both Lutheran and Reformed, received its clearest medieval formulation in the thought of Thomas Aquinas. The source of the meritum Christi [merit of Christ] is the persona Christi [person of Christ] who performs the work of satisfaction… Since the person is the divine Word, the infinite Second Person of the Trinity, the work performed by that person, even though accomplished through the instrumentality of his human nature, must be infinite. Against this view, Duns Scotus argued that Christ’s work was in and of itself of finite value…

A third view was stated by Calvin, most probably as an intensification of the Scotist view. The value of Christ’s merit rests upon the divine decree (Institutes, II.xvii.1). Unlike the the Scotist view, Calvin’s doctrine argues the infinite merit or all-sufficiency of Christ’s satsifaction, but on teh same basis as the Scotist acceptation, the absolute will of God. Although Calvin’s view is probably more in accord with the Reformed teaching concerning the communicatio idiomatum… or communication of proper qualities, in the person of Christ, the orthodox Reformed tend not to follow Calvin, but rather to agree with the Lutheran scholastics in grounding the infinite worthiness of Christ’s satisfaction in the divinity of Christ’s person (Turretin, Institutio theologiae XIV.xii.7).” (Muller, Dictionary, meritum Christi)

Sufficiency of Christ’s Death & Merit for All

Bremen Consensus (1595): “Consequently, though we indeed confess that the death of Christ in respect to its perfection is a universally sufficient offering for the sin of the whole world, we clearly and distinctly declare and teach that without an application by faith, the death of Christ is profitable to no one, and that accordingly its fruit and effect are particular to believers alone. This was formerly stated by Augustine… The Scholastics have spoken in this manner: ‘Christ is dead for all men so far as the sufficiency of merit is concerned, but truly and solely for all believers so far as efficacy to salvation is concerned’ (Lombard… Thomas [Aquinas], Super Apocalypism, chap. 5; [Nicholas of] Lyra on 1 John 2).” (ed. Dennison, Reformed Confessions 3.662-63)

Perkins favorably quotes Thomas: “Christ’s merit according to the sufficiency carries itself indifferently to all, but not according to the efficacy. Which happens, partly by God’s election, through which the effect of Christ’s merits is mercifully bestowed on some.” (Manner of Predestination, p. 87)

Thomas on “God is the Savior of All Men,” 1 Tim. 4

Turretin, in arguing against a general redemption, respecting 1 Tim. 4:10, “God is the savior of all men, but especially of them that believe,” quotes Thomas in support of the interpretation that He is a savior of all men with respect to bodily, temporal life, and He spiritually saves all believers. (2.461)

After Remission Punishments of Sin are Exercises of the Saints

Turretin, in arguing against the Romanist doctrine that Christ’s satisfaction for sins does not forgive temporal punishments in the life of believers, yet is able to favorably quote Thomas twice, that “the sufferings of saints are profitable to the Church, not indeed by way of redemption, but by way of example and exhortation,” and “Before remission they are the punishments of sin, after remission they are the struggles and exercises of the saints.” (2.442-43) It is not clear Thomas’s statements actually go against the fundamental Romanist doctrine.

We should Suffer for Others, Not in an Atoning Way

Rivet: “But in ‘that He has suffered on our behalf and has left us an example’ (1 Peter 2:21), namely that we should undergo suffering for the sake of others, ‘not by the mode of redemption but through the mode of example and encouragement, according to that’ [saying] that if we suffer tribulations it is for your encouragement and salvation, says Thomas…” (Synopsis, disp. 39, §50)

Mixed

Vindictive Justice Essential to God or Not?

Owen: “And as many of these [reformed and Lutheran] authors do expressly blame some of the schoolmen, as Aquinas, Durandus, Biel, Tataretus, for granting a possibility of pardon without satisfaction, as opening a way to the Socinian error in this matter; so also they fear not to affirm that the foregoing [not using] of this principle of God’s vindictive justice indispensably requiring the punishment of sin, does not only weaken the cause of the truth, but indeed leave it indefensible.” (2.369) Note that Owen had previously held that vindictive justice was not essential to God and God could pardon without a satisfaction. See ‘Is Vindicatory Justice Essential to God?’.

Hypothetical or Consequent Necessity of Christ’s Atonement

Turretin: “I know that some of the ancients (whom many of the Scholastics follow here) were of a different opinion—that other possible ways [to forgive men] were not wanting to God [instead of Christ’s sacrifice]. [as] Augustine… Various Scholastics agree with him here: Thomas Aquinas… Lombard… Bonaventure… Nor are there wanting men on our side who incline to this: Peter Martyr… Tilenus… Kimedoncius… and above others Twisse… But there were not wanting also some of the fathers and Scholastics who acknowledged this necessity [of Christs’s sacrifice]: Athanasius… Anselm… Ambrose… With them many of our men agree (especially after the rise of [Faustus] Socinus) and their opinion we also embrace as the truer and safer.” (2.302) See ‘On the Necessity of the Atonement’.

Disagreement

Discipline after Forgiven Sin is Fatherly Chastisement

Mastricht and “the Reformed” held that the satisfaction of Christ takes away all our guilt, whereas the papists, with Thomas cited, held that temporal evils inflicted on believers in this life are punishments properly so called, from justice, by God as a Judge, for some kind of compensation. The reformed held these were “only fatherly chastisements, inflicted out of love, for their correction, on the occasion of committed sin.” (TPT, vol. 4, ch. 18, §39, p. 626) See also ‘On the Romanist Distinction Between the Guilt of Culpability & the Guilt of Punishment’.

Calling

Agreement

Necessity of God’s Call

Thomas: “Predestination begins to be carried out with the calling of the person… This call is necessary, because our heart would not turn itself to God, unless God himself drew us to him: ‘no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him’ (John 6:44); ‘turn us to thyself, O Lord, that we may be turned’ (Lam 5:21).” (On Romans, ch. 8, lect. 6, vv. 28-32, §707)

Outward vs. Inward

Thomas: “This call is twofold: one is external and is made by the mouth of a preacher: ‘she has sent out her maids to call from the highest places’ (Prov 9:3). In this way God called Peter and Andrew (Matt 4:18). The other call is internal and is nothing less than an impulse of the mind whereby a man’s heart is moved by God to assent to the things of faith or of virtue: ‘who stirred up one from the east and called him to follow?’ (Isa 41:2).” (On Romans, ch. 8, lect. 6, vv. 28-32, §707)

Effectual Calling

Thomas: “Furthermore, this call is efficacious in the predestined, because they assent to the call: ‘everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.’ (John 6:45)” (On Romans, ch. 8, lect. 6, vv. 28-32, §707)

Faith

Agreements

Faith: a Gift of God

Thomas: “…since man, by assenting to matters of faith is raised above his nature, this must needs accrue to him from some supernatural principle moving him inwardly; and this is God. Therefore faith, as regards the assent which is the chief act of faith, is from God moving man inwardly by grace.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 6, art. 1)

Calvin, 15. ‘Faith is a gift of God’ in Instruction in Faith (1537) (Westminster Press, 1949), pp. 39-40

Fair Arises from both Intellect & Will

Rivet: “…people who maintain that they [the intellect and will] are in fact distinct admit that ‘the act of believing arises from the will as well as the intellect, both of which are designed to be completed by a disposition, and so there must be some disposition in the will as well as in the intellect, for the act of faith to be complete’ (Thoma Aquinas [Summa theologiae] 2/2, question 4, article 2).” (Synopsis, disp. 31, §15)

Turretin notes, “Bellarmine and other Romanists falsely place faith so in the intellect as to deny it to be in the will..” Turretin then argues otherwise and confirms with quotes and references from Thomas and other Romanists. (2.564)

Saving Faith involves Belief in Christ

Thomas: “(Acts 4:12): ‘There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.’ Therefore belief of some kind in the mystery of Christ’s incarnation was necessary at all times and for all persons, but this belief differed according to differences of times and persons.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 2, art. 7)

Turretin: “Whether the Proper & Specific Object of Justifying Faith is the Special Promise of Mercy in Christ. We Affirm Against the Romanists.” (2.575-80)

Disagreements

Old Testament contains Precepts of Faith

Thomas: “Therefore the Old Law ought not to have contained precepts of faith… In the Old Law, however, the secret things of faith were not to be set before the people, wherefore, presupposing their faith in one God, no other precepts of faith were given in the Old Law.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 16, art. 1)

Francis Roberts wrote the puritan magnum opus on covenant theology. He says: “…this Sinai Covenant… was dispensed and given as a Covenant of Faith and grace in Jesus Christ.” See the whole section proving this: ‘Of God’s Giving the Law on Mt. Sinai
as a Covenant, & that of Faith’, pp. 67-77.

Blind Faith Conjoined with Ignorance is Sinful, & Right of Private Discretion

Thomas:

“Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things…

faith adheres to all the articles of faith by reason of one mean, viz. on account of the First Truth proposed to us in Scriptures, according to the teaching of the Church who has the right understanding of them. Hence whoever abandons this mean is altogether lacking in faith.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 5, art. 3, ‘I answer’ ff.)

Vermigli: “Thomas Aquinas held that faith formed and faith unformed be of one habit or quality: because (as he thinks) it belongs little or nothing unto faith whether charity be present or not present; for this they think is done by chance, or (as they say) by accidens. Certainly it is to be wondered, that so notable a man should be so much deceived as he would not have these two to be distinguished in their own nature, seeing the one is a dead faith, and the other a lively faith: the one makes unto eternal life, and the other unto condemnation.” (Common Places, pt. 3, ch. 3, p. 71)

Clarkson: “They need not know what they are to believe; they tell us they are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatsoever the visible Church of Christ proposes, as revealed by Almighty God… However, they need not know all the articles of the small [Apostles’] Creed, as the chief of them teach. ‘Not all,’ says Aquinas, ‘but what is sufficient to direct to the last end.'” (Practical Divinity of Papists, p. 66)

For the more of the Reformed: ‘On Implicit, or Blind Faith & Obedience’ and ‘On the Right of Private Discretion’.

Need Explicit Faith

Clarkson: “Aquinas inquires whether all be a like obliged to have an explicit faith? He answers negatively, and the ground of his conclusion is, Job. 1:14, ‘The oxen were plowing, and the asses were feeding beside them.’ From whence he argues gravely that the people who are signified by asses, are to lie down in the faith of their superiors, who are signified by the oxen, as Gregory expounds it. But what if the oxen go astray, what must become of the asses then? Why, they may follow them without hurt, believing that they are right, when they are in a wrong way…” (Practical Divinity of Papists, p. 111)

Contra Sandemanianism

Thomas defines faith, including that which is saving, as “to think with assent.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 1, art. 1) Turretin: “Is Faith Trust? We Affirm Against the Romanists.” (2.569). Westminster Confession 14.2: “the principal acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life…” See ‘Contra Sandemanianism’.

Faith is the Mother of Virtues

Article

Parker, Eric M. – ‘‘Fides mater virtutum est’ [Faith is the mother of the virtues]: Peter Martyr Vermigli’s disagreement with Thomas Aquinas on the ‘form’ of the virtues’ Abstract in Reformation & Renaissance Review 15 (1), pp. 54-67

The Form of Faith is Not Love

Articles

Thomas – art. 3, ‘Whether charity is the form of faith?’ [Yes] in Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 4

Vermigli, Peter Martyr – ‘Whether Charity may be called the Form of Faith?’ [Not strictly] in Common Places… (London: Denham, 1583), pt. 3, ch. 3, pp. 74-75

Piscator, Johannes – 9 Miscellaneous Questions: 6. ‘Whether the Form of Justifying Faith is Love?’ [Gal. 5:6, We Deny] in Theological Theses, vol. 2 (Herborn, 1606-1607), p. 372

Bucanus, ch. 29, ‘But seeing it is said, Gal. 5:6, ‘Faith working by charity,’ is not charity the form of faith?’ in Institutions, pp. 299-300

Turretin: “Whether the form of justifying faith is love or obedience to God’s commands. We deny against the Romanists and Socinians.” (2.580)

They Omit Many Things about the Marrow & Practice of Faith

Voet: “4. That, when they dwell on those things that are either absurd, or foreign, or superfluous, they plainly ignore and omit many things that belong to the very marrow and practice of faith, of which kind are those concerning the practice of faith and repentance, the art and method of prayer, temptations and spiritual desertions, and many similar questions, which we tend to handle in moral and ascetic theology… which appear nowhere in the whole of Lombard or Thomas.” (Select Theological Dispuations, vol. 1, ‘Of Scholastic Theology,’ theses 7-9, tr. Charles Johnson)

Repentance

Disagreements

Repentance is Required for Remission of Sins

“…that their Sacramental (holy water and the like trifles) should have the virtue to procure pardon of sins, even without repentance: Aquinas would have us satisfied with this, that they ‘do not remit sins of themselves, but are said to do it, because they may excite that fervour by which they are remitted;’ but this fervour is not repentance…” (Practical Divinity of Papists, pp. 122-23)

Natural Repentance Not Sufficient

Clarkson: “A repentance or sorrow for sin which is merely natural is counted sufficient [by Romanists]. The apostle to true repentance requires godly sorrow (2 Cor. 7:9-10), but they, many of them, think it not requisite that it should be godly, no not in respect of its original. That will serve, which is not from God, but from nature… Aquinas, whom the rest of their school divines generally follow, was of that opinion too. And the chief of the Dominicans his modern followers (even those of them who are loth their Angeli∣cal Doctor should appear to be so much a Pelagian) do hold that such a sorrow as is merely from nature (without either habitual grace, or special assistance) is enough to justify him who through ignorance thinks it enough.” (Practical Divinity of Papists, p. 135)

Repentance is Not a Sacrament

The Latin word poenitentia was often used for both penance and repentance at the eve of the Reformation, and early in it. Hence, the Reformed often made a point in that era to show that repentance is not a sacrament. See the ‘Latin’ section on our ‘Repentance’ page.

As for Thomas, when he says, “But God calls sinners to repentance,” (On Romans, ch. 2, lect. 2, vv. 6-12, §206), the Latin is poenitentia. One is hard pressed in the Summa to find him connecting the call of God in the Gospel with repentance, but where ‘repentance’ is most often used in the English, is in his sections on the sacrament of penance (Summa, pt. 3, q. 84-90; suppl., q. 1-28), where the Latin is poenitentia.

Grief Need Not Equal the Quantity of the Sin

Willet: “…the greatness of the grief ought to be answerable to the quantity of the sin: so they conclude that a man shall never know when he is sufficiently contrite, Thomas Aquinas: for he must be contrite for every great sin he has committed…” (Synopsis Papismi, 14^th Controversy, p. 508)

Repentance Obliges before One’s Deathbed

Clarkson says Romanists: “declare plainly that by the command of God, it is not necessary to repent till one be at the point of death. This is said to be the judgment of Aquinas, Soto, Navarre, Durandus, Medina, Cajetan and others in Suarez. The ground of it is, ‘because the reasons brought to prove that it does not oblige presently, prove it as much of any other certain time in our life, except tbat only when a man is dying.'” (Practical Divinity of Papists, p. 131)

Impenitence till Death is a Sin

Clarkson: “Aquinas (the angel of their schools)… says plainly, ‘That impenitency continued in till death is no special sin, but a circumstance of sin.’ By this doctrine, it is no sin, no transgression of any divine precept to be impenitent, or to persevere therein to the end.” (Practical Divinity of Papists, p. 124)

Omit Many Things about the Practice of Repentance

Justification

Agreements

Thomas Disputed more Tolerably on Justification

Tossanus: “Thomas Aquinas… In him two things are laudable: Firstly, that he argued very methodically. Secondly, that as well in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, as in his Summa Theologica, he has disputed more tolerably of justification and predestination than any of the rest [of the Medieval scholastics].” (Synopsis, p. 81)

OT Saints Righteous Only by Faith in Christ

Witsius: “‘If you ask, Whether it may be rightly concluded from that proposition, a man is not justified but by faith [Gal. 2:16], therefore we are justified by faith alone? we are to say, It may… In this our day the Catholic writers can, on no account, bear that proposition… yet the ancients had no such aversion to that particle, nor Thomas Aquinas: if any, says he, were righteous under the old law, they were not righteous by the works of the law, but only by the faith of Jesus Christ…’ Thus [Adam] Sasbout [a Romanist] on Gal. 2:16.” (Economy, bk. 3, ch. 8, §47)

Circumcision was Sign of Justification, Not Cause

Gillespie affirms Thomas that circumcision was not the cause of justification, with respect to Abraham, but the sign of it. (Aaron’s Rod, p. 508)

Good Works cannot Prepare One for Justification

“Zanchi argues that good acts cannot prepare a man for receiving justifying grace, and he quotes and interprets several passages from Thomas as supporting his teaching against the doctrine of the Council of Trent.” (Donnelly, Calvinst Thomism, p. 451)

No Flesh Justified by the “Law”: Not Limited to Ceremonial Law

Turretin quotes and references Thomas and other Romanists in support that ‘law’ in verses such as Rom. 3:20, ‘By the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified,’ is not limited to only the ceremonial law. (2.641)

The First & Fountain Principle of Justification is Faith

Vermigli: “…we will omit this, and briefly declare, that the ancient fathers did not mislike of this word ‘only,’ the which our adversaries so greatly shun… Whom these things suffice not, let them read… Thomas, upon the third [chapter] to the Galatians [lectures 2, 3, 4, on vv. 2-12]…”

Note on the below: in Latin a noun, such as faith, may be rendered by “faith” or “the faith”. The Romanist translation often translates it “the faith,” referring to the objective Christian Faith, which avoids a protestant sense. We have kept it as “faith,” which seems to be the sense of most of its uses. Keep in mind that nonetheless Thomas’s view below is still not protestant; in fact, it was the typical Roman view.

Thomas:

Lecture 2 on Gal. 3:2-5: “§123… Therefore they had the Holy Spirit, i.e., the gifts of the Holy Spirit, by the hearing of faith… ‘but you have received the Spirit of adoption of sons’ (Rom 8:15), which is given through faith, which ‘comes by hearing’ (Rom 10:17). Therefore, if the power of faith could do this, it is vain to seek something else by which we are saved, because it is more difficult to make the unjust just than to preserve the just in their justice. Hence if faith had made the unjust Galatians just without the law, no doubt it could without the law keep them just. Great, therefore, was the gift they had received through faith.
…

§125… Hence, if you shut yourselves out from the door to eternal life by deserting faith and seeking to be preserved by carnal observances, it is ‘in vain’…”

Lecture 3 on Gal. 3:6-9: “§129… First, he proves the power of faith to justify…

§130. He says therefore: truly, justice and the Holy Spirit come from faith, as it is written in Genesis and mentioned again in Romans: Abraham believed God and it was reputed to him unto justice (Gen 15:6, Rom 4:3)… Therefore the first element of justice in a man is that a man’s mind be subjected to God, and this is done by faith… ‘and it was reputed to him unto justice,’ i.e., the act of faith and faith itself were for him, as for everyone else, the sufficient cause of justice. It is reputed to him unto justice by men exteriorly, but interiorly it is wrought by God, who justifies them that have faith. This he does by remitting their sins through charity working in them.

§131… But Abraham did not seek to be justified through circumcision but through faith. Therefore the sons of Abraham are they who seek to be justified by faith. And this is what he says: because Abraham is just through faith, in that he believed God and it was reputed to him unto justice; ‘therefore, know that they who are of faith,’ i.e., who believe that they are justified and saved by faith, are the children of Abraham…”

Lecture 4 on Gal. 3:10-12: “§135… For since he had said that they who are of faith will be blessed through being sons of Abraham, someone might say that they are blessed both on account of the works of the law and on account of faith. Hence to exclude this he says: ‘as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse.’…

§136… Or it should be said that the Apostle is speaking here of all works, both ceremonial and moral. For the works are not the cause making one to be just before God; rather they are the carrying out and manifestation of justice. For no one is made just before God by works but by the habit of faith, not acquired but infused. And therefore, as many as seek to be justified by works are under a curse, because sin is not removed nor anyone justified in the sight of God by them, but by the habit of faith vivified by charity…
…

§141… I answer that ‘to be justified’ can be taken in two senses: either as referring to the execution and manifestation of justice, and in this way a man is justified, i.e., proved just, by the works performed; or as referring to the infused habit of justice, and in this way one is not justified by works, since the habit of justice by which a man is justified before God is not acquired but infused by the grace of faith. Therefore the Apostle says significantly, ‘with God,’ because the justice which is before God is interior in the heart…

§142… But the life of justice is through God dwelling in us by faith. Therefore the first way in which God is in the soul of man is by faith: ‘he who comes to God must believe’ (Heb 11:6); ‘that Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts’ (Eph 3:17)… Similarly, because the first principle whereby God exists in us is faith, faith is called the principle of living. And this is what he means when he says, ‘the just man lives by faith.’ Furthermore, this is to be understood of faith acting through love…”

James on Justification

Polanus cites Thomas positively on the meaning of James’s teaching on justification. (Syntagma, bk. 1, ch. 32)

“Wherefore seeing one apostle is not contrary to the other… this word ‘justified’ is diversely taken, Paul says that Abraham was not justified that is, made righteous before God by his works. James says he was justified, that is declared to be just before men, and so Thomas Aquinas expounds it.” (Synopsis Papismi, 1^st Controversy, p. 32)

Disagreements

Justification Uniform in Both Testaments

Mastricht and “the common opinion of the Reformed” held that justification was fundamentally uniform under both Testaments. The papists, with Thomas cited, “think that the Old Testament fathers were until Christ’s actual satisfaction under the guilt of their sins, and therefore were not admitted into heaven, but were kept detained in a limbo particularly for them until Christ after his death lead them from there into heaven.” (TPT, vol. 5, ch. 6, §29)

Involves Not Only Remission of Sins, but being Legally Righteous by Christ’s Active Righteousness

Thomas says, “the remission of sins is justification,” but this is not by any imputation of Christ’s passive (suffering) or active righteousness (of positively obeying the Law). Rather it is according to the degree that inward and actual rightouesness in the believer replaces their sinful corruption (as in sanctification). Thomas says justification is “the transmutation whereby anyone is changed by the remission of sins from the state of ungodliness to the state of justice.” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 113, art. 1)

The Reformed not only held that justification is by the legal imputation of Christ’s passive righteousness, or suffering for us under the Law, effecting the remission of sins, but the majority of them also affirmed that Christ’s active righteousness, in positive obedience to the Law, is imputed to the believer. See ‘The Active Obedience of Christ’.

Always Legal & Forensic, Never Infused or an Inward Change

Thomas:

“Now the infusion of grace is the cause of whatever is required for the justification of the ungodly…” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 113, art. 8)

“Grace, as a quality, is said to act upon the soul, not after the manner of an efficient cause, but after the manner of a formal cause, as whiteness makes a thing white, and justice, just.” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 110, art. 2)

“But even sanctifying grace, whereby we are justified, is given to us gratuitously… Grace is said to make pleasing, not efficiently but formally, i.e. because thereby a man is justified, and is made worthy to be called pleasing to God…” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 111, art. 1)

“And thus habitual grace, inasmuch as it heals and justifies the soul, or makes it pleasing to God, is called operating grace;” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 111, art. 2)

“Hence we could not conceive the remission of guilt, without the infusion of grace.” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 113, art. 2)

“There are four things which are accounted to be necessary for the justification of the ungodly, viz. the infusion of grace, the movement of the free-will towards God by faith, the movement of the free-will towards sin [to detest it], and the remission of sins.” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 113, art. 6)

“The entire justification of the ungodly consists as to its origin in the infusion of grace.” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 113, art. 7)

Vermigli: “…Thomas says that… the well-willing of God unto any man, or the favoring of any is to give them or pour into them such an habit [of grace]… it is no small error, that they would have us to be made acceptable unto God by this habit or creature.” (Common Places, pt. 3, ch. 2, p. 49)

Turretin: “Thomas Aquinas says, ‘Justification taken passively implies a motion to making righteous…’… we maintain that it is never taken for an infusion of righteousness, but as often as the Scriptures speak professedly about our justification, it always must be explained as a forensic term.” (2.634)

Mastricht and “Protestants” held that justification does not speak of an interior change in the one to be justified, “but always an exterior change, procured through a declaration.” Thomas held that justification “was a composite motion, partly physical, which consists in the infusion of rightesousness, and patly ethical, in the remission of sins.” (TPT, vol. 5, ch. 6, §19)

Ames: “There is rather a judicial or moral change which takes shape in the pronouncing of the sentence and in the reckoning… Therefore, Thomas and his followers are completely mistaken for they would make justification a kind of physical motion from the state of unrighteousness to that of righteousness in a real transmutation. They consider that it begins with sin, ends in inherent righteousness, with remission of sin and infusion of righteousness the motion between.” (Marrow, bk. 1, ch. 27, §§7-8)

Owen:

“The Holy Ghost, in expressing the most eminent acts in our justification, especially as unto our believing, or the acting of that faith whereby we are justified, is pleased to make use of many metaphorical expressions… He that shall deny that there is more spiritual sense and experience conveyed by them into the hearts and minds of believers (which is the life and soul of teaching things practical), than in the most accurate philosophical expressions, is himself really ignorant of the whole truth in this matter… And other knowledge of or skill in these things, than what is required of us in a way of duty, is not to be valued.

It is, therefore, to no purpose to handle the mysteries of the gospel as if Hilcot and Bricot, Thomas and Gabriel, with all the Sententiarists, Summists, and Quodlibetarians of the old Roman peripatetical school, were to be raked out of their graves to be our guides. Especially will they be of no use unto us in this doctrine of justification. For whereas they pertinaciously adhered unto the philosophy of Aristotle, who knew nothing of any righteousness but what is a habit inherent in ourselves, and the acts of it, they wrested the whole doctrine of justification unto a compliance therewithal.” (5.12)

Faith does Not Justify Properly & of Itself, but Instrumentally

Thomas: “But faith pertains to sanctifying grace, since we are justified by it…” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 111, art. 4)

Turretin: “Does Faith Justify us Properly and of Itself or Only Relatively and Instrumentally? The Former We Deny; the Latter We Affirm Against the Socinians, Remonstrants & Romanists.” (2.669-75)

Justification cannot be Lost

Thomas: “Although this justification is frustrated in certain persons, because they do not persevere to the end, in the predestined it is never frustrated.” (On Romans, ch. 8, lect. 6, vv. 28-32, §708)

WCF 11.5: “…they can never fall from the state of justification,[p]…

[p] Luke 22:32. John 10:28. Heb. 10:14“

Sanctification

Agreements

Supernatural Grace: by Infusion

Gale: “That supernatural good and virtue comes from God by divine infusion is generally asserted and demonstrated by the sectators of Augustin and Aquinas.” (4.496)

No Proper Habitual vs. Actual Grace Distinction

On Maresius and Thomas: “Supernatural habits, by contrast [with natural habits], are stirred into action by the Holy Spirit, who dwells in the recipients of habitual grace (Maresius 1646-48, 2:143). Maresius disagrees with some Roman Catholic theologians, who suggest that people imbued with habitual grace require an additional gift of ‘actual grace’ before habitual grace bears fruit. For Maresius, the Spirit’s powerful presence is quite sufficient. As a result, Maresius is suspicious of the distinction between habitual and actual grace—a distinction, he notes, which is not found in Aquinas.

That said, if by ‘actual grace’ is meant simply the Spirit’s activity in exciting supernatural habits into action, Maresius does not object, although he prefers the term ‘moving grace’ (Maresius 1646-48, 2:144). And since the Holy Spirit dwells with believers permanently, he argues that moving grace is also permanently present as to the principle of its motion, even if it is not permanently active.” (Stephen Hampton in Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, p. 236)

Deification

Thomas: “Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify [deificet], bestowing a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness, as it is impossible that anything save fire should enkindle.”

Nothing in the above quote needs to be objectionable to protestants. 2 Pet. 1:4 says “that by these,” that is godliness, all graces and the promises of God, including that of glorification, “ye might be partakers of the divine nature”. The Reformed, especially in commentaries on 2 Pet. 1:4, upheld the term of deification (just as the early and medieval Churches), understanding it in a way consistent with protestantism, namely that in becoming sanctified with real graces, we become more like God, partaking of his gracious nature, yet without in anyway taking on his essence or incommunicable attributes of God.

That is the same way, it appears, Thomas uses the term. Thomas understands our partaking of the divine nature to be through created, not uncreated, grace. In sharing a communicated attribute of God, we participate, in a way (and not in other ways), in his nature. This is on par with how the creation itself owes its being to participating in communicable and communicated attributes of God, which notion the Reformed largely upheld as well: ‘On the Communicable Attributes & Participation’.

Thomas’s position is in contrast to “the apparent allergy of the Eastern theologians to the doctrine of created grace,” (p. 1) they prefering uncreated grace to be the basis of deification, bringing in the host of problems associated with deification in the Western mind.

Thomas did affirm a kind of deification of heavenly saints with respect to the light of glory and the beatific vision. Yet “the light of glory, like
the habit of grace, is something created. So in either state, pre- or post-mortem, deification is something created.” (p. 32) On all of this, see Richard Cross, ‘Deification in Aquinas’.

Where sects abused the term and notion of deification, such as the Familists, the Reformed took them to task. See David Dickson, Truth’s Victory over Error, ch. 26, question 2, ‘Does this communion, which the saints have with Christ, make them in any wise partakers of the substance of his Godhead, or equal with Him in any respect? No’ and Samuel Rutherford, Survey of Spiritual Antichrist, pt. 1, p. 186 and pt. 2, p. 169.

Disagreement

Monasticism is Not a Better or Higher State than a Non-Monastic Life

Thomas:

“By this we are given to understand that martyrdom, and also the monastic state, are preferable to virginity [which is preferable to regular life].” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 152, art. 5)

“Hence it is said (XIX, qu. i, can. Clerici qui monachorum): Clerics who wish to take the monastic vows through being desirous of a better life must be allowed by their bishops the free entrance into the monastery.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 184, art. 8)

For the Reformed: ‘On Monasticism’.

Spirit’s Gifts & Fruits & of the Beatitudes

Disagreements

On the Spirit’s Gifts & Fruits, & on the Beatitudes

Thomas, Summa, pt. 1 of 2

68. ‘Of the Gifts’
69. ‘Of the Beatitudes’
70. ‘Of the Fruits of the Holy Ghost’

Voet goes through this section of Thomas gleaning what is useful, solid and good, and casting out the chaff: Select Theological Disputations, vol. 4, 47. Disquisition on Thomas, Part 1 of Part 2, Questions 68-70, of the Gifts, Blessings & Fruits of the Spirit, pp. 729-39

Gift of Miracles Ceased

Thomas taught the typical Romanist doctrine and claims, that miracles continued somewhat commonly through Church history, and verified Romanist teachings and practices, they being a mark of the true Church:

“Although even in our time God does not cease to work miracles through his saints in confirmation of the faith.” (Summa Contra Gentiles, bk.1, ch. 6)

“‘I do not say that anyone should pray for him.’ [1 Jn. 5:16]… then it must be understood in the sense that not just anyone should pray for such a sinner, since the conversion of these kinds of sinners is, as it were, miraculous. Hence just as not just anyone should pray for miracles to be performed, except great and holy men, neither should just anyone pray for the conversion of these kinds of sinners.” (Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 43, ‘Exposition of the Text’)

“In the second way miracles are not wrought except by the saints, since it is in proof of their holiness that miracles are wrought during their lifetime or after death, either by themselves or by others… In this way indeed there is nothing to prevent a sinner from working miracles by invoking a saint; but the miracle is ascribed not to him, but to the one in proof of whose holiness such things are done.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 178, art. 2, ‘I answer’)

The Reformed typically held to the cessation of the gift of miracles, that they do not regularly continue through the Church (which is not to say they did not believe God could or might do miracles in their time): ‘On Miracles & the Cessation of the Gift of Miracles’.

Good Works

Agreements

Relation of Predestination to God’s Foreknowledge of Good Works

Necessity of Grace for Good Works

Disagreements

Cannot Attain Perfection in this Life

Thomas: “…on the part of the lover as regards the removal of obstacles to the movement of love towards God… Such perfection as this can be had in this life, and in two ways. First, by the removal from man’s affections of all that is contrary to charity, such as mortal sin; and there can be no charity apart from this perfection, wherefore it is necessary for salvation. Secondly, by the removal from man’s affections not only of whatever is contrary to charity, but also of whatever hinders the mind’s affections from tending wholly to God.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 184, art. 2) “…properly speaking, one is said to be in the state of perfection, not through having the act of perfect love, but through binding himself in perpetuity and with a certain solemnity to those things that pertain to perfection.” (Ibid, art. 4)

Hommius, Festus – 70 Theological Disputations Against Papists (Leiden, 1614), Disp. 66, section 5, pp. 442-43

‘Whether the Regenerate are able to Present some Good Work that is Not Imperfect & Iniquitous?’ [No]
‘Whether All the Works of the Regenerate are Worthy of Death?’ [Yes]

Note also how (shockingly) low of a standard ‘perfection’ is for Thomas. While his statements above were qualified by “such perfection as this” and as “one is said to be in the state of perfection,” this possibly keeping in reserve a higher standard of perfection, when this is conjoined with Thomas’s teaching on merit and supererogatory works (below), it is clear that Thomas’s very low standard of perfection was not in words only, but came with real objectionable, theological consequences. Compare Thomas on Inward Affections below.

The Reformed disagreed with Thomas on what constitutes perfection. While allowing for other senses and uses of the term and concept, where appropriate, yet they properly defined it according to God’s Word, Law and full glory: see ‘On Perfectionism’.

Works of Supererogation & Counsels

Thomas:

“The difference between a counsel and a commandment is that a commandment implies obligation, whereas a counsel is left to the option of the one to whom it is given.” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 108, art. 4)

“Doing something good that we are not bound to by a precept of the law belongs to supererogation, which counsels are given about;” (Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 15, q. 2, resp. 4, reply to obj. 1)

“No one is bound to works of supererogation, unless he binds himself specially thereto by vow… it is evident that to live without possessing anything is a work of supererogation, for it is a matter not of precept but of counsel. Wherefore our Lord after saying to the young man: ‘If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,’ said afterwards by way of addition: ‘If thou wilt be perfect go sell’ all ‘that thou hast, and give to the poor’ (Mt. 19:17,21).” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 185, art. 6)

Thomas discusses his understanding of the nature of counsels in Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 184, art. 3 and Contra Gentiles, ch. 130.

The Reformed utterly denied works of supererogation (i.e. the claim of doing good works beyond what God’s Law requires, and therein attaining surplus merit) and held the ethical weight of Paul’s evangelical counsels (such as found in 1 Cor. 7) to be morally binding by God’s law upon individuals according to circumstances, their individual characteristics, etc., the ethical obligation arising therefrom. See ‘On the Evangelical Counsels’.

Vermigli:

“But forsomuch as superstitious men do labor by some places of the Scripture to thrust upon the Church many of the works of supererogation; first we will see what the opinion of these men is… afterward we will bring weighty arguments against their error…

Also they bring an argument out of the seventh chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, touching sole life or virginity, which state is so freely laid before us, as he which takes not the same upon him, may have salvation: but he which does take it upon him is both commended the more and is said to do somewhat better…

Whereupon they appoint many evangelical counsels: the which Thomas, and other Schoolmen do thus define; namely, that they be persuasions of a greater good added to the commandments, that a more ready and better end may be attained: the which things do not bind us to assent unto them, but only that we contemn them not; and that as touching the preparation of the mind, we at a certain time both admit and execute them.” (Common Places, pt. 3, ch. 9, pp. 227-28)

Merit

Disagreements

Did Christ Merit for Himself & How?

Thomas (Summa, pt. 3, q. 19, art. 3) and the Romanists generally answered yes, including from Him meriting as a man. The early Reformed mostly answered no; all his meriting was for his people. The later Reformed, especially in the second half of the 1600’s, typically held that Christ merited by a gracious covenant, ex pacto (namely the eternal Covenant of Redemption) both for his people, and for the gracious, peculiar rewards promised to Him in that covenant. See ‘Whether Christ Merited Glory for Himself’.

Predestination: Not through Meriting Glory

Man cannot Merit from God

Thomas:

“Therefore man merits everlasting life condignly.” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 114, art. 3)

“Hence it would seem that a man may merit from God… as it is an act of justice to give a just price for anything received from another, so also is it an act of justice to make a return for work or toil. Now justice is a kind of equality, as is clear from the Philosopher [Aristotle] (Ethic. v, 3)… where there is justice simply, there is the character of merit and reward simply. But where there is no simple right, but only relative, there is no character of merit simply, but only relatively, in so far as the character of justice is found there, since the child merits something from his father and the slave from his lord.

Now it is clear that between God and man there is the greatest inequality: for they are infinitely apart, and all man’s good is from God. Hence there can be no justice of absolute equality between man and God, but only of a certain proportion… Now the manner and measure of human virtue is in man from God. Hence man’s merit with God only exists on the presupposition of the Divine ordination, so that man obtains from God, as a reward of his operation, what God gave him the power of operation for, even as natural things by their proper movements and operations obtain that to which they were ordained by God…” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 114, art. 1)

For the Reformed: ‘On Merit’.

Condign & Congruent Merit is a Fable

Condign merit refers a strict merit of justice. Congruen merit refers to a graciously accommodated, proportionable merit.

Thomas:

“…our works are meritorious from two causes: first, by virtue of the divine motion; and thus we merit condignly; secondly, according as they proceed from free-will in so far as we do them willingly, and thus they have congruous merit…” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 114, art. 6)

“Therefore man merits everlasting life condignly… Man’s meritorious work may be considered in two ways: first, as it proceeds from free-will; secondly, as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost. If it is considered as regards the substance of the work, and inasmuch as it springs from the free-will, there can be no condignity because of the very great inequality. But there is congruity, on account of an equality of proportion: for it would seem congruous that, if a man does what he can, God should reward him according to the excellence of his power.

If, however, we speak of a meritorious work, inasmuch as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting, it is meritorious of life everlasting condignly.” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 114, art. 3)

Turretin: “Is there a Merit of Congruity or Condignity? Do Good Works Merit Eternal Life? We Deny Against the Romanists.” (2.710-24)

Saints cannot Lose Glory by Demerit

Polanus denies Bellarmine saying out of Thomas that “the crown of glory may be due in two respects, of predestination and of merit; and though in the first regard it cannot simply be lost, yet in the latter it may.” (Eternal Predestination, p. 33)

Penance: Not Meritorious

Durham, on Roman penance: “These two [principles] are laid down by Thomas… It concurs by way of satisfaction for the sin committed, and so this inward contrition, in the sensitive part, is man’s recompensing for his fault inwardly, as he does outwardly inflict punishment on the body, ‘to recompensing the offense which has been committed against God,’ as Aquinas speaks… It concurs meritoriously as an act of virtue, even as other works do for procuring meritoriously something from God… even the first entrance into glory.” (Revelation, lect. 1, ch. 9, p. 445)

A Treasury of Merit is Impossible

Thomas:

“Now one man can satisfy for another, as we have explained above (q. 13, art. 2). And the saints in whom this super-abundance of satisfactions is found, did not perform their good works for this or that particular person, who needs the remission of his punishment (else he would have received this remission without any indulgence at all), but they performed them for the whole Church in general… These merits, then, are the common property of the whole Church. Now those things which are the common property of a number are distributed to the various individuals according to the judgment of him who rules them all.” (Summa, suppl., q. 25, art. 1)

“the key of jurisdiction… its effect depends on a man’s decision. The remission granted through indulgences is the effect of this key, since it does not belong to the dispensation of the sacraments, but to the distribution of the common property of the Church… Consequently the decision of how much punishment is to be remitted by an indulgence depends on the will of the one who grants that indulgence.” (Summa, suppl., q. 25, art. 2)

The Reformed deny such a merit altogether, much more a supererogatory merit and indulgences, which makes a treasury of merit impossible. See: ‘Merit’ & ‘Indulgences’.

Heavenly Rewards according to Works, not Due to Them

Leigh: “The generality of the Fathers, Schoolmen and modern divines, are for diversity of degrees [in Heaven]. The Papists lay the degrees of glory on the several merits of men… This preeminence of glory the Schoolmen term… ‘an additament’ of felicity to that essential glory in the vision of God… See Aquinas, Supplement, 3rd Part, q. 96… God rewards a man not propter [due to], but secundum opera [according to works], according to the matter [not merit] of his work…” (System of Divinity, p. 872)

Perseverance

Mixed

Elect will Persevere & it is Not Possible for the Non-Elect to attain Saving Grace & then Fall Away

Thomas: “For to many grace is given to whom perseverance in grace is not given.” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 109, art. 10)

Owen:

“I shall not perplex the reader with the horrid names of Trombot, Hilcot, Bricot, Sychet, Tartaret, Brulifer, nor with their more horrid terms and expressions. Let the one Angelical Doctor (i.e., Aquinas) answer for the rest of his companions. That this man, then (one of the great masters of the crew), abode by the principles of him before insisted on [Augustine], may quickly be made evident by some few instances clearing his judgment herein…

This [good principle that all the elect are certainly given the gift of perseverance], indeed, is common with this author and the rest of his associates (the Dominicans and present Jansenians) in these controversies, together with the residue of the Romimists, that having their judgments wrested by the abominable figments of implicit faith and the efficacy of the sacraments of the New Testament, conveying and really exhibiting the grace signified or sealed by them, they are enforced to grant that many may be, and are, regenerated and made true believers who are not predestinated, and that these cannot persevere, nor shall eventually be saved. Certain it is, that there is not any truth which that generation of men do receive and admit, but more or less it suffers in their hands from that gross ignorance of the free grace of God in Jesus Christ, the power whereof they are practically under. What the poor vassals and slaves will do upon the late bull of their holy father, casting them in sundry main concernments of their quarrel with their adversaries, is uncertain.

Otherwise, setting aside some such deviations as the above mentioned, whereunto they are enforced by their ignorance of the grace and justification which is in Jesus Christ, there is so much of ancient candid truth, in opposition to the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians, preserved and asserted in the writings of the Dominican friars, as will rise up, as I said before, in judgment against those of our days who, enjoying greater light and advantages, do yet close in with those and are long since cursed enemies of the grace of God.” (11.70, 73)

Disagreement

True Believers can Never Totally Fall Away from Faith

Thomas: “For to many grace is given to whom perseverance in grace is not given.” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 109, art. 10)

Thomas: “For the book of life is the inscription of those ordained to eternal life, to which one is directed from two sources; namely, from predestination, which direction never fails, and from grace; for whoever has grace, by this very fact becomes fitted for eternal life. This direction fails sometimes; because some are directed by possessing grace, to obtain eternal life, yet they fail to obtain it through mortal sin.” (Summa, pt. 1, q. 24, art. 3)

Turretin: “Whether the true believer can ever totally or finally fall from faith. We deny against the Romanists… and others who favor the apostasy of the saints.” (2.593)

Assurance

Disagreement

Believers can & ought to be Certain of their Salvation

Thomas: “Secondly, a man may, of himself, know something, and with certainty; and in this way no one can know that he has grace… And hence man cannot judge with certainty that he has grace… Thirdly, things are known conjecturally by signs; and thus anyone may know he has grace, when he is conscious of delighting in God and of despising worldly things, and inasmuch as a man is not conscious of any mortal sin… Yet this knowledge is imperfect…” (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 112, art. 5)

WCF 18

“I… such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace,[c]…

[c] 1 John 2:3. 1 John 3:14,18,19,21,24. 1 John 5:13.

II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope;[e] but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation,[f]…

[f] Heb. 6:17,18“

Turretin: “Whether the Believer can and ought to be Certain of his Faith & Justification by a Divine & Not Merely Conjectural Certainty. We Affirm Against the Romanists & Remonstrants.” (2.616-33)

Ethics

Agreements

Chief Good must be Satisfactory

Leigh, in laying out five requisites for man’s chief good, quotes Aquinas for the last one: “5. Summum bonum est appetitus quietativum. Aquinas. ‘The chief good must be a satisfactory good,’ it must satisfy without satiety. ‘I shall be satisfied with thy likeness, Ps. 17. ult; See 1 Jn. 2:15.” (System of Divinity, p. 203)

Virtue Ethics

Thomas, Summa, pt. 2 of 2, qq. 1-170

On the Reformed: David Sytsma, ‘Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics & Protestantism’ (2021) in Academia Letters; also Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, p. 238.

Spiritual Delectations are Superior

Gale: “The pleasure the soul takes in the fruition of inferior goods soon admits excess, which it endeavors to cure by change of objects. Thus Aquinas, Summa, 1.2, q. 33, art. 2:

‘Corporal delectations, when augmented and continued, do exceed the natural habitude, and therefore become nauseous; as it is evident in the delicacies of food: whence the appetite desires change and variety. But spiritual delectations never exceed the natural habitude, but perfect nature: whence the more they come to a consummation, the more they delight us.’” (4.40)

Gale: “Acts of contemplation on God are most tranquil, pleasant, congenial to the soul, uniform, self-sufficient, and permanent. Thus Aquinas, Summa, 2.2, q. 179, art. 1:

‘Everything manifests its life by that operation which is most proper to it, and whereunto it is chiefly inclined: Now, in as much as contemplation is the proper act of man whereunto he is most inclined, and wherein he delights most, it follows, that herein the main of his life consists.’” (4.30)

Recreation & Games can be Good

Thomas, Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 168, art. 2-4.

For the Reformed: ‘Recreation’.

Indifferent Actions Exist

Rutherford cites “all the Schoolmen”, including Thomas, against a congregationalist saying that every action in an individual is either morally good or bad, as some non-rational human actions are neither good nor bad. (Survey of that Sum, bk. 4, ch. 10, p. 462)

All Rational Actions are Good or Bad to Some Degree

Gillespie cites Thomas approvingly calling an indifferent action one that is neither good nor evil; he then quotes Thomas: “Those mores are called good which are congruent to reason; those are bad which are discordant from reason.” (English-Popish, pt. 3, ch. 9, pp. 2 & 5)

Gillespie quotes Thomas in support that “no such action as is deliberated upon can be indifferent quo ad individuum [as to the individual action].” (English-Popish, pt. 4, ch. 3, p. 12)

Gale: “This is well determined by Aquinas, Summa, 1.2, q. 18, art. 9, ‘It happens sometimes that an act is indifferent as to its species, which yet considered in individuo, is either good or evil: and that because every moral act receives its bonity [goodness] not only from its object, but also from its circumstances— And it’s necessary, that every individual act has some circumstance by which it is drawn to good or evil; at least as to the intention of the end. For in as much as it belongs to reason to order all human acts; if any act be not ordered to its last end, it is so far evil: if it be ordered to its last end, it is then good, etc.’” (4.58-59)

For more of the Reformed: ‘No Rational Human Actions, of Authorities or Individuals, are Indifferent, but must be Good or Evil to Varying Degrees’.

Moral Actions Recevie their Kind from their End

This principle was very important in numerous debates in Reformed theology, especially with regard to Church and State relations (such as with Gillespie below) and actions of worship. See Rutherford argue this in points about worship in Divine Right, Intro, pp. 85–56, 88–89 & ch. 1, p. 150.

Gillespie: “Actions take their species or kind from the object and the end, when other circumstances hinder not…” (English-Popish, pt. 3, pp. 152–53)

Gale: “5th Proposition: The object-matter does also in some degree concur to the formalizing of moral acts. Thence, says Aquinas, ‘A moral act receives its species from the object and end.’ And Petrus à Sancto Joseph, thesis 165, adds, that an act is moral from the order it has to its object, not considered in its being but morally, as subject to the rules of morality.” (4.45-46)

Gale: “To the constitution of moral good there is also essentially requisite the best end. Thus Plato, Gorg. p. 499, assures us, ‘That all acts must be undertaken for the last end and best good.’… This is well explicated by Aquinas, Summa, 2.2, q. 23, art. 8:

‘It must be said that in morals the form of an act is principally to be attended in regard of its end: and the reason is most evident, because the will is the principle of moral acts, and the end the main object, and as it were the form of the will: but now the form of an act always follows the form of an agent: whence in morals it is necessary, that what gives an act its order to an end, gives it also form, etc…’

This is well explicated by Jansenius [a Romanist], August., tom. 2, bk. 4, ch. 10.” (4.62)

Circumstances Factor into the Morality of Actions

Gale: “To this of the object [of an action] we may add all essential moral circumstances, which oft add much to the being and intension of morality.” (4.45-46)

Gale: “Thus we see how Plato and Aristotle require to the constitution of moral good, not only a right matter, but that it be clothed with all due circumstances, whereby it may be rendered conformable to the law as to manner. This hypothesis has been generally maintained among the more sound Schoolmen. Thus Aquinas, Summa, 1.2, q. 7, art. 2:

‘A circumstance is a condition or accident of an human act, which touches it extrinsically. And seeing human acts are disposed towards their last end by circumstances, the contemplation hereof greatly concerns theologues. For a theologue considers human acts as a man is thereby ordained to beatitude: Now whatever is ordained to an end ought to be proportionate thereto: But acts are rendered proportionable to their end by a certain commensuration, which they receive from due circumstances: whence the consideration of circumstances chiefly belongs to a theologue.’

What these circumstances are he adds, art. 3, in human acts, ‘Who did it; By what aids or instruments; What, Why, How, When and About what he did it,’ are to be inquired into.” (4.65)

For more of the Reformed on this, including Gillespie depending on Thomas, see ‘That the Law Arises out of the Circumstances’.

Intentions

Rutherford, against some fathers and other papists, says to see Aquinas that a good intention cannot make an evil action good. (Divine Right, ch. 2, question 2, p. 215)

Leigh: “‘In all our works, a heavenly intention ought to be joined.’ Aquinas.” (System of Divinity, p. 199)

Gale: ”It’s a good notion of Aquinas that ‘the soul, by intending temporals in order to God, is elevated and advanced; otherwise it is depressed and brought down,’ namely when it intends any temporal thing for itself.” (4.24)

Positive Commands Not to be Done at All Times

Thomas: “Now affirmative precepts… do not bind for always, although they are always binding; but they bind as to place and time according to other due circumstances, in respect of which human acts have to be regulated…” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 3, art. 2)

For the Reformed: ‘On How Positive Commands Are Not to be Done at All Times & Circumstances’.

Necessity may Override Positive Laws

Rutherford agrees with “the casuists and the schoolmen,” including Thomas, “that a positive law may yield in case of necessity to the good of the Church.” (Due Right, ch. 1, p. 8)

For more of the Reformed: ‘Natural Law, in Necessity, Over-Rules Positive Law when They Conflict’.

Inferior giving Alms needs at least Implicit Consent of Superior apart from Necessity

Leigh: “Aquinas has this question… Whether he which is under power may give alms? and resolves it negatively, because inferiours must be regulated by their superiors, but says, if a wife has anything besides her dowry, or gains anything herself, or gets it any other lawful way, she may give moderate alms of that, without requiring her husband’s consent, otherwise she ought not to give alms without her husband’s consent, either express or presumed, unless in case of necessity. Dr. [William] Gouge in his Domestic Duties resolves this question much after the same manner.” (System of Divinity, p. 595)

Prudence & Art

Mastricht appears to mirror Thomas in how he distinguishes prudence and art. (TPT, vol. 1, ch. 1, §46, p. 105 fn.)

Mixed

Roman Casuists Not to be Despised, but are Often Morally Lax & Not Edifying

Voet: “…they bend and pull many matters of conscience in whatever direction human inclination, the winds of the world, or the love, hatred, or effort of men drive them. Often, like a Pharisee, they swallow the camel while straining out the gnat. By arguments and bitter disputations on many issues, consciences are torn apart, not built up; they let loose trouble-makers, not wiser and better men, and they reach a worldly security, or skepticism, rather than assurance in the matter of religion… For the rest, if these defects are understood and guarded against, we recognize that the more significant of the casuists among the papists, and of the commentators on Thomas, are not to be despised.”

Disagreements

Morality Organized by 10 Commandments, Not Virtues

Zanchi “puts great stress on the virtues in the Christian life, and his understanding of the virtues follows Thomas closely; but unlike Aquinas, Zanchi does not use the virtues as the organizing framework for outlining Christian morality but rather retains the more traditional schema built on the ten commandments.” (Donnelly, Calvinst Thomism, p. 449)

Faith is the Mother of Virtues

Article

Habitual Ignorance makes Unbelief Worse

Rutherford teaches “habitual ignorance makes the acts of unbelief morally worse or ill,” though it is “the corrupt doctrine of Papists,” including Thomas, “who muzzle up the people in ignorance and discharge them to read God’s Word, and so maintain (because of the obscurity and imperfection of God’s Word which is not able to determine all questions) that there is an ignorance of many lawful duties which is invincible and to be excused as no ways sinful and which vitiates not our moral actions…” (Due Right, ch. 3, p. 44)

Conscience

Agreements

Going Against Conscience is Sinful

Rutherford affirms Thomas that to go against conscience is sinful (Rom. 14:14). (Due Right, ch. 6, §5, p. 379)

Gillespie affirms Thomas’s doctrine that “Conscience, then though erring, does ever bind in such sort that he who does against his conscience, sins against God.” (English-Popish, pt. 1, ch. 5, p. 17)

Right of Private Discretion

Ames: “Dr. [John] Davenant taught us other doctrine at Cambridge, when upon Col. 2:13, in opposition to Jesuitical blind obedience, he showed even out of Thomas Aquinas that ‘subjects may and ought judge with the judgment of discretion the decrees of their superiors, so far as it concerns their particular.'” (Fresh Suit, 1633, p. 79)

Obedience

Mixed

4th Commandment: Sabbath is & Continues to be Partly Natural & Partly Positive, but 4th Commandment’s Morality is the Observance of One Day in Seven

Thomas: “…the observance of the Sabbath, with respect to what it has of the natural law, insofar as it is a moral precept, has not ceased in the time of grace… But the assignment of the day or time, which did not pertain to the moral law, has ceased with the advent of the state of grace…” (Sentences, bk. 3, dist. 37, q. 1, art. 5, resp. to quaestiuncula 3)

For the Reformed: ‘That the Sabbath is Partly Moral & Partly Positive’ and Daniel Cawdrey and Herbert Palmer, ch. 6, ‘The Moral Substance of the 4th Commandment is for Frequency One Day in Seven’ in Christian Sabbath Vindicated, pt. 2, pp. 206-54.

Disagreements

No Blind Obedience

Rutherford denies Thomas that “soldiers, lictors, servants, people under the eldership are… mere instruments moved only by superiors,” because “[1.] they are moral agents, and are no less to obey in faith than superiors are to command in faith and they are to obey their superiors only in the Lord. 2. They are to give all diligence that they be not accessary to unjust sentences, lest they partake of other men’s sins.” (Due Right, ch. 3, §3, p. 45)

4th Commandment Prohibts Works of Itself

Thomas: “On the Lord’s Day we are bound, by an establishment of the Church, to be unoccupied by works that can impede us from divine worship, which we should do on that the day…” (Sentences, bk. 3, dist. 37, q. 1, art. 5, resp. to quaestiuncula 3)

WCF, ch. 21

“VII… in his word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath, to be kept holy unto him…

VIII. This sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men… do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works… [o]…

[o] Exod. 20:8. Exod. 16:23,25,26,29,30. Exod. 31:15-17. Isa. 58:13. Neh. 13:15-19,21,22“

5th Commandment

Requires Piety

Clarkson: “Aquinas, who delivers and maintains this maxim, explains it by this instance: He is neither punished by God, nor men, as a transgressor of the precept, who pays his parents due honor, though not out of a habit of piety. (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 100, art. 9, c.)” (Practical Divinity of Papists, p. 177)

Oaths & Vows

Agreements

Invocation of God is Part of an Oath

Leigh, in listing out four parts of an oath, quotes Aquinas in confirmation that invocation of God’s name is one part. (System of Divinity, p. 790)

No Blind Obedience by Oaths

Gillespie, in contrast to tying oneself to what a Church may afterward ordain, affirms Thomas that “the judgment of discretion” is necessary to a lawful oath. Bullinger and Zanchi follow Thomas. Thomas’s distinction between an assertory vs. promissory oath is approved. (English-Popish, pt. 4, ch. 8, p. 40)

Disagreements

Swearing Lightly or Falsely is Harmful

Clarkson: “Commonly to swear that which is false, without considering whether it be false or no, or whether [it] be [a] swear[ing] or not, is as harmless. This is the judgment of Aquinas and their common doctrine; so that if a man heed not what he does, he may do what he will, and as it were wink a damnable crime into a slight fault.” (Practical Divinity of Papists, p. 215)

Good Faith & Oaths are to be Upheld with Unbelievers

Turretin: “…plighted faith is to be kept even with heretics and infidels. It is opposed to the opinion held by papists that faith is not to be kept with heretics… Nor did Thomas Aquinas hold a different opinion, maintaining that ‘a heretic should be delivered up to the judges, notwithstanding faith and an oath.’” (2.68-69)

Youth under Parents’ Authority for Vows

Turretin denies Thomas on youth, after puberty, being able to shake off their parents’ authority and bind themselves by a religious vow, devoting themselves to a monastic life. (2:105)

Voluntary Poverty is Not able to be Rightly Vowed, nor ought one to Live on Alms or by Begging

Thomas argues at length for voluntary poverty in Contra Gentiles, bk. 3, chs. 131-35, starting with, “Concerning the error of those who condemn voluntary poverty”; also Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 187, art. 4-5.

For the Reformed against this, see ‘On Poverty’.

Worship

Agreements

Definition of

Collinges: “Worship is an homage performed to God immediately, in consideration of his excellency. This is Aquinas’s, and other of the schoolmens’ notion about worship, and it is a very good one.” (Intercourses of Divine Love, Sermon 39, pp. 564-65) That this was very much in line with, and even foundational to how the Reformed generally defined worship, see, ‘On the Definition of Worship’.

Rutherford approvingly quotes Thomas with respect to worship that “Honor is a sign or expression of excellency in any.” (Divine Right, Intro, §4, p. 82)

External Worship is Secondary to Internal

Thomas:

“Objection 1: It would seem that religion has not an external act. It is written (John 4:24): ‘God is a spirit, and they that adore Him, must adore Him in spirit and in truth.’ Now external acts pertain, not to the spirit but to the body. Therefore religion, to which adoration belongs, has acts that are not external but internal.
…

I answer that… Wherefore in the Divine worship it is necessary to make use of corporeal things, that man’s mind may be aroused thereby, as by signs, to the spiritual acts by means of which he is united to God. Therefore the internal acts of religion take precedence of the others and belong to religion essentially, while its external acts are secondary, and subordinate to the internal acts.

Reply to Objection 1: Our Lord is speaking of that which is most important and directly intended in the worship of God.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 81, art. 7; see also q. 84, art. 2)

For the Reformed: ‘On Internal & External Worship’.

Prayer ought to be Continual

Leigh brings up Thomas’s question, ‘Whether prayer ought to be continual?” and gives Thomas’s two reasons for the affirmative before giving his own reasons. (System of Divinity, p. 623)

Lack of Efficacy in Ceremonies

Rutherford approvingly quotes Thomas with respect to the (lack of) efficacy of ceremonies in worship, that “Joshua’s twelve stones, the phylacteries, the manna, the rainbow, did only work upon the senses and memory.” (Divine Right, ch. 1, question 3, p. 134)

Head Coverings are Not by a Perpetual, Biblical Prescription

In Thomas’s three sermons on 1 Cor. 11:1-16, he holds that women having nourished hair (comam nutriat) and using an artificial covering (not necessarily limited to worship or church) is based on natural inclinations and suitability. At the end of his last sermon, he concludes the matter by applying a quote of Augustine, inferring that head coverings are customary and Scripture has not defined anything definite about them:

“Hence Augustine says: ‘In all cases in which sacred Scripture has defined nothing definite, the customs of the people of God and the edicts of superiors must be regarded as the law.’

Daniel Cawdrey (a presbyterian Westminster divine): “for men to pray or prophesy with their heads covered, or with long hair, and women uncovered, were things in their own nature indifferent (unless you
make it necessary as a moral duty for men to pray or prophesy uncovered and women contra, which no interpreters upon that text do).” (Vindication of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, ch. 6, pp. 57–58)

The cultural view was the dominant view of the Westminster divines, the Scottish covenanters, and the Reformed in the Reformation and the Lutherans as well. For an extended defense of the classical Reformed position, citing a plethora of the Reformed throughout, see Fentiman, Head-Coverings are Not Perpetual & they were Hair-Buns, with or without Material: Proven.

Disagreements

Divinity is the Formal Relation under which Christ the Mediator is Worshipped; Christ’s Flesh is Not an End of the Worship

The majority view of the Reformed was that, while Christ in the flesh may be worshipped, his human nature being the material object to which the worship may be directed, yet the worship itself terminated not on his created flesh, but upon his uncreated, infinite Person. See ‘The Grounds of Christ the Mediator Receiving Divine Worship’.

Thomas held that, “the humanity is the thing adored… the adoration of latria [divine worship] is not given to Christ’s humanity in respect of itself; but in respect of the Godhead to which it is united…” (Summa, pt. 3, q. 25, art. 2) Despite that the humanity is worshipped on account of the Godhead, it is still worshipped. Later Romanists would explain that his creaturely humanity was an end, or terminus of the worship, in itself, albeit on account of another thing. This is the same reasoning that allows Romanists to overturn the 2nd Commandment in worshipping things and images, on account of what they signify, or on account of God.

Nonetheless, Turretin is able to quote Thomas favorably on a given point of the general topic: “Now this adoration is properly due to his person and belongs to it. ‘For honor is properly given to the whole subsisting thing,’ as Thomas Aquinas well expresses it…” (2.496)

Worshipping with a Secondary Intention to Vanity is Sinful

Clarkson: “‘It is no sin, yea, it is meritorious to do these things, viz. to preach, and say mass, and to do other things of like nature principally for God, and secondarily for vain glory and praise of men, aptly directed as our end.’ Thus Navarre determines after their great Saint and Doctor, Aquinas.” (Practical Divinity of Papists, p. 39)

Sacrifices were by Positive Law, not Nature’s Law

This point is more important than it may first appear. Romanists argue for the mass being a proper sacrifice partly from a continuation from the Old Testament, as they held the sacrifices ever since Abel to have been by nature’s law, which continues to oblige. See also, especially, the point immediately below this one.

Thomas: “…certain things belong generically to the natural law, while their determination belongs to the positive law… In like manner the offering of sacrifice belongs generically to the natural law… but the determination of sacrifices is established by God or by man…” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 85, art. 1)

The Reformed, in all their discussions of natural worship and the 1st Commandment, never included sacrifices therein, but included them under ordained, positive worship and the 2nd Commandment. See:

‘Natural vs. Instituted Worship’
‘On the 1st Commandment’
‘On the 2nd Commandment’

Humanly Devised Sacred, Mystical Signs, being Worship, are Forbidden

Thomas, in the context of Old Testament animal sacrifices, with spiritual types being involved: “certain things belong generically to the natural law, while their determination belongs to the positive law… In like manner the offering of sacrifice belongs generically to the natural law… but the determination of sacrifices is established by God or by man… It is natural to man to express his ideas by signs, but the determination of those signs depends on man’s pleasure.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 85, art. 1)

That Thomas thought men or the Church might add spiritual meanings to such man-devised signs is evident in his approval of genuflecting three times due to the three Persons of the Trinity (below), and in that such was the teaching of Romanism at large.

Gillespie:

“There are three sorts of signs here to be distinguished:

1. Natural signs: so smoke is a sign of fire, and the dawning of the day a sign of the rising of the sun.

2. Customable signs, and so the uncovering of the head, which of old [in the OT, exampled by the Jewish priests in the Temple] was a sign of preeminence, has through custom become a sign of subjection [such as in 1 Cor. 11].

3. Voluntary signs, which are called signa instituta [instituted signs]; these are either sacred or civil.

To appoint sacred signs of heavenly mysteries or spiritual graces, is God’s own peculiar, and of this kind are the holy sacraments. Civil signes for civil and moral uses, may be and are commendably appointed by men, both in Church and commonwealth, and thus the tolling of a bell is a sign given for assembling, and has the same signification both in ecclesiastical and secular assemblings.

Now, besides the sacred signs of God’s own institution, we know that natural signs have also place in divine worship; thus kneeling in time of prayer signifies the submission of our hearts and minds… All these signs have their significations from nature…

Secondly, customable signs have likewise place in divine service, for so a man coming into one of our churches, in time of public worship, if he see the hearers covered [including men], he knows by this customable sign that [the] sermon is begun.

Thirdly, civil or moral signs instituted by men, for that common order and decency, which is respect both in civil and sacred actions, have also place in the acts of God’s worship…

All our question [with the Formalists] is about sacred mystical signs. Every sign of this kind, which is not ordained of God, we refer to the imagery forbidden in the 2nd Commandment.” (English-Popish, pt. 3, ch. 5, pp. 85-86)

Worship is Not made more Acceptable by any Place

Thomas: “A definite place is chosen for adoration… because the place is consecrated, so that those who pray there conceive a greater devotion and are more likely to be heard… on account of the sacred mysteries and other signs of holiness contained therein. Third, on account of the concourse of many adorers, by reason of which their prayer is more likely to be heard…” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 84, art. 3, reply to obj. 2)

WCF 21.6: “Neither prayer, nor any other part of religious worship, is, now under the gospel, either tied unto, or made more acceptable by, any place in which it is performed… [c] but God is to be worshipped every where[d]…

[c] John 4:21.
[d] Mal. 1:11. 1 Tim. 2:8“

Triple Genuflection is Superstitious

Thomas: “The triple genuflection represents the Trinity of Persons…” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 84, art. 1, reply to obj. 3)

Voet, Select Theological Disputations, vol. 3

12. Genuflection at the Name of Jesus & unto the Table, or Altar  139
13. Part 2  163
14. Part 3  179
15. Part 4  201
16. Part 5  214

Church Appointed Days are Not Holy

Thomas: “Just as certain places are holy because they are devoted to holy things, so are certain times holy for the same reason.” (Summa, suppl., q. 64, art 7)

The Reformed either (1) did not celebrate the evangelical feast days, or (2) they did so as something not necessary, appointed by the Church for edification; but they all rejected the Romanist view that the days themselves were holy. See ‘On Holy Days & Days of Religious Commemoration’.

Processions

Netherlands’ Confession (1566): “We consider as abominable idolatry the embellished carrying about of God, which, as instituted in A.D. 1264 by Honorius, is done with the boxed bread. (This was) further built up by Peter Lombard, Hugo, Bonaventura, and Thomas Aquinas…” (ed. Dennison, Reformed Confessions 2.892)

Vestments (Religious Clothing) are Sinful

Thomas:

“The vestments of the ministers denote the qualifications required of them for handling divine things. And since certain things are required of all, and some are required of the higher that are not so exacted of the lower ministers, therefore certain vestments are common to all the ministers, while some pertain to the higher ministers only…

Accordingly, it is becoming to all the ministers to wear the amice which covers the shoulders, thereby signifying courage in the exercise of the divine offices to which they are deputed, and the alb, which signifies a pure life, and the cincture, which signifies restraint of the flesh… Bishops have nine ornaments besides those which the priest has: these are the stockings, sandals, subcingulum, tunic, dalmatic, mitre, gloves, ring, and crozier. For there are nine things which they can do, but priests cannot: namely, ordain clerics, bless virgins, consecrate bishops…” (Summa, suppl., q. 40, art. 7)

For the Reformed: ‘Vestments, Black Genevan Gowns, Collars & Dress for Public Worship’.

Tonsure (a Shaving of the Top of the Head)

Thomas: “According to Gregory, to serve God is to reign… Now a crown is the sign of royalty. Therefore, a crown-shaped tonsure is becoming to those who are devoted to the divine ministry… According to 1 Corinthians 11:15, hair is given us for a covering. But the ministers of the altar should have the mind uncovered. Therefore, the tonsure is becoming to them.” (Summa, suppl. q. 40, art. 1)

Beza, ‘Of the clerical tonsure’ in A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith, pp. 149-51

Maresius, 13. ‘Whether the tonsure and clerical crown was taken from the gentiles and is superstitious? It is affirmed, contra the same’ in A New Synopsis of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, ch. 8, pp. 359-62

Worship Distinguished between Dulia (to Saints) and Latria (to God) is Denied

Thomas distinguishes between latria (divine worship) and dulia (veneration), the latter being given to saints. (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 103) Thomas holds that dulia:

“pays due service to a human lord… It is, moreover, a species of observance, because by observance we honor all those who excel in dignity, while dulia properly speaking is the reverence of servants for their master, dulia being the Greek for servitude.” (art. 3)

“…it may be taken in a wide sense as denoting reverence paid to anyone on account of any kind of excellence, and thus it comprises piety and observance, and any similar virtue whereby reverence is shown towards a man…

In another way it may be taken in a strict sense as denoting the reverence of a servant for his lord… a servant reveres his lord under one aspect, a soldier his commanding officer under another, the disciple his master under another, and so on…” (art. 4)

In these respects, there is nothing objectionable to dulia. Thomas also adds ‘adoration’ to this in Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 84, art. 1, reply to obj. 1, citing lawful Scriptural examples; it is true there can be a lawful adoration of human persons for their great virtues. However, ‘adoration’ is a word that regularly meant worship simply, including divine worship. Yet ‘worship’ was often defined, by protestants likewise, as any honoring, including a natural or civil honoring.

But Thomas adds to such adoration actions of the body (art. 2) and “bowing, saluting, and so forth, or by external things, as by offering gifts, erecting statues, and the like.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 103, art. 1) Again, the actions in this latter list may not be wrong in every circumstance, but they would be in many or most circumstances (giving more honor than is naturally due or appropriate), especially given how all this actually played out in Thomas’s own era and environment, which he no doubt was complicit with. To give more honor to someone than what is due by the light of nature and Christian prudence, is to give him or her something due only to God, and is idolatry.

It is also clear from Thomas’s larger theology and practice that dulia and hyperdulia went hand in hand with praying to deceased saints, which is idolatry.

The Reformed, while granting an appropriate natural and civil honoring, possibly involving external gestures and gifts, etc., yet held there is only one kind of religious worship, and it is to be given to God only. While some of them affirmed proper senses of dulia and latria, yet as far as how the Romanists used the distinction, as kinds of religious worship, they denied it outright: ‘That There is Only One Kind of Religious Worship, & Dulia to Saints is Idolatrous’.

Canonization of Saints for Public, Religious Veneration is Sinful, & the Pope is Not Infallible in it

Thomas: “The canonization of saints… piously it must be believed that not even in these matters can a declaration of the Church err… a pontiff, to whom it belongs to canonize saints…” (Disputed Questions, Quodlibet 9, q. 8, art. 1)

For the Reformed: ‘On the Canonization of Saints’ and ‘On the Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Papacy, Councils or the Church’.

Relics

Disagreement

Clarkson: “Aquinas… teaches that, not only the cross is to have divine worship, because it touched Christ, but all things else that belong to Christ, by virtue of this contact, and Damascene [John of Damascus] (whom he quotes) will have all things near to Christ… worshipped on that account.” (Practical Divinity of Papists, p. 190)

For more of the Reformed: ‘On Relics’.

Musical Instruments in Worship

Mixed

Thomas:

“Whether God should be praised with song?…

Objection 4: Further, in the Old Law God was praised with musical instruments and human song, according to Ps. 32:2, 3: Give praise to the Lord on the harp, sing to Him with the psaltery, the instrument of ten strings. Sing to Him a new canticle. But the Church does not make use of musical instruments such as harps and psalteries, in the divine praises, for fear of seeming to imitate the Jews. Therefore in like manner neither should [vocal] song be used in the divine praises.
…

Reply to Objection 4: As the Philosopher [Aristotle] says (Polit. viii, 6), ‘Teaching should not be accompanied with a flute or any artificial instrument such as the harp or anything else of this kind: but only with such things as make good hearers.’ For such like musical instruments move the soul to pleasure rather than create a good disposition within it. In the Old Testament instruments of this description were employed, both because the people were more coarse and carnal—so that they needed to be aroused by such instruments as also by earthly promises—and because these material instruments were figures of something else.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 91, art. 2)

“But you may say that there were musical instruments in the Old Testament, as well as vocal song. Therefore, why does the Church dismiss those but accept these? A twofold mystical meaning is given, because they were figurative.

According to this, the reason is that God is praised by mind and voice but not by instruments. Another reason comes from the words of the Philosopher [Aristotle], who said that it is against wisdom that men be instructed in lyric songs and music, since they would occupy their souls in these works, but there should be simple music so that they may be drawn from bodily things and brought to the divine praises.” (On Ps. 32, sect. 308)

Beza, at some length, debating with Jacob Andreae (a leading Lutheran theologian), held instruments, as used by the churches in worship, to be essentially indifferent, some of the reformed finding them profitable (and using them), and some not finding them so (and not using them). (Lutheranism vs. Calvinism: The Classic Debate at the Colloquy of Montbeliard 1586, Concordia, 2017, pp. 458, 464, 479-83, 493-95)

Leigh, after referencing certain reformed divines and numerous of their arguments for musical instruments in worship, says, “Not only Dr. Ames opposes it, but Aquinas, Rivet, Zanchius, Zepperus, Altingius and others’ dislike of organs and such like music in churches, and they do generally rather hinder edification.” (System of Divinity, p. 610)

Ames: “Thomas Aquinas… opposes thus: ‘The Church uses no [instruments of] music for divine praises, lest it should seem to Judaize,’ and answers thus: ‘Musical instruments do more stir up the mind to delight than frame it to a right disposition. In the Old Testament there was some need of them, both, etc. and also because they did figure [signify] out something.'” (Fresh Suit, p. 405)

For more of the Reformed: ‘Musical Instruments in Worship’.

Images

Agreements

Nature of Idolatry

Owen, speaking of idolatry: “We know it to be… ‘Any religious worship of that which by nature is not God;’ and so does your Thomas grant it to be.” (14:216; Turretin, Institutes 2.44)

Rutherford, in examining the nature of idolatry, approves of Thomas teaching that “the heathen acknowledged a Godhead to dwell in the images.” (Divine Right, ch. 1, question 5, p. 152)

Disagreements

Images of God & Christ are Not to be Made

Thomas: “…images of the Trinity and of Christ should be worshiped with the same adoration with which the prototypes are worshiped…” (Summa, pt. 3, q. 25, art. 3)

Vermigli: “And Thomas Aquinas is also to be wondered at, who says that God forbade the Jews that they should not make images, because at that time the Word had not taken upon it the nature of man. What is this to the purpose; seeing we speak at this present of the images and pictures of the very nature of God, which by art, colors and lineaments cannot be described? Wherefore there is all one reason, as well of the old Hebrews as of the Christians…” (Common Places, pt. 2, ch. 5, p. 340)

For more of the Reformed:

‘Images of God are Forbidden’
‘Images of Christ’

Divine Worship Not to be Given to Images

Turretin denies Thomas (Summa, pt. 3, q. 25, art. 4) on giving the worship of latria (divine worship) to the cross itself (2:53), saying “the orthodox impugn it.”

Rivet held those are “convicted of manifold idolatry… who fashion and worship various images of God and of the saints,” whereas Thomas (Summa, pt. 3, q. 25, art. 3) held “that images of the Trinity and of Christ should be worshiped with the same adoration with which the prototypes are worshiped, and that there are not two adorations but only one and the same.” (Synopsis of Pure Theology, Disp. 19, §§22-23)

Ussher, with Owen and Durham concurring: “Thomas Aquinas does directly conclude that ‘the same reverence is to be given unto the image of Christ and to Christ Himself: and by consequence, seeing Christ is adored with the adoration of latria (or, divine worship) that his image is to be adored with the adoration of latria.” (Answer to a Jesuit, p. 449; Owen, Works 14.439; Ten Commandments, 2nd Command, pp. 59, 67)

Religious Veneration Not to be given to Images

Owen: “Your [Roman] Church is fallen by idolatry, as otherwise, so in that religious veneration of images which she uses; whereunto you have added heresy, in teaching it for a doctrine of truth, and imposing the belief of it by your Tridentine determination on the consciences of the disciples of Christ. I know you would fain mince the matter, and spread over the corrupt doctrine of your church about it with… ‘silken words,’… your last council, that of Trent; your angelical doctor, Thomas of Aquine; your great champions, Bellarmine and Baronius, Suarez, Vasquez, and the rest of them; with the Catholic practice and usage of your church in all places, — declare sufficiently what is your faith, or rather misbelief, in this matter.” (14.235)

Religious Images are Not to be in Worship

For Thomas, see above. For the Reformed: ‘Religious Images in Worship’.

The Cross & Crossing (the Action of Making a Cross in the Air) is Not to be in Worship

Thomas: “The priest, in celebrating the mass, makes use of the sign of the cross to signify Christ’s Passion which was ended upon the cross… there was Christ’s betrayal, which was the work of God, of Judas, and of the Jews; and this is signified by the triple sign of the cross…” (Summa, pt. 3, q. 83, art. 5, reply to obj. 3)

For the Reformed:

‘Crosses are Not to be in a Place of Worship’
‘On Reverence to the Cross, Crossing & Crossing in Baptism’

Prayer

Disagreements

Art & Method of Prayer is Omitted

Voet: “4. That, when they dwell on those things that are either absurd, or foreign, or superfluous, they plainly ignore and omit many things that belong to the very marrow and practice of faith, of which kind are those concerning… the art and method of prayer… which we tend to handle in moral and ascetic theology… which appear nowhere in the whole of Lombard or Thomas.” (Select Theological Dispuations, vol. 1, ‘Of Scholastic Theology,’ theses 7-9, tr. Charles Johnson)

Continued Attention: Necessary in Prayer

Clarkson denies Thomas’ argument that continued attention is not necessary during prayer, so long as you were attentive to prayer in your initial intention. (Practical Divinity of Papists, p. 4)

We are to Pray for our Enemies

Vermigli:

“I cannot wonder enough that Thomas Aquinas should say that by the words of Paul, Christians are not compelled by force of the precept to show particularly unto their enemies the affect of charity, or (as they used to speak) to show signs of benevolence unto them, except it be in case of necessity.

For it is enough [Thomas says], if they exclude them not from the general bond of love wherewith we ought to love our neighbors. Neither (says he) is it of necessity that we should pray peculiarly for them. But this is sufficient, if we exclude them not from the common prayers which we make for all men. And if any man (says he) besides the case of necessity, do show unto an enemy tokens of special love, or do specially make intercession for him, that man follows counsel, but obeys not the commandment.

Yet Christ and Paul, when they spake of these things, taught not this distinction. This doctrine doubtless cuts in sunder the sinews of Christian religion…” (Common Places, pt. 2, ch. 8, pp. 402-3)

Prayer to the East: Superstitious

Thomas: “There is a certain fittingness in adoring towards the east. First, because the Divine majesty is indicated in the movement of the heavens which is from the east. Second, because Paradise was situated in the east… so we signify our desire to return to Paradise. Third, on account of Christ Who is ‘the light of the world,’ and is called ‘the Orient’ (Zech 6:12)… and is expected to come from the east, according to Matt. 24:27, ‘As lightning cometh out of the east, and appeareth even into the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be.'” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 84, art. 3, reply to obj. 3)

For the Reformed: ‘On Prayer to the East’.

Not to be Made to Departed Saints or Angels

For the Reformed: ‘Prayer to Saints & Angels is Unlawful’.

Heavenly Saints do Not Pray Particularly for us

Thomas, Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 83, art. 11.

Willet: “That the saints in heaven do not only pray in general, but particularly for us ready in all our needs by their prayer and mediation to assist us: thus they [Romanists] would prove it…

that they have a general desire and longing, both for us, for themselves, and all the elect of God, that the day of our refreshing were come, and that all the people of God were joined in one, and their enemies vanquished and destroyed, we learn also out of the scripture, Apoc. 6:9. But that they should offer up our special prayers and make particular request for us to God, it no where in the Scripture is found, but rather the contrary.

Argument 1: The Scripture nowhere testifies that the saints in such manner do pray for us…
Argument 2: The saints departed know not our wants, nor what is done in the earth…” (Synopsis Papismi, 9^th Controversy, pt. 2, question 3, pp. 334-35)

A Blasphemous Prayer regarding Thomas

Willet: “other saints also by their merits are our mediators: as it is plain to see in that popish prayer… ‘By the blood of Thomas, which for thee he did spend, make us, Christ, to climb, whither Thomas did ascend.’ In this blasphemous prayer…” (Synopsis Papismi, 10^th Controversy, p. 406)

Church

Agreements

Roman Church is a Church

Thomas held the Roman Church to be the true Church and that schism from her was sinful: “schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 39, art. 1, ‘I answer that’)

While the Reformed held it sinful not to come out of the Roman domination (Rev. 18:4), yet, in contrast to the Protestant Separatists, they held that she retained the essence of a Church, albeit apostate: ‘On the Roman Catholic Church being a Visible Church in Some Respect’ and ‘On the Nature of the Apostasy of Rome’.

Nature of Mystical Body of Christ

Owen: “But to prove at large, by a multiplication of arguments and testimonies, that the catholic Church, or mystical body of Christ, consists of the whole number of the elect, as redeemed, justified, sanctified, called, believing, and yielding obedience to Christ throughout the world (I speak of it as militant in any age), and of them only… It is done already… And the substance of the doctrine is delivered by Aquinas himself, p. 3, q. 8, a. 3.” (13.127) Note that Aquinas answers the issue a bit differently than Owen.

Schism

Walaeus: “Yet we should also add this point from Thomas: ‘Strictly speaking people are called schismatics who purposefully remove themselves without a suitable cause from the unity of the Church’ ([Summa] part 2 of 2 [q. 39]).” (Synopsis, disp. 40, §41)

Tithing Need Not be Perpetually 10%

Thomas: “…the precept concerning the payment of tithes is indeed in some way a moral one in providing that they who are free for divine obedience for the whole people’s sake may be supported by the people’s stipends as also they who serve in other offices of the state are supported by the whole people. And this precept is proposed in the New Testament in this manner… Matthew 10:10, “The worker is worthy of his food,”… The Church could, however, decree, if there were cause, either a greater or a lesser amount, e.g., that an eighth be given, or a twelfth, as well as that a tenth be given.” (Quodlibet 2, q. 4, art. 3)

The Reformed in the Reformation generally held that tithing was not by divine right, but was postive and specific to the Old Testament. Offerings today are to be according to natural law, Christian prudence and the general rules of the Word, including the New Testament directives, such as according to ability, needs, love, etc. See ‘Tithes & Offerings’.

Disagreements

Church’s Teaching is Not an Infallible Rule & the Universal Church may Err

Thomas:

“The universal Church cannot err, since she is governed by the Holy Ghost, who is the Spirit of truth…” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 1, art. 9)

“…the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith…

Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things…” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 5, art. 3, ‘I answer’)

For the Reformed: ‘On the Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Papacy, Councils or the Church’.

The Roman Church is Apostate & Separation from her Necessary

The Reformed judged her to be apostate in that she either overturned fundamentals of the faith or taught secondary teachings that tended to subvert fundamentals of the faith, amongst many other things. In contrast to both Roman apologists and ‘Nicodemites’ (Protestants who acted like Nicodemus and clung to the Great Whore, or thought it lawful to do so), the Reformed taught the necessity of separation from her: ‘On the Nature of the Apostasy of Rome’ and ‘On the Legitimacy & Necessity of Separation from Rome’. See also, ‘Fundamental, Secondary & Tertiary Matters of Christianity, & of Communion & Discipline Therein’.

Honest View & Use of Church Fathers

“the Reformed did not, by-and-large, hold to a “Thomist” view of universals or metaphysics. On the contrary, the Reformed were generally interested in studying Aristotle himself, rather than through the lens of medieval schools of interpretation, so their outlook was less Thomist, Scotist, and Ockhamist, and more purely Aristotelean.” (Charles Johnson, ‘Are the Reformed Philosophically Thomist [on Universals? No]’)

For more of the Reformed: ‘On the Use of the Fathers’ and David Sytsma, ‘Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics & Protestantism’.

One can be Actually Part of the Church apart from Baptism

Thomas: “Those who are unbaptized, though not actually in the Church, are in the Church potentially…” (Summa, pt. 3, q. 8, art. 3)

WCF, ch. 25

“I. The catholick or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.[a]

[a] Eph. 1:10,22,23. Eph. 5:23,27,32. Col. 1:18.

II. The visible church, which is also catholick or universal under the gospel, (not confined to one nation, as before under the law,) consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion,[b] together with their children;[c] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[d] the house and family of God,[e]…

[b] 1 Cor. 1:2. 1 Cor. 12:12,13. Ps. 2:8. Rev. 7:9. Rom. 15:9-12.
[c] 1 Cor. 7:14. Acts 2:39. Ezek. 16:20,21. Rom. 11:16. Gen. 3:15. Gen. 17:7.
[d] Matt. 13:47. Isa. 9:7.
[e] Eph. 2:19. Eph. 3:15“

See Turretin, Institutes, vol. 3, topic 18, q. 4, “Do unbaptized catechumens, the excommunicated and schismatics belong to the Church? We distinguish”, pp. 23-26

Neglecting to Hear Sermons is a Mortal Sin

Clarkson denies Thomas’ claim that neglecting to hear sermons is no mortal sin. (Practical Divinity of Papists, p. 44)

One who Obstinately Errs on an Article of Faith is Not Necessarily a Heretic or Unsaved

Thomas:

“Just as mortal sin is contrary to charity, so is disbelief in one article of faith contrary to faith. Now charity does not remain in a man after one mortal sin. Therefore neither does faith, after a man disbelieves one article…

Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith… whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith…

Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will…

For the Reformed, see:

‘The Distinctions & Conclusions of Witsius & Rutherford on Fundamental & Secondary Teachings’
‘On Error’
‘On Heresies’

Church Government

Agreements

Roman Ordination & Ministry is Valid

Needless to say, Thomas held Rome’s Church government to be valid (as is confirmed throughout his writings).

The Reformed, contra the Protestant Separatists, held Roman ordination and her ministry to be valid, and partly justified the Reformers’ callings by it: ‘On Rome’s Ordination & Ministry’ and ‘On the Lawful Calling of Protestant Ministers at the Reformation’.

Church Discipline Exists

Gillespie affirms Thomas that 1 Thess. 3:14 has respect to ecclesiastical discipline and censure. (Aaron’s Rod, p. 281)

Keys given to Peter Representing Pastors

Rutherford approves that “the Magdeburgenses ascribe the power of the Keys, Mt. 16, to Peter representing pastors… citing the Schoolmen, Thomas…” (Survey of that Sum, bk. 4, ch. 13, p. 510)

Keys are held by Church Guides by Divine Right

Rutherford says, if all the Roman cardinals were dead, rather than the faithful choosing the Pope, Cajetan, Vasquez and Thomas “do better say… the power of choosing should be in the hands of a general council, and that by divine right: Then by their mind supreme power or the keys by divine right is in the hands of Church guides [as presbyterians affirm].” (Peaceable Plea, ch. 1, p. 6)

No Divine Warrant for Bishops

Gillespie cites Thomas that there is no divine ordinance for an order of bishops being superior to the order of elders. (English-Popish, pt. 3, ch. 8, digression 1, p. 161)

Durham: “…there is some footsteps of this identity of bishop and presbyter [as presbyterians hold] in the most corrupt writtings of the most impure Schoolmen: which may appear in these three, 1. In that, generally, episcopacy is holden to be no distinct order from presbytery; and that presbytery, or priesthood (as they speak) is the highest order in all their hierarchy. And this is current as the doctrine of Lombard, the Master of Sentences, Hugo, Aquinas, Thomas Waldensis, and generally of all the Thomists at least.” (Revelation, lect. 3, p. 227)

Consent vs. Judicial Power

Gillespie affirms Thomas’s teaching “that though every choosing be a consenting, yet every consenting is not a choosing: The liberty of consent is one thing; counsel or deliberation another thing: The power of a decisive voice in court or judicatory a third thing.” (Miscellany Questions, ch. 2, p. 24)

Disagreements

Christ has no Vicar

Thomas: “Now this Head is Christ Himself, whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff… with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 39, art. 1) For the Reformed: ‘On the Head of the Church’.

Church’s Precepts do Not have the Same Strength as God’s Commands

Thomas: “…the Lord said to his disciples in Luke 10:16: ‘he who hears you, hears Me.’ Therefore, the precept of the Church has the same strength as the precept of God… Just as God does not join those who are joined against the divine precept, so He does not join those who are joined against the precept of the Church, which has the same power of obliging as divine precept.” (Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 40, q. 1, art. 4)

For the Reformed, see the following webpages and sections:

‘How Far the Laws & Commands of Human Authorities Bind the Conscience’
‘The Formal Ground of Obedience: the Light of Nature & Scripture, Not the Church, or because She Hath Said’
‘On Errant Court Rulings’
‘Declining a Church Order without Scandal or Contempt does Not Incur Guilt’
‘Mere Will or Judgment of Authorities: Insufficient Ground of Faith & Obedience’
‘Constitutions Never Bind Beyond God’s Law’
‘Authorities’ Commands do Not Make Indifferent Things Necessary’
‘Lawful Commands might not be Lawfully Obeyed’
‘Subjection (Rom. 13:1) does Not Always Entail Obedience’
‘On Human & Unwritten Traditions’
‘Church Policy’s Subservience to Word’
‘Mutability of Church Policy’
‘Uniformity & Liberty in Church Policy’

One Bishop is Not Over All & Against Chuch Heirarchy

Turretin: “…we do not deny that there is an order among the good angels… But this [cautious approach] is not the opinion of the Romanists and especially of the Scholastics. The more easily to obtrude their figment of an ecclesiastical hierarchy, they have feigned another hierarchy of angels in heaven, whose orders, duties and properties they describe as if they had lived there for many years… Thomas Aquinas and all Scholastics have drawn the same.” (1.551-52) See also, ‘On the Papacy’.

Thomas on Church heirarchy: Contra Gentiles, bk. 4, ch. 76, ‘Of the Episcopal Dignity & that one Biship is Over All’

Protestant Ministry is both Valid & Justified

Thomas: “the whole Church and the public care of the Church is committed to prelates. And for this reason, no one ought to exercise some function which requires public authority unless by the authority of a prelate.” (Disputed Questions, Quodlibet 12, q. 17, art. 1)

Contra Roman apologists at the Reformation, the Reformed defended the ‘The Lawful Calling of Protestant Ministers at the Reformation’.

Churches & Councils have Authority of Themselves to Draw up Creeds

Thomas: “The symbol was drawn us by a general council. Now such a council cannot be convoked otherwise than by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff… Therefore it belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a symbol.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 1, art. 10)

For the Reformed: ‘On Councils & Synods’ & ‘On Creeds & Confessions’.

Magistrates may Call Councils in Some Circumstances

For the Reformed: ‘Who May Call Synods & in What Circumstances?’ & ‘That the Magistrate may Preside Civilly in Church Assemblies’.

Church Determinations do Not End Controversies

Rutherford denies Thomas and other Papists that “if matters in their expedience be questionable and probable on both sides, the Church’s determination should end the controversy…” (Divine Right, Intro to Scandal, p. 43)

Thomas Omits the Substance of Church Government

Voet: “4. That, when they dwell on those things that are either absurd, or foreign, or superfluous, they plainly ignore and omit many things that belong… in ecclesiastical polity, which appear nowhere in the whole of Lombard or Thomas.” (Select Theological Dispuations, vol. 1, ‘Of Scholastic Theology,’ theses 7-9, tr. Charles Johnson)

Extraordinary Call to Preach

Thomas: “…no one, of however much great knowledge or however much of holiness, can preach unless sent by God or by a prelate… Yet the whole Church and the public care of the Church is committed to prelates. And for this reason, no one ought to exercise some function which requires public authority unless by the authority of a prelate.” (Disputed Questions, Quodlibet 12, q. 17, art. 1)

The Reformed, contrary to popular belief, largely believed in the continuance of extraordinary calls to preach, even sometimes in constituted Church areas: ‘On an Extraordinary Calling’.

Deacons do Not have the Functions of Preaching or Teaching by Office

Thomas: “…deacons are entrusted with the proclamation of the Gospel teaching; subdeacons, with the teaching of the apostles…” (Contra Gentiles, bk. 4, ch. 75)

For the Reformed: ‘Deacons have No Authority by Divine Office for Baptizing or Preaching’.

There are Not 7 Ecclesiastical Orders & Ordination is Not a Sacrament

Thomas, Summa, suppl., q. 37, art. 2. For the Reformed: ‘On the Roman Sacrament of Orders & Ordination’.

Laying on of Hands is Not a Sacrament, Nor Necessary

Thomas, On Hebrews, ch. 6, lect. 1, §284. For the Reformed: ‘On the Laying on of Hands’.

Confirmation does Not Impart the Holy Spirit

Thomas: “…the sacrament of confirmation unto renovation: by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). For in confirmation the Holy Spirit is given for strength to enable a man to boldly confess Christ’s name before men.’ (On Hebrews, ch. 6, lect. 1, §284) For the Reformed: ‘On Romanist Confirmation’.

No Church Office of Exorcist

Thomas: “The lowest orders, then, serve the priestly order only in the preparation of the people… the exorcists by cleansing those who are already instructed, if in any way they be hindered by the devil from receiving the sacraments.” (Contra Gentiles, bk. 4, ch. 75)

For the Reformed: ‘Exorcists are Not a Church Office’.

Last Rites is a Myth & Anointing with Oil is Not Perpetual

Thomas: “…a person is bound to fulfill those things that are necessary to salvation in this life; and so if the danger of death threatened, even speaking per se, a person would be obliged to go to confession right then, or to receive baptism. And this is also why James [5:14-15] proclaimed the precept about going to confession and receiving the last rites at the same time.” For oil being a part of this rite, see Summa, suppl., q. 29, art. 4-5.

That the Reformed did not hold James 5:14-15 to be speaking of Last Rites, or a sacrament, and to see that anointing with oil is not a perpetual duty, see: ‘On Anointing with Oil’.

Antichrist

Agreements

Church Apostasy

Turretin: “The Pontiffs would have us believe it is a political apostasy from the Roman empire referred to here [in 2 Thess. 2:3]… [However] Paul himself explains (1 Tim. 4:1): ‘The Spirit says clearly that in the latter times… certain ones will commit apostasy from the faith.’ Most of the Fathers support us on this point… Augustine concurs… From the Papists, Thomas, Lyranus, Alcazar, Suarez…” (7th Disputation, §16)

Roman King will be Removed before Antichrist is Revealed

Turretin: “Sedulius [fl. first half of 5th cent.] on 2 Thess. 2 [vv. 6-7], ‘He who as king of the Romans holds the rule, let him hold his own rule until he is out of the way, that is, until the kingdom which he now holds is taken out of the way. This will occur before Antichrist is revealed…’ Anselm, Glossa Interlinearis, Lyranus, Thomas, and not a few of our other adversaries acknowledge the same thing.” (7th Disputation, §12)

Antichrist: a Usurper over the Church

Turretin: “It is said that the Antichrist would ‘dwell in the temple of God’ [2 Thess. 2:4] because it was in the Church where he would be a usurper, claiming both dominion and absolute rule (as Thomas notes)…” (7th Disputation, §7)

Disagreement

Antichrist was Not Future to Thomas

Thomas held to a future, personal Antichrist:

“…Enoch was translated into the earthly paradise, where he is believed to live with Elijah until the coming of Antichrist.” (Summa, pt. 3, q. 49, art. 5)

“…[Angelic] guardianship is due to all men from the infusion of the rational soul, through which they are ordered to the end of salvation, up till death… Even the Antichrist will have a guardian angel. For a universal law should not be changed on account of a single person.” (Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 11, art. 3)

“…it still could not be determined what amount of dangers would immediately precede the day of judgment or the coming of the anti-Christ…” (Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 47, q. 1, art. 1, resp. to quaestiuncula 3, repy to obj. 2)

Nearly all the Reformed confessions that spoke to the issue, not to mention the great majority of divines, rightly held that the continuing Papacy through history, present to Thomas’s day, is the Antichrist: ‘The Papacy is the Antichrist’ and ‘Historicist Commentaries on Revelation’.

Ministers

Agreement

Celibacy of Ministers is Not Divine Law

Turretin on celibacy of ministers: “Others, however, consider it of human and positive ecclesiastical law [and not divine law], as Espensaeus, Gregory of Valencia, Bellarmine, who cite on their side Thomas Aquinas… and others.” (3.247)

Disagreement

Preaching is Necessary & Supper is Not Ministers’ Principal Function

Rutherford denies Thomas that, in contrast to preaching, which Thomas held to be accidental and not necessary to the pastor’s office, the essential and most principal work of the priest is to offer Christ’s body, and then to absolve from sins. (Due Right, ch. 5, §1, p. 307)

Sacraments

Agreements

Divine Ordination, Form & Manner of Sacraments: not to be Violated

Bucanus: “Therefore may we not receive any other sacrament into the Church than those which God has ordained to that use: neither yet is the form or manner of the institution any manner of ways to be violated. For Thomas says well, ‘The ordaining of sacraments is a note of the excellency, power and majesty of God.'” (Institutions, ch. 46, p. 619)

Calling to Administer Sacrament is Required

Rivet: “Although, with regard to the office a calling is required in order to administer the sacrament in the correct manner, we do not therefore judge that the sanctity of the person is a requirement… In this matter we do not disapprove Thomas’ statement, ‘The instrument [sacrament] does not work by its own form, but by the strength of him who makes it move’…” (Synopsis, disp. 43, §12)

Consecration not Tied to Certain Words

Gillespie affirms Thomas holding “that the consecration of a sacrament is not absolutely tied to a certain form of words.” (English-Popish, pt. 4, ch. 7, p. 34)

Rejects an Indellible Mark through Sacraments

Turretin, in arguing against an indelible mark being placed upon the soul through the Romanist sacraments of baptism, confirmation and order, argues that “the anointing and sealing by the Holy Spirit… (2 Cor. 1:21-22; Eph. 4:30) has nothing in common with a sacramental mark… Nor do many of our opponents deny this; as Cajetan, Dionysius Carthusianus and Thomas Aquinas, who reject that mark altogether.” (3.376)

Disagreements

Not Necessary for Salvation

Thomas: “…sacraments are necessary for man’s salvation… man needs the sacraments that he may obtain grace… they obtain their effect through the power of Christ’s Passion; and Christ’s Passion is, so to say, applied to man through the sacraments…” (Summa, pt. 3, q. 61, art. 1)

Turretin: “As to the necessity of their use, we say that it is not of means, but of command; not from the nature of the thing (as if without them salvation could not be obtained at all), but from the command of God… hence the grace of God is not tied down to signs, but can work either with or without them. Thus without them many are saved.” (3.344)

Efficacy of Sacraments is the Same in Both Testaments

Turretin quotes Thomas and then summarizes that common Roman view and the difference with the Reformed: “Is the difference between the sacraments of the Old and New Testaments properly placed in this, that the former adumbrated [foreshadowed] grace, while the latter contain it? Is the efficacy as to the thing the same in the old and new sacraments, although diverse as to mode and degree? Or do they mutually differ in the thing signified and in the effect? The Romanists affirm the latter; we affirm the former.” (3.370-71)

The Sacramental Words are Declarative, but are Not the Sacraments’ Essence

Thomas, Summa, pt. 3, q. 60, art. 7-8

Turretin: “Is the sacramental word a declarative and concionative (concionale) [preaching] word or is it the consecratory which is operative? The former we affirm; the latter we deny against the Romanists.” (3.354-7)

Voet, 4th Question, ‘Whether the words by which the minister either summarily propounds or briefly exposits the administration, the command and the promise of Christ before the administration, and even in the administration itself, are preaching [concionatoria] words, or rather are the form of the eucharist, and are efficaciously and directly operative, or creating? I respond: the papists deny the former and affirm the latter.’ in ch. 2, ‘Of the Consecration of the Symbols [Elements]’ in Ecclesiastical Politics, vol. 1, book 2, tract 2, section 4, p. 744

Maccovius, 5. ‘Whether the Form of the Sacrament Consists in the Analogy of the Sign to the Thing Signified? [Yes]’ in ch. 18, ‘On the Sacraments’ in ‘Anti-Eckhardus’ in Maccovius Revived, p. 674

Sacraments do Not Confer Grace Automatically

Thomas: “…the sacraments of the New Law, which confer grace by the work performed [ex opere operato].” (Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 2, q. 1, art. 4, resp. to quaestiuncula 4, reply to obj. 2)

Clarkson denies Thomas’ claim that the sacraments may confer an increase in grace without any actual disposition, devotion, or inward motion in the receiver. (Practical Divinity of Papists, p. 48)

For more of the Reformed: ‘The Sacraments do Not Work Automatically apart from Faith, or Ex opere operato‘.

There are Not 7 Sacraments

Leigh argues against the position of Thomas and the Council of Trent that there are seven New Testament sacraments. (System of Divinity, p. 661)

Confirmation does Not Impart the Holy Spirit

Marriage: Not a Sacrament

Thomas, Summa, suppl., q. 42, ‘Matrimony as a Sacrament’. For the Reformed: ‘Marriage is Not a Sacrament’.

There are Not 7 Ecclesiastical Orders, Nor is Ordination a Sacrament

Thomas, Summa, suppl., q. 37, art. 2. For the Reformed: ‘On the Roman Sacrament of Orders & Ordination’.

Laying on of Hands is Not Sacramental, Nor Necessary

Thomas, On Hebrews, ch. 6, lect. 1, §284. For the Reformed: ‘On the Laying on of Hands’.

Penance is Not a Sacrament

Thomas, Summa

pt. 3, q. 84-90
suppl., q. 1-28

For the Reformed: ‘On Confession of Sins, Penance & Human Satisfactions for Sin’.

Last Rites & Anointing with Oil

That the Reformed did not hold James 5:14-15 to be speaking of Last Rites, or a sacrament, and to see that anointing with oil (included in Last Rites) is not a perpetual duty, see: ‘On Anointing with Oil’.

Baptism

Agreements

Roman Baptism is Valid

Needless to say, Thomas held Roman baptism to be valid (Summa, pt. 3, q. 66, art. 10).

The Reformed, while they held it was sinful, and sinful to be baptized by a Roman priest, yet still rightly held her baptism to be valid (they were not rebaptizing all those who converted to Protestantism; the Anabaptists were): ‘On the Roman Church being a Church, She being Apostate, her Baptism being Valid…’.

Infant Baptism

Thomas teaches the baptism of infants in Summa, pt. 3, q. 68, art. 9. For the Reformed, see ‘On Infant & Household Baptism’.

Water Baptism not Necessary to Salvation for Infants

Bucanus on infants: “it would I say be absurd to think them deprived of salvation… if death should prevent their children [from] baptism. Again, why should the children bear the punishment of another’s fault? But this is the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, ‘That children are nevertheless baptised with the baptism of the Spirit, though they want [lack] the outward sign.” (Institutions, ch. 47, p. 728)

Cannot Baptize Children of Jews

French Reformed Churches: “Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest Doctors of the Roman Catholics, decides positively, that it is not lawful to baptize the children of the Jews against the will of their parents [Summa, pt. 3, q. 68, art. 10], and that for two reasons, one, that it was never the practice of the Church, and the other, that it is against the course of natural justice…” (Quick, Synodicon, Intro, §40, p. cxxvii-viii)

Baptism is Only to be done Once

This is in contrast to a heretic or apostate being rebaptized upon repentance. Thomas, Summa, pt. 3, q. 66, art. 9.

For the Reformed, see their polemic against Anabaptists, who sought to rebaptize persons who had been baptized as infants (as the Anabaptists rejected infant baptism): ‘On Anabaptism’.

Mixed

Whether baptism in the name of Christ is valid?

Despite Thomas holding that baptism is not aboslutely tied to the sacramental words (Summa, pt. 3, q. 60, art. 8), he still argued that baptism in the name of Christ only, instead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, was invalid (Summa, pt. 3, q. 66, art. 6), as according to him, “whatever is lacking to the full invocation of the Trinity, destroys the integrity of Baptism.”

Voet appears to disagree with him: “Whether except water baptism in the name of the sole God is able to be administered? It is affirmed.” (Syllabus, sect. 2, tract 5, title 7, subtitle 4, ‘On Baptism’)

Leigh on the other hand supports his position that the form of baptism is “to wash with water In the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost,” in saying, “See Aquinas, pt. 3, q. 66, art. 6, ‘Whether in the name of Christ it is possible to give baptism?'” where Aquinas answers “No,” that such overturns the validity of baptism. (System of Divinity, p. 662)

Vermigli was arguing against his contemporary Romanists not using the Scriptural language in the Lord’s Supper, and argues against baptism being done expressly in the name of Christ, without the Trinitarian formula:

“Wherefore I say that by that place of the Acts of the Apostles ‘In the name of Jesus Christ,’ is meant, by the guiding, commandment, will and institution of Christ. Wherefore by these words rather it is known that the Apostles did altogether keep the form prescribed by Christ [in Mt. 28]. Otherwise they would not have baptized in the name of Christ, doing otherwise than He had commanded. Neither are we to think that the apostles who spread abroad religion with so great godliness and endeavor, rejected the form of baptizing delivered by Christ.

Neither must we pass it over that the Schoolmen (as we read in Thomas) when they agree that the form of baptizing was in a manner changed by the apostles, write that this was done for a time by the dispensation of the Holy Ghost, to the intent the name of Christ might be made the more famous, and that therefore a perpetual law should not be drawn from thence…

Neither is this doctrine to be suffered, that it is put in men’s authority to invert either the matter or the words of the Sacraments as these men have most impudently done: who not only have taken away the cup from the common people, but also the words spoken thereat, the which be very comfortable, and do more largely and significantly express the mysteries of our salvation than do the words which be uttered [by the papists at the Supper]…” (Common Places, pt. 4, ch. 11, p. 210)

More research on the Reformed needs to be done.

Disagreements

John’s Baptism Essentially the Same as Christ’s

Turretin: “Was John’s baptism essentially the same as Christ’s baptism? We affirm against the Romanists [including Thomas, Summa, pt. 3, q. 38, art. 6].” (3.398)

Voet: “Whether those baptized by John’s baptism afterward ought to have been baptized by Christ’s baptism? It is denied. Whether hence John’s baptism had the same efficacy with the baptism of Christ, the apostles and our baptism? It is affirmed.” (Syllabus, pt. 1, sect. 2, tract 5, appendix 1)

Only Ministers can Baptize, even in “Necessity”

Leigh and Clarkson deny Thomas’s position that baptism may be done by a layman or woman in cases of ‘necessity’. (System of Divinity, p. 667; Practical Divinity of Papists, p. 45) The main reason the Reformed opposed this practice was because baptism is not necessary for salvation, and therefore it is not necessary for a non-minister to perform it. See, ‘Only Ministers are to Baptize, with No Exceptions’.

Clarkson: “For by their doctrine it may be validly administred by any man, or woman, or one that is both; yea or by a child, by those also that are strangers, or enemies to all Christian worship, by Jews, pagans or infidels of any sort, by such as worship not the true God (as Sylvester tells us out of Aquinas, Paludanus and their Church’s Law).” (Practical Divinity of Papists, p. 45)

Voet: “Whether Jews or Mohammedans may pronounce in a good way the formula of baptism upon an infant? It is denied. What is to be thought of a baptism in haste which is administered by women; is it to be repeated? It is affirmed.” (Syllabus, sect. 2, tract 5, title 7, subtitle 4, ‘Of the minister of baptism’)

Baptism by Monks: Not Valid

Thomas, Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 187, art. 1

French Reformed Churches: “Ought they to be rebaptized who were baptized by monks? We answer that baptism administered by one destitute of commission and calling is altogether null: wherefore inasmuch as monks have no call, neither from the Reformed Churches nor elsewhere, such as have been baptized by them ought to be rebaptized, unless the monk have been received by a people to preach the Gospel to them, in which case there is the appearance of a call.” (ed. Quick, Synodicon, Synod of Poictiers, 1560, ch. 6, §14, p. 18)

Unbaptized Babies are Not Necessarily Damned

Thomas:

“…children, who can be saved without the Eucharist, but not without the sacrament of Baptism…” (Summa, pt. 3, q. 80, art. 11)

“…other children of the same condition who have been baptized and obtained eternal life… Although unbaptized children are separated from God as regards the union of glory…” (Summa, app. 2, art. 2)

Voet: “Whether all infants without baptism withdraw to the resurrection of the damned? It is denied contra the Papists.” (Syllabus, sect. 2, tract 6, title 3, subtitle 3, ‘Of the Resurection’, ‘Of the Subject & Object’)

Not Absolutely Tied to a Certain Form of Words

Gillespie affirms Thomas (Summa, pt. 3, q. 60, art. 8) holding “that the consecration of a sacrament is not absolutely tied to a certain form of words.” (English-Popish, pt. 4, ch. 7, p. 34)

Voet: “Whether the form of baptism consists in precisely that form of words, ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father, etc.’? It is denied.”

Baptism does not Produce Grace or Salvation Automatically

Thomas: “…baptized infants obtain salvation, since grace is given in baptism.” (Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 9, q. 1, art. 1, quaestiuncula 2)

For Heidegger baptism represents, exhibits, seals and pledges the benefits of the Gospel, yet it does not “produce grace ex opere operato, by a power whether inherent and physical (as Thomas of Aquino [Summa, pt. 3, q. 69] and the school of the Dominicans who follow him)… By making elements of the world and creatures the causes of grace this error transforms the sacraments into idols and a kind of magical chants.” (Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ch. 25, §9, p. 617)

No Exorcism before Baptism

Thomas, Summa, pt. 3, q. 71. For the Reformed, see ‘About Exorcism at Baptism’.

No other Ceremoniy is to be Added to Baptism

Thomas: “The use of water in Baptism is part of the substance of the sacrament; but the use of oil or chrism is part of the solemnity. For the candidate is first of all anointed with Holy oil on the breast and between the shoulders… thus are prize-fighters [are] wont to besmear themselves with oil… But after Baptism, as Rabanus says (De Sacram. iii), ‘he is forthwith anointed on the head by the priest with Holy Chrism…'” (Summa, pt. 3, q. 66, art. 10)

Vermigli, ch. 9, ‘Of the Dedication of Temples, the Baptizing of Bells, of Oil, Salt, Spittle, Wax & Other Papistical Corruptions about Baptism’ in Common Places, pt. 4, pp. 123-41

Bucanus, Whether besides the symbol of water, is it lawful to use in baptism any other visible sign and element, as salt, which is put into the mouth of the baptized, spittle, wherewith the ears and nose are touched, together with the pronouncing of the word, ephata, that is ‘be opened,’ milk and honey, whereby is signified a right or title to eternal life, a figure whereof was the land of Canaan flowing with milk and honey, chrism, or holy oil, wherewith the breast, shoulders and forehead are anointed to show that he is anointed or Christened and armed with the oil of the Spirit like a champion, an hallowed burning wax candle, whereby is meant that he is translated out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light; exsufflation, or breathing on the face of the body to be baptized, a white garment? etc. in 47. ‘Of Baptism’ in Institutions, pp. 706-7

Immersion: Not a Right Administration

Westminster Confession 28.3: “baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.” Thomas: “…although it is safer to baptize by immersion, because this is the more ordinary fashion, yet baptism can be conferred by sprinkling or also by pouring, according to Eze. 36:25…” (Summa, pt. 3, q. 66, art. 7)

Not Rightly Divided into the Baptism of Water, Blood & Spirit

Thomas, Summa, pt. 3, q. 66, art. 11

Voet: “Whether baptism is rightly divided into the baptism of running water, fire and blood? It is denied.” (Syllabus, sect. 2, tract 5, title 7, subtitle 4)

Lord’s Supper

Agreements

Bread & Wine Constitute but One Sacrament

Bucanus: “Therefore this sacrament is many things materially [bread and wine], but one thing formally and perfectly, inasmuch as in them one refection [meal] is perfected, says Thomas.” (Institutions, ch. 48, p. 749)

Accidents by Nature must be in a Subject

Leigh, in arguing against transubstantiation, where it is held that the substance of the bread and wine is replaced with the substance of Christ’s flesh, yet the form and accidents of bread and wine (their texture, shape, taste, etc.) remain, (ironically) elucidates and refers to a determination of Thomas: If transubstantiation is true, then “Accidents should be without a subject; but Aristotle says, Accidents are entis rather than entia [‘of being, rather than being’]. Accidentis esse est inesse [‘The being of an accident is inbeing’], the very essence of an accident as it is an accident, is to be in some subject. See Aquinas, 1a; 1ae. q. 90, art. 2.” (System of Divinity, p. 698)

“This is the Cup of my Blood”: Figurative

Turretin approvingly: “Thomas Aquinas: ‘This is the cup of my blood, is a figurative locution.’” (3.481)

Supporting Persons Receiving the Cup with Thomas

Leigh, in arguing against communion in one kind and Bellarmine, observes the statement in Thomas that “Although there be not wine or wheat in some countries, yet it may easily be carried to all, as much as suffices for the use of this sacrament.” (System of Divinity, p. 686) Note Thomas yet thought it “a prudent custom in some churches for the blood [cup] not to be offered to the reception of the people”. (Summa, pt. 3, q. 80, art. 12)

Contra Paedocommunion

Thomas:

“baptized infants obtain salvation, since grace is given in baptism. But they are not given the body of Christ to eat.” (Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 9, q. 1, art. 1, quaestiuncula 2)

“to children lacking the use of reason, who cannot distinguish between spiritual and bodily food, the Eucharist should not be given, although some of the Byzantines maintain the opposite, though irrationally: because actual devotion is required for the consumption of the Eucharist, which children of that age cannot have. However, once children have begun to have discretion, even before the age of maturity, for example when they are ten or eleven years old, or around then, it can be given to them, if signs of discretion and devotion appear in them… Baptized infants acquire the right to receive the body of Christ, not right away though, but at the fitting time;” (Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 9, q. 1, art. 5, resp. to Quaestiuncula 4)

For the Reformed: ‘Paedocommunion’.

Contra Intinction

Thomas: “Here he [Peter Lombard] considers… how it should be distributed now, at: ‘And the Eucharist is not to be given by intinction to the people ‘as a supplement of communion.”” (Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 11)

On the Reformed: ‘Intinction’.

Disagreements

Rome’s Supper is Not Valid & is Not to be Received by Christians, or Attended apart from Necessity

Needless to say, Thomas held the Roman Supper to be valid and ethically obliging to receive.

The Reformed held the mass to be invalid (as it involved the formal idolatry of worshipping the creature, bread and wine), that it was sinful to receive from a priest, and that the mass ought not to be attended apart from necessity:

‘Why is Romish Baptism Valid but the Supper Not to be Received by a Romish Priest?’
‘On the Mass & Transubstantiation’
‘On Attending the Mass’

Only Ministers may Administer, even in “Necessity”

Clarkson: “…or he may have the eucharist administered to him without a priest [if one is not to be had when he is dying]: and it is their common doctrine that the eucharist justifies one that is in mortal sin, if he be attrite, and thinks but himself contrite; yea, he may administer it to himself with the same effect in case of necessity: diverse of all sorts amongst them are of this opinion. The authority of Aquinas is alleged for it (Summa, pt. 3. q. 82, art. 3) and Cajetan in Mt. 26.” (Practical Divinity of Papists, p. 146)

Thomas: “…as far as the essentials of the sacrament are concerned, any water will suffice, so, on the part of the minister, any man is competent. Consequently, an unbaptized person can baptize in a case of urgency. So that two unbaptized persons may baptize one another… But if this were done outside a case of urgency, each would sin grievously…” (Summa, pt. 3, q. 67, art. 5)

For the Reformed: ‘That Ministers Alone are to Administer the Sacraments’ and ‘Whether the Sacraments may be Administered Privately’.

Contra Private Celebrations

Thomas answers the question, “Whether this sacrament ought to be celebrated in a house…?” with the answer, “He said (Mt. 18:20): ‘Wherever two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.'” (Summa, pt. 3, q. 83, art. 3)

The Reformed held Mt. 18:20 to refer to Church government and consistently denied its application to the sacraments, holding that private Suppers (which the Romanists were notoriously known for) are wrong. See ‘Whether the Sacraments may be Administered Privately’.

Not a Proper Sacrifice

Thomas: “The Eucharist is not only a sacrament but also a sacrifice… as it is a sacrifice, it has its effect also on others, on whose behalf it is offered, in whom it does not require spiritual life to exist actually, but only potentially. And so if it finds them disposed, it obtains grace for them by virtue of that true sacrifice from which all grace flows into us. And consequently it removes mortal sins in them, not as proximate cause, but inasmuch as it procures the grace of contrition for them.” (Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 12, q. 2, art. 2, resp. to quaestiuncula 2, reply to obj. 4; see also dist. 12, Exposition, ‘And if Christ is immolated every day, or if he was immolated only once’)

The Reformed held the Supper may be considered a figurative and spiritual sacrifice, yet: ‘The Lord’s Supper is Not a Literal Sacrifice’.

Common Bread & Leavened is More Appropriate

Thomas: “It is not, however, necessary for the sacrament that the bread be unleavened or leavened, since it can be celebrated in either… Nevertheless the custom of celebrating with unleavened bread is more reasonable.”

Most of the Reformed held that common bread should be used in the Supper, whatever was commonly used in society for daily bread. Leaven or not is indifferent. However, they also commonly argued that leavened bread is more appropriate. See ‘Quotes on Common Bread in the Lord’s Supper’.

Wheat Bread: Not Necessary

Thomas:

“…the proper matter for this sacrament is wheaten bread.” (Summa, pt. 3, q. 74, art. 3)

“It is necessary that the bread be wheaten, without which the sacrament is not valid…” (Summa, pt. 3, q. 74, art. 4)

Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567) on the Supper’s bread: “Wherever and whatever kind of bread they eat, it may be made only from seed; and either oats, millet, barley, rye, or wheat may be used.” (Reformed Confessions, 3.93)

The Reformed held in extraordinary circumstances things other than bread from flour might be used, as long as a certain analogy remained in the sacrament, in using a staple food: ‘On the Administration of the Sacraments in Extra-Ordinary Circumstances’.

Transubstantiation

Tossanus: “Thomas Aquinas… But he is much to be blamed in this: that he employed the whole strength of his wit in defending transubstantiation, though most unhappily, and with many contradictions.” (Synopsis, p. 81)

“This is my Body”

Thysius, regarding “This is my body”: “And the word ‘this’ cannot mean, as it does for the papal promoters of transubstantiation, some vague individual thing, as Thomas would have it [in order for it to consist with the change of substance from bread to Christ’s flesh]. For ‘this’ denotes something specific and present.” (Synopsis, disp. 45, §48)

Water ought Not to be Mingled with the Wine, Except for Necessity

Leigh argues against Thomas’s position that “Water ought to be mingled with wine, but it is not of the necessity of this sacrament.” (System of Divinity, p. 692)

Voet allows for exceptions in necessity, such as if there is not enough wine: Question 12, ‘Whether water may need to be mixed with the wine? It is affirmed.’ in Ecclesiastical Politics, vol. 1, book 2, tract 2, section 4, ch. 1, p. 737-38 The reformed often allowed for dilution in arid climates for the sake of sobriety and common custom, such as it may have been in Jesus’s own day. What is denied is that adding the water was a pseudo-mystery, as in Romanism, or that it be done causelessly.

Robert Abbot: “As touching… mixture of water with wine in the sacrament, I showed before that our Churches have accounted it as a mere indifferent thing where it is used with that simplicity wherwith it was first begun. The manner of countries where their wines are very strong, is to delaie them with water. Christians would not neglect that commendable show of sobriety in their mystical banquet, whereof heathen men had regard at their ordinary tables.” (Mirror of Popish Subtilties, 1594, §2, pp. 3-16)

Need for Partaking of the Cup

Bucanus argues for the need of partaking of the Cup, contra the practice of Romanists and Thomas’s saying, “The flesh is meat, the blood is drink, yet Christ remains whole under both kinds.” (Institutions, ch. 48, p. 757) Thomas said, “a prudent custom in some churches for the blood [cup] not to be offered to the reception of the people”. (Summa, pt. 3, q. 80, art. 12)

Things around the Supper are Not Consecrated

Thomas: “The church, altar, and other like inanimate things are consecrated, not because they are capable of receiving grace, but because they acquire special spiritual virtue from the consecration, whereby they are rendered fit for the divine worship, so that man derives devotion therefrom, making him more fitted for divine functions…” (Summa, pt. 3, q. 83, art. 3)

For the Reformed:

‘That Meeting Places for Christian Worship are Only to have a Natural Use for the Purpose & No Religious Significance Whatsoever’
‘On Dedications of Meeting Places for Worship’
‘On Consecrating & Dedicating Things’

Penance

Disagreements

Penance is Not a Sacrament

Thomas, Summa

pt. 3, q. 84-90
suppl., q. 1-28

For the Reformed: ‘On Confession of Sins, Penance & Human Satisfactions for Sin’.

Confession to a Minister: Not Necessary

Ussher quotes Thomas in contrast to his own position: “Thomas Aquinas (in his exposition of the text of the fourth book of the Sentences, dist. 17) holds the denial of the necessity of confession [of sins to a priest] unto salvation to be heresy.” (Answer to a Jesuit, p. 105)

Not Meritorious

Absolution: Not Absolutely Tied to a Certain Form of Words

Ussher: “Neither do we find that they [the Fathers] did ever use any such formal absolution as this, ‘I absolve thee from all thy sins’: wherein our Popish Priests notwithstanding do place the very form of their late devised sacrament of Penance, nay hold it to be so absolute a form that (according to Thomas Aquinas, his new divinity) it would not be sufficient to say, ‘Almighty God have mercy upon thee,’ or, ‘God grant unto thee absolution and forgiveness,’ because, forsooth, the priest by these words does not signify that the absolution is done, but entreats that it may be done, which how it will accord with the Roman Pontifical, where the form of absolution is laid down prayer-wise, the Jesuits who follow Thomas may do well to consider.” (Answer to a Jesuit, p. 125)

Grief Need Not Equal the Quantity of the Sin

Scandal

Agreements

Definition of

Gillespie affirms Thomas that the definition of scandal is not that it gives cause to persons’ ruin, but it gives occasion of ruin. (English-Popish, p. 40) The difference is that a scandal may not necessarily cause a person’s ruin, if it is given but not taken, or is mitigated in another way, or if the action is not culpable, but serves as the ocassion of someone receiving and taking scandal when it is not given.

Rutherford, in confirming his definition of scandal, references Thomas that words or actions scandalize that are inductive to sin. (Divine Right, Intro to Scandal, p. 3)

Lawfulness may be Relative to Scandal

Rutherford cites Thomas to confirm that Paul’s circumcising of Timothy was lawful: “He did it when he could not offend the gentiles,” and yet to use such Jewish rites in a religious way now is unlawful. (Divine Right, ch. 1 question 4, p. 143)

A Positive Precept may be able to be Omitted for Scandal

Rutherford approves of Aquinas teaching that “at sometime an obedience to an affirmative precept, hic et nunc [here and now] may be omitted, when we see that from the doing thereof, the ignorant and weak will commit great sins.” (Divine Right, Intro to Scandal, p. 13)

Partaking of Idolater’s Ceremonies makes us Partake of their Religion

Gillespie uses Thomas to support the principle that “by partaking with idolaters in their rites and ceremonies [in the Church], we are made to partake with them in their religion too.” (English-Popish, pt. 3, p. 39)

Prohibition of Eating Blood was due to Circumstantial Scandal

Thomas interprets the prohibition for eating blood in Acts 15:20-21 to have been temporary due the issue of scandalizing the Jews in that era when Christianity was young, as did most of the Reformed at the Reformation. See, ‘On Eating & Drinking Blood’.

Marriage

Agreement

Marriages between Unbelievers are Valid

Thomas: “…marriage pertains to the office of nature, which precedes the state of grace… Therefore, unbelief does not prevent marriage from existing among unbelievers.” (Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 39, q. 1, art. 2)

WCF 24.3: “It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgment to give their consent:[e]…

[e] Heb. 13:4. 1 Tim. 4:3. 1 Cor. 7:36-38. Gen. 24:57,58.”

Entering Marriages with Heretics & Papists is Sinful, but Valid

Vermigli: “…when as Papists are sometime joined [by marriage] to the professors of the Gospel, and professors of the Gospel contract themselves with Papists? Hostiensis said that this ought not to be done; but yet, that if such be joined together in matrimony, they be man and wife, and the marriages [are] of force. Yea and Thomas in the fourth book of the Sentences [dist. 39, art. 1], seems not to mislike this opinion.” (p. 445)

WCF 24.3: “It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgment to give their consent:[e] yet is it the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord.[f] And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, Papists, or other idolaters…[g]

[e] Heb. 13:4. 1 Tim. 4:3. 1 Cor. 7:36-38. Gen. 24:57,58.
[f] 1 Cor. 7:39.
[g] Gen. 34:14. Exod. 34:16. Deut. 7:3,4. 1 Kings 11:4. Neh. 13:25-27. Mal. 2:11,12. 2 Cor. 6:14.”

French Reformed Churches: “Canon IV: Fathers and mothers professing the Reformed Religion, whose children being idolaters, would marry themselves unto idolatrous women, shall be advised, if possibly they can do it, to hinder their said children from contracting such marriages, especially if they be not as yet emancipated from under their authority: and fathers shall employ their paternal power to prevent and hinder them; but and if they cannot so far prevail, yet at passing the marriage contracts, they shall protest their abhorrency of that idolatry into which their children will deeper plunge themselves. And this being done, the parents may consent unto the promises and conditions about the dowry and other such like matters, and they shall give in evidence unto their consistory of those endeavours they have used to hinder such marriages.” (ed. John Quick, Synodicon, Intro, Discipline of the Reformed Churches, 1559, ch. 13)

One can Remarry after the Death of a Spouse

Thomas, Sentences, dist. 42, q. 3, art. 1

WCF 24:5, “In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.[n]

[n] Matt. 19:9. Rom. 7:2,3“

Having Concubines has Always been Sinful

Thomas, Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 33, q. 1, art. 3

For the Reformed: ‘On Polygamy & Concubines’

Disagreements

Not a Sacrament

Thomas, Summa, suppl., q. 42, ‘Matrimony as a Sacrament’. For the Reformed: ‘Marriage is Not a Sacrament’.

Parental Consent for those under Age: Necessary for Marriage

Clarkson: “They may dispose of themselves in marriage, without their parents’ consent: because according to Aquinas, in the choice of their condition, they are not subject to their parents, and their parents’ concurrence herein is for decency, not out of necessity.” (Practical Divinity of Papists, p. 230) For the Reformed at large against this, with proper qualifications, see ‘The Authority of Fathers in Giving Away their Daughters in Marriage’.

A Christian Entering Marriage with an Unbeliever is Sinful, but Valid

Thomas: “Therefore, someone who is in the light of faith cannot contract marriage with someone who is in the darkness of unbelief… Mal. 2:11, ‘Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the Lord, which he loved, and has married the daughter of a foreign god.’ But this would not be if between them a valid marriage could be contracted. Therefore disparity of cult impedes marriage… But in the New Law, which is diffused throughout the world, there is a similar reason for prohibiting marriage with all unbelievers; and thus disparity of cult preceding marriage impedes it from being contracted, and invalidates the contract… if some catechumen, having right faith, but not yet baptized, should contract with some baptized member of the faithful, it would not be a valid marriage.” (Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 39, art. 1)

[e] Heb. 13:4. 1 Tim. 4:3. 1 Cor. 7:36-38. Gen. 24:57,58.
[f] 1 Cor. 7:39.
[g] Gen. 34:14. Exod. 34:16. Deut. 7:3,4. 1 Kings 11:4. Neh. 13:25-27. Mal. 2:11,12. 2 Cor. 6:14.”

Polygamy in the Old Testament was Sinful, though Tolerated

Thomas: “Galatians 3 says that the Law was written because of wrongdoers precisely so that it might prohibit them. But the Old Law made mention of the plurality of wives without anything about its prohibition, as is clear from Deuteronomy 21:15: ‘if a man have two wives.’ Therefore, they did not become wrongdoers by having two wives, and thus it was allowed.

Furthermore, this same thing is seen by the example of the holy patriarchs, who, we read, had many wives, although they were most acceptable to God, like Jacob, David, and many others. Therefore, it was permitted at one time.”

For the Reformed:

‘On Permissive, Mosaic Laws of God’
‘On Polygamy & Concubines’

Seeking Pleasure in Sex is Not Sinful

Thomas: I answer that certain people say that whenever sensual desire principally moves someone to the conjugal act, it is a mortal sin. But when it is a side motive, then it is a venial sin. However, when someone rejects the pleasure altogether, and it displeases him, then it is without any venial sin at all. So in this way, to seek pleasure in the act would be mortal sin, to accept the pleasure offered would be venial sin, but to hate it would belong to perfection.

But this cannot be… If… pleasure were sought within the limits of marriage, namely so that such pleasure were not sought in any woman but one’s wife, then it would be a venial sin.” (Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 31, art. 3)

For the Reformed, see the articles:

Associated Press – ‘Excerpts of Puritan writing that suggests they enjoyed sex’ (2016) at Times Standard

Morgan, Edmund S. – ‘The Puritans & Sex’ in New England Quarterly (Dec, 1942), pp. 591-607

Married Persons cannot Marry Again without a Divorce

Vermigli: “Thomas in the 22nd question touches this matter, when he writes [of] that violent taking away [of a woman to marry]… Yet (says he) ravine before restitution be made [to the true husband or parents of the woman] is a hinderance to the contracting of matrimony, that is, that they [the violent man and the woman] sin if they contract matrimony: nevertheless, if it be contracted it breaks not the contract [despite the will of the husband or parents].

But to the canons which determine against it, he answers that they were made in detestation of the crime but that the Pope afterward considered the matter better. Howbeit, this was not the part of a godly man to worship the Pope for God and so to flatter him like a bondslave… After this sort Thomas, Cajetan, the divines, ecclesiastics and canonists trifle among themselves and play the parasites with the Pope their god.” (Common Places, pt. 2, ch. 10, p. 441)

Perpetual Celibacy is Not Inherently a Virtue

Thomas:

“Now to keep oneself free from the experience of venereal pleasure has an excellence of its own deserving of greater praise than keeping oneself free from inordinate venereal pleasure. Wherefore virginity is a special virtue… Wherefore virginity alone is accounted a virtue above chastity…” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 152, art. 3)

“Without doubt therefore virginity is preferable to conjugal continence… Though virginity is better than conjugal continence… it may be that the private good is better generically [than a common good]. It is thus that the virginity that is consecrated to God is preferable to carnal fruitfulness.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 152, art. 4)

While there was more variety on this topic amongst the Reformed than is generally realized, yet their dominant answer was perpetual celibacy is only good for those who are given the gift of it (Mt. 19:11-12), who tend to be a minority: ‘On Celibacy’.

Divorce

Disagreements

Conversion & Unbelief: Not Grounds for Separation or Divorce

Thomas:

“…the marriage bond is not dissolved by the fact that one converts to the faith. But sometimes, although the marriage bond endures, the marriage is dissolved as far as living together and rendering the debt are concerned; for unbelief and adultery parallel each other, for either one is against the good of children. Therefore, just as a man has the power to put away an adulterous wife or to remain with her, so also someone has the power of sending away an unbelieving wife or remaining with her… although he is also free to put her away with the hope of correction. In the same way, a believer who has converted can remain with an unbeliever in the hope of conversion, if he has not seen her obstinate in her unbelief, and he does well to remain. However, he is not bound to…” (Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 39, q. 1, art. 3)

“…a man who vows certain things while living a secular life is not bound to fulfill those things when he dies to the world by assuming religious life… And thus he is freed from the obligation by which he is bound to render the debt to his wife, and he is not bound to live with her if he does not wish, once he has converted, although in some cases he might freely do so…” (Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 39, q. 1, art. 4)

“…bodily fornication and unbelief are especially contrary to the goods [good purposes justifying] of marriage… which is why they especially possess the force to separate marriages. But nevertheless it must be understood that a marriage is dissolved in one of two ways. In one way, on the part of the bond, and in this way it cannot be dissolved after the marriage has been ratified [by the Church], neither by unbelief nor by adultery. But if it is not ratified, the bond is dissolved if the one of the spouses persists in unbelief and the other, who has converted, enters a new union… In another way, marriage is dissolved as to its act; and in this way it can be dissolved both by unbelief and by physical fornication… And thus a marriage that is not ratified can be dissolved more easily by unbelief than by adultery, as to its bond.” (Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 39, q. 1, art. 6)

WCF 24.6 “Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage:[o]…

[o] Matt. 19:8,9. 1 Cor. 7:15. Matt. 19:6“

No Divorce Keeps One Married in Perpetual Separation

Vermigli: “…Thomas, in the fourth book of the Sentences, seems not to mislike this opinion. But these [scholastics] fellows do soon utter what they think: yet they prove not that which they speak. While they thus affirm they cast themselves into a very great absurdity.

For if that party, which is an heretic provoke to heresy the faithful and sincere party: if the faithful will not assent, nor yet dwell with the other party, or if he will dwell together, he does it not without perpetual contumely to Christ [Thomas, Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 35, art. 6; dist. 39; q. 1, art. 4-6]; what shall be done? They answer: If the matter come to that point, let them be separated; howbeit, from the bed, but not from the bond of matrimony. And so they imagine a kind of divorcement utterly unknown unto the holy Scriptures.” (Common Places, pt. 2, ch. 10, p. 445)

Adultery: Grounds for Divorce & Remarriage

Thomas: “…adultery does not make a marriage cease to be valid… Therefore it is unlawful for one, while the other lives, to marry again.” (Summa, Supp., Q. 62, art. 5)

WCF 24.5: “In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce,[m] and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.[n]

[m] Matt. 5:31,32.
[n] Matt. 19:9. Rom. 7:2,3“

For more of the Reformed: ‘On Divorce & Remarriage’.

Inward Affections

Disagreements

Love

Love to God: Necessary

Clarkson: “…others conclude there is no special precept of love to God. So John Samcius, ‘There is no special command in the Law of God for this, but general,’ says he. By which he would have us understand that there is no precept in particular for loving God, none besides those commands that require other things; which if they be done, we are discharged from any act of love or inward affection to Him. Aquinas is vouched for this, and much [is] alledged out of him to show he was of this persuasion (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 44, art. 1, ad 3; art. 4, ad 2; art. 6, ad 2; q. 48, art. 3, ad 2).” (Practical Divinity of Papists, p. 92)

Love: Not Simply a Lack of Hatred

Clarkson: “By the doctrine of Aquinas, the precept requires no special act of love to our brethren, no formal or internal act at all, nor any exterior, that will signify more than the want [lack] of hatred. This is the common doctrine amongst his devoutest followers, the Dominicans.” (Practical Divinity of Papists, p. 161)

Inward Worship Required on Lord’s Day

Clarkson denies Thomas that external worship only is required on the Lord’s Day, not inward worship or love to God. (Practical Divinity of Papists, pp. 28-29)

Disagreement

We are to Love our Enemies

Vermigli:

Magistracy & Politics

Agreements

Lesser Magistrates are God-ordained Powers

Rutherford cites Thomas approvingly that God-ordained ‘powers’ (Rom. 13:1) are not restrained to monarchs only, or principally, but includes lesser magistrates. (Lex Rex, ch. 33, p. 352)

Definition of Governance

Althusius: “Or, as Thomas Aquinas says, ‘to govern is to lead what is governed to its appropriate end.’ (On Princely Government, I, 13 and 14.)” (Politica, ed. Carney, ch. 1, §13, pp. 20-21)

Civil Toleration of False Religion due to Necessity or a Greater Benefit

“The second reason why a government can rightly abstain from a non-toleration policy [according to Voet] is the need to avoid greater evil… Thomas Aquinas, who also in the context of the issue of toleration compared civil authority to God’s providence, and argued that ‘even though the unbelievers sin in their rites, they can be tolerated either for the sake of some good that results from these or for the sake of some evil that is prevented.’…

Johannes Marckius, a biblical exegete and author of a dogmatic textbook, showed more affinity with Voetius by suggesting that the ‘absolute necessity of civil prudence,’ ‘the veneration for the oath,’ or the ‘common well-being of the Church’ provide exceptions to the rule that the public practice of false religion is not to be tolerated.” (Goudriaan, Reformed Orthodoxy & Philosophy, pp. 317, 319, 321)

Contra Theonomy

Thomas:

“…it is up to any prince who can establish laws to determine the natural common law through a positive law, for positive law is nothing but the determination of natural law. (For example, natural law holds that a malefactor should be punished, but that he be punished by a particular punishment is determined through a positive law).” (Quodlibet 2, q. 4, art. 3)

“…certain things belong generically to the natural law, while their determination belongs to the positive law; thus the natural law requires that evildoers should be punished; but that this or that punishment should be inflicted on them is a matter determined by God or by man.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 85, art. 1, reply to obj. 1)

For the Reformed: ‘The General Equity of the Old Testament Civil Laws & the Judicial Laws’.

Death Penalty

Thomas, Contra Gentiles, bk. 3, ch. 146

Bucanus, William – ‘There shall none hurt or destroy in all the mountain of my holiness,’ does not the magistrate therefore offend in putting malefactors to death? [No] in 49. ‘Of Magistrates’ in Institutions of Christian Religion, p. 888

Just War is Possible

Thomas, Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 40, art. 1

For the Reformed: ‘War’.

Unbelievers must Not be Compelled by Wars to Faith

Rutherford approves what “famous Schoolmen”, including Thomas, taught, that “Pagans must be allured, and not compelled by wars to the faith.” (Free Disputation, ch. 25, p. 315)

King Obeys some Civil Laws Not by Necessity

Rutherford quotes Thomas approvingly that the king obeys some laws “upon honesty, not of necessity,” with respect to some civil laws. (Lex Rex, ch. 26, p. 234)

Resistance to Tyrrany

Thomas: “A tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed, not to the common good, but to the private good of the ruler, as the Philosopher [Aristotle] states (Polit. iii, 5; Ethic. viii, 10). Consequently there is no sedition in disturbing a government of this kind, unless indeed the tyrant’s rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant’s government. Indeed it is the tyrant rather that is guilty of sedition, since he encourages discord and sedition among his subjects, that he may lord over them more securely; for this is tyranny, being conducive to the private good of the ruler, and to the injury of the multitude.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 42, art. 2)

Slaves Equal to Masters by Nature

Thomas: “A slave is his master’s possession in matters superadded to nature, but in natural things all are equal.” (Summa, suppl., q. 52, art. 2, ad 1)

Rutherford:

“Assertion 3. Every man by nature is a freeman born, that is, by nature no man comes out of the womb under any civil subjection to king, prince, or judge, to master, captain, conqueror, teacher, etc.

Argument 1. Because freedom is natural to all, except freedom from subjection to parents; and subjection politic is merely accidental, coming from some positive laws of men, as they are in a politic society…” (Lex Rex, 1843, q. 13, p. 51 rt col)

Mixed

Whether Children can be taken from Heretics for Instruction in the Faith

Thomas says ‘No’: Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 10, art. 12; pt. 3, q. 68, art. 10

The French Reformed Churches said ‘No’, on the eve of when their children would be kidnapped by the Papists at the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685). “…all laws have as severely punished… that of force in children under age… The age of seven years fully attained does not hinder, but that as to the parents the violence is as great, as if their children were torn from their mothers’ breasts; because that all laws, both natural and civil, do submit children to their parents till the age of puberty, and therefore ’tis equally unjust to take them away at seven years old, as in the cradle.” (ed. Quick, Synodicon, Intro, §40, Letter to French King, 1681, p. cxxviii)

Rutherford, speaking to a very specific situation (significantly different from the previously mentioned situation in France), namely if one nation, by a lawful war, subdues another nation, making them as it were servants, then the victorious nation has the obligation of a master to spiritually educate their subordinates. In this context Rutherford leaves the question open, giving an argument for each side, pro and con:

“whether we may by force take their children from them, and train them up in the Christian religion, is disputable, since their condition of being subdued denudes them not of the natural relation of fathers to sons, or because in so robbing them of their children, we should but spoil them of the actual abuse of that paternal right, which is now conveyed to run in a right channel, to train up young ones in a right way, whereas their parents would employ it to a wrong end, it would seeme no violence to the souls of young ones, since nothing is done but by gracious education and instruction.” (Free Disputation, ch. 21, p. 250)

Disagreements

Church does Not have Power over Civil Rulers in Civil Things

Thomas: “…the ministry of this [spiritual] kingdom has been entrusted not to earthly kings but to priests, and most of all to the chief priest, the successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the Roman Pontiff. To him all the kings of the Christian People are to be subject as to our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. For those to whom pertains the care of intermediate ends should be subject to him to whom pertains the care of the ultimate end, and be directed by his rule… Consequently, in the law of Christ, kings must be subject to priests.” (De regno, ch. 15, §§110-11)

For the Reformed, see Willet, Synopsis Papismi, 4th Controversy, 8th Question, ‘Of the temporal jurisdiction and power of the bishop of Rome’, pp. 147-53

Kings Not to be Dethroned at Pope’s Commandment

Rutherford denies Thomas that the people at the Pope’s commandment are to dethrone kings for heresy. (Lex Rex, ch. 41, pp. 416-17)

Apostate Governors Retain Civil Validity

Thomas, Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 12, art. 2, “Whether a prince forfeits his dominion over his subjects, on account of apostasy from the faith, so that they no longer owe him allegiance? [Yes]” For the Reformed: ‘Difference of Religion does not Make Void the Magistrate’s Authority’.

In a Christian State, Persons may believe as they will; Professors of heresy ought to be mildly punished; Teaching or disseminating heresy ought not to be tolerated; Blasphemers may be put to death

Thomas:

“On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death… much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 11, art. 3)

“For this reason the Church not only admits to Penance those who return from heresy for the first time… But when they fall again, after having been received, this seems to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death.” (Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 11, art. 4)

Rutherford:

“Assertion 1… the magistrate is able to constrain no one to be of this or that opinion or sentiment in religion. Because mental acts, since they are internal, are not subject to the authority of the magistrate…

Assertion 3… the magistrate can, and ought to, compel the heretic so that in the exercise of religion he does not externally and openly profess, teach or disseminate anything which is contrary to the sound faith. Hence, we reckon that all that publicly and openly profess a false religion ought to be chastised according to the nature of the offence.
…

Assertion 5. The magistrate ought to implement capital punishment to blasphemers, openly heretical and blasphemous professors of God, and those defecting from Christianity to Judaism or another false religion.
…

Assertion 6. Where men go astray, having been seduced by others, there the magistrate ought to act with much patience and all lenity, that those going astray be coerced, in whatever way, with mild penalty unto repentance, that they might be forgiven.” (Rutherford’s Examination of Arminianism, trans. Johnson & Fentiman, pp. 130-35)

Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty:

“The third [Reformed] opinion is that the magistrate may and ought to exercise his coercive power in suppressing and punishing heretics and sectaries, less or more, according as the nature and degree of the error, schism, obstinacy, and danger of seducing others, does require. This as it was the judgment of the orthodox ancients… so it is followed by our soundest Protestant writers; most largely by Beza… What is it else that Calvin teaches when he distinguishes three kinds of errors:

[1.] some to be tolerated with a spirit of meekness, and such as ought not to separate betwixt brethren:
[2.] others not to be tolerated, but to be suppressed with a
certain degree of severity:
[3.] a third sort so abominable and pestiferous, that they are to be cut off by the highest punishments? (Calvin, Refutation of the Errors of Michael Servetus, [p. 31]… This treatise is approved by Bullinger in an epistle to Calvin…)” (pp. 3-4)

See also Mastricht, TPT, vol. 5, bk. 7, ch. 6, sect. 19.

Purgatory & Indulgences

Disagreements

Purgatory is Not in the Canon

For the Reformed: ‘On the Apocrypha’.

Purgatory is Not Real

Willet: “Thomas Aquinas holds that the least punishment in purgatory exceeds the greatest torment in this life… But this is a needeless question to dispute of the pains of purgatory, for there is no such place, as we have elsewhere showed.” (Four Principal Pillars of Papistry, p. 150)

Ussher:

“When Thomas Aquinas and other friars had brought the frame of this new building [of Purgatory and indulgences] unto some perfection, and fashioned all things therein unto their own best advantage: the doctors of the Greek Church did publicly oppose themselves against it.” (Answer to a Jesuit, p. 180)

“…this being a case with them [“our Romanists”] resolved, that ‘if Purgatory be not admitted after death, prayer for the dead must be unprofitable.’ But though Thomas Aquinas and his abettors determine so…” (Answer to a Jesuit, pp. 243-44)

Indulgences are a Fancy

Thomas, Summa, suppl., q. 25. For the Reformed: ‘On Indulgences’.

Limbos of the Fathers (Old Testament Saints) & Damned Infants

Disagreements

The Limbos do Not Exist

Turretin notes how “the papists make a fourfold hell,” including (1) hell proper, (2) purgatory, (3) the eternal limbo of infants with the suffering, not of sense, but of loss, and (4) the limbo of the Old Testament fathers, temporally suffering loss only, till Christ delivered them by his death, citing Thomas and others, and argues at length specifically against the limbo of the fathers. (2.257)

Christ did Not Liberate the Fathers from Limbo at his Death

The Reformed, contra the Romanists, believed, ‘The Old Testament Saints went Directly to Heaven upon Death’ and denied any ‘Limbo of the Fathers’.

Hell

Agreement

Eternal Punishment

Thomas, Summa, suppl., q. 99

For the Reformed: ‘Hell’.

The Damned shall Sinfully Blaspheme

Disagreements

No Fourfold Hell

Nature of Hell-Fire is Not Clearly Determinable

Thomas: “…they will be punished in a physical fire.” (Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 44, q. 3, art. 2, quaestiuncula 2)

Voet: “Whether true fire is given in Hell, or whether it is only metaphorical? It is not said and it is permitted to be inquired into. Whether it is corporal or rather spiritual? The question is inept. Whether it is of the same species with our fire? The question is curious… Is it an error of the Faith to suppose an incorporeal and immaterial infernal fire? The question is absurd.” (Syllabus, sect. 2, tract 6, title 6, subtitle 2, ‘Of Infernal Fire’)

Heaven

Agreements

Saints do Not See All Things on Earth through God

Saints will See Punishment of the Damned

Leigh: “Aquinas has this question, Whether the blessed which are in the Fatherland see the punishment of the damned? and resolves they shall, because it makes to the perfection of their blessedness, ‘Opposites placed next to each other shine forth more brightly.’ They shall perfectly see the punishment of the wicked, that their blessedness may the more content them and they may give more abundant thanks to God.” (System of Divinity, p. 872)

The Heaven of God’s Throne Room will Not be Renovated with Fire

Thomas: “…the higher heavens will not be cleansed by that fire… The cleansing of the world will be for the purpose of removing from bodies the disposition contrary to the perfection of glory… Peter explains himself to which heavens he refers… ‘the heavens first, and the earth through water perished, which now by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire unto the day of judgment’ (2 Pet 5:5–7)… Nor did the empyrean heaven contract any stain…” (Summa, suppl., q. 74, art. 4)

For the Reformed: ‘On the Renovation, New Heavens & Earth’.

Mixed

Deification

Thomas affirmed a kind of deification of heavenly saints with respect to the light of glory and the beatific vision. Yet for Thomas, “the light of glory, like the habit of grace, is something created. So in either state, pre- or post-mortem, deification is something created.” (p. 32) This is in contrast to deification being grounded in uncreated grace, per the Eastern Orthodox, which entails the host of problems often associated with the term. See Richard Cross, ‘Deification in Aquinas’. Yet many of the Reformed were hesitant or contrary to accepting Thomas’s exact method and paradigm of how saints see God. See on the Beatific Vision below.

Yet, Carl Mosser has found the concept and/or terminology of deification, in protestant senses, in Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, Henry Bullinger, John Calvin, Richard Hooker and Jonathan Edwards: ‘Deification: a Truly Ecumenical Concept’ and ‘Recovering the Reformation’s Ecumenical Vision of Redemption as Deification and Beatific Vision’.

Using the term of deification for growing more and more into the image of God, through beholding Him, for all eternity, is not to no purpose. 2 Pet. 1:4 says “that by these,” including godliness, all graces and the promises of God, including that of glorification, “ye might be partakers of the divine nature”. Ps. 17:15: “As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.”

Beatific Vision: Will We ‘See’ the Essence of God?

The fact of the beatific vision is not in dispute here, as the Reformed held to it. For their writings on the topic, see ‘On the Beatific Vision’.

Thomas puts forward the more particular question in Summa, pt. 1, q. 12, art. 1, ‘Whether any created intellect can see the essence of God?’ where he answers: “it must be absolutely granted that the blessed see the essence of God.” See also articles 2-11 and Contra Gentiles, bk. 3:

ch. 51, ‘How God may be Seen in his Essence’
ch. 53, ‘That the created intellect needs an influx of divine light in order to see God through His essence’
ch. 54, ‘Arguments by which it seems to be proved that God cannot be seen in His essence, and the answers to them’
ch. 55, ‘That the created intellect does not comprehend the divine substance’

For a short and incomplete survey of the Reformed Orthodox, showing some of them affirming each side of this question, see: ‘Will We ‘See’ God’s Essence?’

Disagreements

Old Testament Saints went to Heaven upon Death

Thomas: “Elias was taken up into the atmospheric heaven, but not in to the empyrean heaven, which is the abode of the saints: and likewise Enoch was translated into the earthly paradise, where he is believed to live with Elias until the coming of Antichrist.” (Summa, pt. 3, q. 49, art. 5)

Mastricht (inline with “the common opinion of the Reformed”) noted that the papists (with Thomas cited) “think that the Old Testament fathers were until Christ’s actual satisfaction under the guilt of their sins, and therefore were not admitted into heaven, but were kept detained in a limbo particularly for them until Christ after his death lead them from there into heaven.” (TPT, vol. 5, ch. 6, §29)

For more of the Reformed see, ‘The Old Testament Saints went Directly to Heaven upon Death’ and ‘Limbo of the Fathers’.

“Paradise”

Turretin: “Thomas Aquinas also gratuitously feigns, ‘Paradise here [Lk. 23:43] denotes generally the place of happiness, wherever it may be, in which they are said to be who enjoy the divine glory; whence the thief as to place was in hell with Christ, as to reward in paradise…’” (2.358)

The Starry Heavens will be Renovated with Fire

Thomas: “Objection 2: “…(2 Pet 3:12). Now the heavens that are distinct from the elements are the higher heavens, in which the stars are fixed. Therefore, it would seem that they also will be cleansed by that fire…

I answer that… as in the heavenly bodies, wherein nothing is to be found contrary to the final perfection of the universe except movement… and therefore the heavenly bodies will not be cleansed, neither by fire…” (Summa, suppl., q. 74, art. 4)

For the Reformed: ‘On the Renovation, New Heavens & Earth’.

Eternal Blessedness: by Both Intellect & Will

Walaeus:

“For, given that the principal part in a man is the soul, concerning whether in the soul it is the intellect or the will that is the principal part, Thomas and Scotus disputed whether blessedness is formally an act of the intellect, or rather of the will? Thomas stated that it is an act of the intellect; Scotus, that it is rather of the will. For we enjoy God in both ways, both by apprehending him by an act of the intellect and by loving him by an act of the will and acquiescing to him in that apprehending. For that pleasure is nothing other than the repose of the soul, or rather, its acquiescence in the acquired good. And that all three of those are required in true blessedness is beyond controversy.

Although in truth it is not necessary that we make a comparison, we nevertheless acknowledge the sentence of Thomas to be defended by most rightly, not only because the intellect is man’s most excellent faculty, and because the action of the intellect takes hold before the object of blessedness, and it resembles that which it apprehends more similarly. Truly the action of the will is its particular fruit, whether we consider charity in the object begetting itself, or that delight, or rather, acquiescence; but also because the Holy Scripture generally establishes the vision of God as the foundation of this blessedness. These things are considered out of many places, Ps. 16:11 & v. 17:15; Mt. 5:8; I Cor. 13:12; I Jn. 3:2.” (in Johannes Hoornbeek, ch. 13, §§19-20 of Institutes of Theology, tr. Charles Johnson)

Turretin: “the Scholastics are divided on this point. Some with Thomas Aquinas hold that it [the relevant faculty] is the intellect and maintain that the blessedness consists in the vision of God. However, others with Scotus hold that it is the will, who on this account place happiness in the love of Him. But both are at fault in this—they divide things that ought to be joined together… since it consists conjointly in the vision and the love of God… This the Scripture teaches…” (3.609)

See also Voet, Select Theological Disputations, vol. 2, 75. ‘Exercitation on Thomas, Part 1 of Part 2, Question 3, Article 4, ‘Of the Subject & Formal Act of Blessedness’, pp. 1217-40

Greater Rewards by Merit a Fable

Leigh: “The generality of the Fathers, Schoolmen and modern divines, are for diversity of degrees [in Heaven]. The Papists lay the degrees of glory on the several merits of men… This preheminence of glory the Schoolmen term… ‘an additament’ of felicity to that essential glory in the vision of God… See Aquinas, Supplement, 3rd Part, q. 96… God rewards a man not propter [due to], but secundum opera [according to works], according to the matter [not merit] of his work…” (System of Divinity, p. 872)

Turretin: “Are there ‘halos [or crowns] of glory’ in heaven assigned to certain ones above others; for instance to virgins, teachers and martyrs? This is the opinion of Thomas Aquinas and of the Scholastics… But the folly of this argument is evident…” (2.723)

Heavenly Saints do Not Pray Particularly for us

Thomas, Summa, pt. 2 of 2, q. 83, art. 11.

Willet: “That the saints in heaven do not only pray in general, but particularly for us ready in all our needs by their prayer and mediation to assist us: thus they [Romanists] would prove it…

On Appearings of Dead Souls

Voet: “Whether there is this difference between the apparition of the blessed and the damned, as Thomas says, that the blessed by virtue of glory and the gift of grace freely given are able to appear when they will, but the damned are not always able to, nor except by divine permission and his providence? It is denied.” (Syllabus, sect. 2, tract 4, title 2, app. to subtitle 2)

General Resurrection

Agreement

Same Body will be Raised

Leigh quotes some arguments of Thomas that a person’s same body will be resurrected. (System of Divinity, p. 858)

Final Judgment

Mixed

Voet puts forward a question of Thomas on infants: “Whether indeed they will be present at the judgment merely to behold the glory of the judge, and will not understand why the elect are granted salvation or why those who have done neither good nor evil are deprived of it, as Thomas wishes.” (Syllabus, sect. 2, tract 4, title 4, ‘Advent to Judgment’, subtitle 3, ‘Of those that will be judged’)

Voet answers, “The question is inept and it is affirmed.” The question is inept, likely as Voet had just denied that infants will not be judged at the Judgment. How this question, rightly stated, or what part of it, is affirmed, is not clear.

Some Further Reading

RBO Webpage

Church History’s Reception of Aquinas

Article

1500’s

Willet, Andrew – ‘The Fourth… [pillar] the repugnant opinions of new papists with the old, of the new one with another, of the same writers with themselues: yea of popish religion with and in itself’ in Tetrastylon Papisticum, that is, The Four Principal Pillars of Papistry... ([London] 1593), pp. 146-70

Willet mentions Thomas six times in this chapter.

Books

1500’s

Willet, Andrew – Synopsis Papismi, that is, ‘A General View of Papistry’, wherein the Whole Mystery of Iniquity & Sum of Anti-Christian Doctrine is Set Down, which is Maintained this Day by the Synagogue of Rome Against the Church of Christ… (1592) 626 pp.

Willet (1562–1621) was a reformed, conforming Anglican clergyman, controversialist and prolific writer. He was known for his anti-papal works.

Latin Books

1500’s

Zanchi, Jerome

Of the Nature & Attributes of God in The Theological Works, vol. 2 (Heidelberg, 1577; n.d.) ToC

Zanchi (1516-1590) was one of the most Thomistic Reformed theologians. These first five volumes essentially compose the first two thirds of a Protestant Summa. He died before he could complete the rest on the Church and sacraments. The last volume below, the Compendium, is not properly a part of the series, but is in the lengthy, detailed scholastic style and reaches farther on the theological gamut.

Of the Threeness of the Eternal God, Father, Son & Holy Spirit, the One & Same Jehovah in All the Theological Works, vol. 1 (Frankfurt, 1573; Geneva, 1649)

A Work on the Created Works of God in Six Days, in Three Distinct Parts… (1591; Neustadt, 1602) ToC

Of the Fall of the First Man, of Sin & of the Law in A Volume of Theological Tracts… (Neustadt, 1597) 807 pp.

On the Incarnation of the Son of God, in Two Books, in which the Whole of this Mystery is Solidly Explained… (Heidelberg: Harnisch, 1593) 875 pp. ToC

A Compendium of Principal Heads of Christian Doctrine in Works, vol. 8 (Geneva, 1649), col. 621-818 no ToC

1. Of God  622
2. Of the Knowledge of Man & Original Sin  638
3. Of the Free-Will of Man After the Fall  643
4. Of the Grace of God, by which the Corruption of Nature is Set Free  659
5. Of the Law of the Decalogue  673
6. Of Vows  708
7. Of Faith  710
8. Of the Apostles’ Creed (The Material of Faith – The Creation of things)  724
9. Of Repentance  760
10. Of the Confession of Sins  765
11. Of Justification by Faith & of the Merits of Works  767
[Irregular Numbering of Pages Follows]
12. Of the Similarity & Difference of the New & Old Testament  796
13. Of Christian Liberty  809
14. Of Human Traditions  817
15. Of Ecclesiastical Traditions  821

1600’s

Dorsche, Johann Georg – Thomas Aquinas, called the Angelic Doctor, exhibited to be a Confessor of the True Gospel by a Repeating of the Augsburg Confession, Examined according to a Series of Controversies in the Four Books of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (Frankfurt, 1656) 596 pp. ToC

Dorsche (1597-1659) was a Lutheran professor of theology at Rostock, Germany. Dorsche quotes good parts out of Thomas Aquinas upholding much of true Scriptural teaching, in accord with the Lutheran Augsburg Confession and against Robert Bellarmine.

Chamier, Daniel – Panstratiae Catholicae, or a Body of the Controversies of Religion Against the Papists, vols. 1 (Canon), 2 (God, Worship of God), 3 (Man), 4 (Sacraments), 5 (Church) (Frankfurt, 1627-1629)

This is the most detailed, Reformed refutation of Romanism, point by point, that Church history has given us.

“The name of Chamier (d. 1621) is one of the greatest, not only among Calvinistic divines, but in all theological literature. His Panstratiae Catholicae (1626) is the ablest work from a Calvinistic hand in in the great Roman Catholic Controversy, and takes its general rank with books like Chemnitz’s Examen and Gerhard’s Confessio Catholica. It was prepared at the request of the Synod of La Rochelle. There is no difference of opinion among competent judges as to its distinguished merits, and it is justly regarded among all Calvinists as one of the highest authorities.” – Krauth, a Lutheran, p. 47

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”

1 Thess. 5:21

“Whom shall He teach knowledge? and whom shall He make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:”

Isa. 28:9-10

“Jesus said unto them, ‘Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.'”

Mt. 16:6

Related Pages

On the Use of Reason in Theology

On Scholastic Theology

On the Theology, Philosophy & Thought of the Medieval Church

Medieval Theologies

On Reformed Orthodoxy & Reformed Scholasticism

Medieval Church & Renaissance History

The Early & Medieval Church Fathers on Scripture

Early & Medieval Biblical Commentary Series