Thread by @SytsmaDavid

“The story of Thomas Aquinas and Protestantism has yet to be written, and it is not identical with the story of Thomas and Luther.” – David Steinmetz, Luther in Context (2002)

Since then we’ve learned a bit more of this story. 🧵 w/ examples from 16th c. Reformed tradition: /1

I pass over for the most part the fine studies of John Patrick Donnelly, S.J.: Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigli’s Doctrine of Man and Grace (Brill, 1976) and “Calvinist Thomism” (1976). Read them if you haven’t. The following is by way of addition to Donnelly. /2

Worth noting that diverse medieval streams fed into the Reformed tradition. Although there is a strong Thomist influence, even J.P. Donnelly warned: “The specifically Thomist quality of 17th c. Calvinist scholasticism should not be over-emphasized.” (“Calvinist Thomism” 453) /3

W. Capito states that the early J. Oecolampadius “especially embraced” Aquinas and Richard of Middleton, but “disregarded Scotus.” Later in his commentary on Job (1532), Oecolampadius refers to the “sounder judgment” of Aquinas’s Expositio super Iob. /4 nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv…

Martin Bucer, as a Dominican monk prior to joining Reformers, owned a stack of Thomist books including “all of Aquinas’s most important works,” Cajetan on the Summa, etc. His education was “deeply rooted in the Thomistic school.” (Greschat, Martin Bucer, p. 25) /5

Martin Bucer cites Aquinas many times in his commentaries on Psalms (1529) and Romans (1536), which includes citations on natural law, free will, and predestination. Irena Backus identified parallels between Aquinas’s and Bucer’s commentaries on John (1528). /6

We find Martin Bucer writing “the office of reason is not abolished but perfected [by God]” (1531) and “faith perfects nature, does not destroy [it]” (1536). /7

In his Axioma Catholicum (1534), Martin Bucer begins referring to “sounder scholastics” (saniores scholastici) who follow Augustine on matters of grace. Bucer cites Lombard and Aquinas (ST I-II.114.1) as following Augustine in denying that one can merit the “first grace.” /8

After Bucer, the distinction between “sounder scholastics” and “sophists” – which is usually measured by degree of fidelity to Augustine – is picked up by John Calvin, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Theodore Beza, William Whitaker, Girolamo Zanchi, et al. /9

After Bucer, Reformed theologians consistently identify Aquinas as among the “sounder scholastics.” References to this effect are found in Peter Martyr Vermigli, Theodore Beza, Lambert Daneau, William Whitaker, Girolamo Zanchi, et al. /10

An old point worth repeating from J.P. Donnelly: Peter Martyr Vermigli “compares Thomas’s early teaching in the Sentences commentary with his mature teaching in the Summa theologiae and points out precisely how his opinion changed” (Calvinism and Scholasticism, p. 28). /11

In addition to the many points of influence noted by J.P. Donnelly, Peter Martyr Vermigli basically copied the argument of Summa theologiae I.23.5 in his early locus on predestination. /12 academia.edu/36836256/_Verm…

John Calvin’s knowledge of Thomas was likely secondhand, and he likely cited Thomas because he read Bucer’s citations. The 2 citations in Calvin’s Institutes are to places in Thomas’s Summa previously cited by Bucer, and Calvin cites one inaccurately. /13 doi.org/10.1163/978900…

Mark Larson observes that Heinrich Bullinger “presented in order the three Thomistic elements of the just war,” while Peter Martyr Vermigli “reproduce[s] the actual substance of Aquinas’ teaching on the just war.” (Calvin’s Doctrine of the State, p. 29) /14

Girolamo Zanchi refers to Aquinas as “the most learned among all the scholastics.” He groups Aquinas with Albert the Great, Giles of Rome, and Alexander of Hales as “purer and more learned scholastics.” By contrast, he refers to Ockham and Gabriel Biel as “entirely Pelagian.” /15

Kalvin Budiman found that in vols. 1-4 of Zanchi’s Opera, Zanchi cites Thomas 128 times, Scotus 4 times, and Ockham not at all (“A Protestant Doctrine of Nature and Grace,” Ph.D. diss., pp. 41-42). /16 api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:17017…

Budiman notes that Zanchi draws on Thomas for doctrines of God, creation, anthropology, original justice, free will, original sin, grace, etc. For example, Zanchi supports the view that God is known by analogy with the remark “Eadem in summa est Thomae explicatio” (p. 43). /17

Thomas Cranmer was interested Aquinas’s views on grace and free will, referring with approval to Aquinas’s commentary on Romans 9 in the midst of extensive notes on Aquinas’s doctrine of grace in the Summa theologiae I-II.109-112. /18 dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof…

William Whitaker cites positively not only the Summa theologiae, but also Thomas’s commentaries on Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy, and the Catena Aurea. /19 doi.org/10.1002/978111…

John Platt remarked that “there is no escaping the strong Thomist cast of much of [Franciscus Junius’] thought” (Reformed Thought and Scholasticism, p. 133). This judgment has been further confirmed by the dissertation of @Seung_J_Lee. /20 research.vu.nl/en/publication…

As @JordanBallor notes, Junius wrote that Calvin & Aquinas differ “less in substance than in manner of speaking” about predestination. Arminius said that Aquinas’s view of predestination, alongside Calvin & Augustine, had Reformed defenders. /21 doi.org/10.1163/978900…

Junius and Zanchi follow Aquinas’s definition of natural law as a participation in eternal law by which God governs the world, and the identification of natural law with inclinations held in common with all things, animals, and humans. /22 amazon.com/General-Source…

Junius also integrates Aquinas’ “five ways” in his proofs for God’s existence (John Platt, Reformed Thought and Scholasticism, pp. 139-143). /23

By the end of the 16th century, Reformed theologians were already well disposed toward many points of doctrine from Aquinas and thus primed to sympathize with the Dominicans against Molina in the controversy de auxiliis. /24 academia.edu/38346188/Beyon…

Even as they refer to “sounder scholastics” the Reformed develop a decline narrative. The recent scholastics represent the worst corruption, the generation of Lombard the least, with the generation of Aquinas in between as relatively less corrupt. /25 doi.org/10.1002/978111…

Alongside positive reception, even those more sympathetic to Thomas registered points of disagreement. Their reasons for criticism were doctrinal and philological. Some examples: /26

Martin Bucer criticizes Aquinas’s account of the certainty of grace (ST I-II.112.5), which he contrasts with Bernard of Clairvaux and Scripture. /27

Girolamo Zanchi disagrees with Aquinas on the nature of justifying grace, even though he softens his criticism by remarking that Thomas is “usually purer than the other scholastics on the doctrine of grace” (Donnelly, “Calvinist Thomism,” 451-452). /28

William Whitaker argues, using specific examples, that Aquinas’s use of the Vulgate sometimes led to erroneous interpretations of biblical passages that serve as authorities in the Summa theologiae. /29 doi.org/10.1002/978111…

The Genevan Consistory, when asked for permission to print the Summa theologiae in 1574, stated that some of Thomas’s works “were admissible or tolerable, and others not,” and then prohibited the printing of ST II-II, which contains “a number of articles of false doctrine.” /30

For more on this topic, see my essay “Sixteenth-Century Reformed Reception of Aquinas,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Reception of Aquinas (2021), 121-143. /31 dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxford…