‘ty WL iversit Lamar Uni ILLiad TN: 26928 AARC CA Borrower: TXS Lending String: ANG,IGA,“TXR,EPT,SUR Patron: Journal Title: Viator. Volume: 7 Issue: Month/Year: 1976-01-01Pages: 441-455 Atticle Author: University of California, Los ‘Angeles Donnelly, John Patrick Article Title: Viator. Calvinist Thomism Imprint: Berkeley, CA : University of California Press, 1970- Turnhout, Belgium : Brepols Publishers ILL Number: 181094413 ui 0 call : CB3 .V53 VOL.7,1976 Location: 3rd floor We send our documents electronically using Odyssey. ILLiad libraries can enable Odyssey for receiving documents seamlessly. Non-ILLiad libraries can download Odyssey stand alone for FREE. Check it out at: http:/www.atlas-sys.com/Odyssey.htm! Charge Maxcost: 0.00 Shipping Address: Interlibrary Loan—Richardson Library Hardin-Simmons University~Box 16195 Texshare 36/ABVattn: HSU Abilene, Texas 79698 United StatesCALVINIST THOMISM by John Patrick Donnelly, 8. J. Thomism has been one of the most persistent currents of Western thought since the death of Saint Thomas seven centuries ago. The history of Thomism consists largely of a series of Thomist revivals, especially those of the sixteenth and twentieth centuries. Although Roman Catholies such as Jacques Maritain and Etienne Gilson dominate the twentieth-century revival, there are Protestant Thomists such as Eric Mascall. The chief figures of the sixteenth-century revival were the Italians Cardinal Cajetan and Sylvester of Ferrara and the Spaniards Francesco Vittoria and Domingo Banez together with the school of Salamanca. Less well known is the Thomist revival in Protestant circles of that period. Neither Martin Luther nor John Calvin were philosophical theologians and both rejected scholastic theology. In his 1517 “Disputation against Scholastic Theology Luther argues that no syllogistic form is valid in theology, and thatthe whole of Aristotle is to theology as darkness is to light’ The meager philosophical a Calvin’s thought look more to Plato than to Aristotle. 2 Although some scholars have found Scotist and nominalist borrowings in Calvin, he hed ‘ess training in scholas- ticism and was less influenced by it than Luther.” . In contrast, Protestant theology a century after Luther and Calvin is thoroughly Scholastic. Although faithful to the teachings of the re a Sacraments, the Church, and dogmatic issues generally, Protestant cowed from builds its theology on a substratum of philosophical es lly e ‘heap Aristotle, Reason and revelation become closely itermeted 19 HT Process, Scholastic forms of exposition and argument ae employed P formal syllogism.* formers on justification, the 2.228, The bites ofthe 2 ‘Martin Luther, Werke, kitche Ausgabe (Weimar 18891969) Weimar Ausgabe (hereafter W.A.) have conveniently exter Aso (58.163-170) and Aquinas (58295298). ogg, Foran ROE *Calvn's Institutes refers to Plato more than twice 2 OED Ty eased dea Katement on the Patonism in Calin, se Jean Boise, zene Calin Paris 1959), Francois Wendel, Calvin: The Oriins and Developret Philip Maizet (New York 1963) 126-129. Also Alexandre 1966) 34.42, 179-192, ge: Pl “Some of the better works on Protestant schbosticim ious Thought 288 nt of hs Ran Weal en, Le | Althaus, Die Prncipien der442 JOHN PATRICK DONNELLY, S.J There are three basic reasons for the rise of Protestant scholasticism. Under- raduate education in the sixteenth and early seventeenth century still rested on Aristotle; the Renaissance Aristotelianism of the Protestant academies conditioned the minds of students to a scholastic type of theology.’ Secondly, religious con- troversies led theologians back to scholastic thought categories for more ammunition after they had shot off their store of scriptural proof texts, Finally, individual Protestant theologians more and more appropriated scholastic attitudes, categories, and doctrines as they tried to systematize theology. This development can be traced from edition to edition of Philip Melanchthon’s Loc communes, the first systematic presentation of Lutheranism. The greatest work of Lutheran systematics is John Gerhard’s Loci theologici (1610), whose nine massive tomes present a fascinating concordia discors when compared to the Summa theologiae of Saint Thomas. The ne plus ultra of Lutheran Thomism is John Dorsch’s Thomas Aquinas dictus doctor Angelicus exhibitus confessor veritatis Augustana Confessione repetitae (1656)-cight hundred pages to show that Aquinas was a good Lutheran. Scholars have devoted less attention to the rise of Calvinist scholasticism in which ‘the Key figures were Theodore Beza, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and Jerome Zanchi. ” ‘The rest of this paper examines Thomism in the thought of Martyr and Zanchi. Peter Martyr Vermigli was bor in Florence in 1499, entered the Augustinian Canons, and took a doctorate in theology at the leading center of Renaissance Aristotelianism, the University of Padua, where his favorite authors were Aristotle and Aquinas. In Italy he enjoyed a distinguished career as teacher, preacher, and abbot. By 1540 he was already a Protestant by conviction; after protestantiz ‘many citizens and fellow canons, Peter Martyr fled from the Inquisition to Zurich in 1542." During the last twenty years of his life he taught with distinction at Strasbourg, Oxford, and Zurich, Half a dozen of his students became important theologians.” He wrote extensively—the critical edition of his work projected by the Corpus reformatorum italicorum will run some twenty-five volumes. All together there were about 110 printings of his various writings, mainly massive Latin folios. "* Reformed circles universally admired him for holiness, prudence, and scholarshi deutschen reformierten Dogmatik im Zeitlter der aritotelischen Scholestik. (Leipzig. 1914); Brian Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy (Madison 1969); Emnst Bizer, Fruhortho= doxie und Rationalismus (Zurich 1963); Peter Petersen, Geschichte der aristotelichen Philos ‘ophie im protestantichen Deutschland (Leipeig 1921), *On Melanchthonian Aristotelisnism and its influence, see Petersen 19-108, and Helmut Liedtke, Padogogik der werdenden Orthodoxie (Konigsdort 1968). ‘Robert Scharlemann, Thomas Aquinas and John Gerhard (New Haven 1964). "See the works of Armstrong and of Bizer (n.4 above); also Walter Kickel, Vermuft und Offenbarurg bei Theodor Beza (Neukirchen 1967) “Philip MeNair, Peter Martyr in Itely (Oxford 1967), "The best survey of Vermilis transalpine career remains Charles Schmidt, Peter Martyr Leben und ausgewahite Schriften (Heidelberg 1858). au Robert Kingdon and 1 are preparing a Vernig bibliography forthe Corpus reformatorumCALVINIST THOMISM. 483 ne apes with Saint Thomss neal a often a he esi ops his Esneuees cannot be fairly called a Thomist, there i a strong scholastic Belen his theology that depends upon Saint Thomas more than upon any ‘other medieval theologian."* In contrast to Luther, Calvin, and even Gehard, Marty specs ‘with Thomas in seeing theology 4 2 science whose principles ae borrowed ca revelation, In fact his discuson of the mate of theology borrows the ent, terminology, and illustrative examples of the opening question of the a theolgie, but without acknowl source? Like Aquinas, Martye eee auch from Avistole into his system as is consistent with tipture; thus in his commentary on the Nicomackean Ethics ManY® usually concludes cach chapter by showing the agreement of Aisle’ aching wth role. Within his explicitly theological works Martyr refers fo Arisole ninety sight ee ser —————L al of eighty-five times.” Martyr cite thirteen other Aristotelian philosophers @ tots also refers to twenty medieval scholastic authors, particularly Peter Lombard and ‘Aquinas, He never ites with approval nominal Wor” Vermigliarees with Aquinas far more often than he ‘acknowledges. There are ‘vast areas of agreement because the theologies of both are a synthesis of Scripture ‘and Aristotelian philos- phy. A rather complete Artotlan metaphysics and ration pyschology can be stitched together from passages in Martyr's theotogical works, just as they ‘can be from those of Saint Thomas.” Following ‘Thomas, Martyr utilizes ‘Aristotelian categories to explain strict theological problems: for instance, Martyr describes grace a8 a species of concurrence, an explanation which depends on Aristotle's doctrine of act and potency and the prime mover.” Scholasticism provided Martyr wi large sestons of his BOO eRe stuck» uchariaties™ to showing that Calvinist doctane cB metaphysics, whereas Gardiner's Scotist teaching cannot. utraque in Christo natura attacked Lutheran Cistology a yeapons for is pole! works He devoted seipishop Stephen Gardiner and catholic square 1 Martyr's Dialgus de 14 consubstantiation, 1 a detated study of Vera's eho A Protestant Sehoastie View.” PRD dis. Ces ee fences here are to the dissertation, but ¢ Tr08 fortheoming 50 ae ele a rae Veet Dale Reformation Thought (Leiden 1979) commen ‘Thought (Leiden 1975). qu Ut posers ae lacie id est, Re "Peer Martyr Vm (enrich 71) f0L 2177 sist Om For 4 abi of Mary? mentators, ee Donel 33 4 For a table of Martyr's references (© medieval scholastics | * ia 11648 ro Bo oer eee Opes te ‘Aquinas, Summa theologiae 12.109-9 od Fete See Lat 16 1ei9 of 1e0S) fide. Pagination and coturnaton # So eee editions (Ot 5 Zaneh’s Opera see ob este Vermigli, Defensio doctringe Buchorisioe - this ancient an Ret ences to Acistotle see thi 39-40. set 1558) 210. Thomas ce (Gee = eda 1559) psi444 JOHN PATRICK DONNELLY, 8.5. partly by appealing to Aristotle and the scholastic doctors of the via antiqua Martyr also used scholastic categories to defend the Trinity and Chalcedonian Christology against Italian and Polish radical Protestants.” ‘Thomistic elements are far more important in the theology of Jerome Zanchi than in the thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli. He is the best example of Calvinist Thomism. Zanchi was born and reared near Bergamo where he entered the Augus- tinian Canons and received a Thomistic training. Martyr was his prior at Lucca and won him to Protestantism. Zanchi spent ten years as a Nicodemite, or crypto- Calvinist, before he fled to Geneva in 1552, where he studied for a year under Calvin Later he served as professor of theology at Strasbourg, Heidelberg, and Neustadt until his death in 1590.** I calculate that there were about seventy printings of his, writings. After his death his relatives gathered most of his writings into his Opera theologica in eight folio tomes, which had at least three editions (1605, 1613, 1619). Zanchi clearly planned a great Protestant “summa” modeled after the Summa theologiae of Saint Thomas. The first four volumes of the Opera theologica, which appeared under separate titles as Zanchi finished them at Heidelberg, cover the same material at twice the length as the Pars prima and the Prima secundae of Saint ‘Thomas. Even though Zanchi was unable to finish his “summa” after he left Heidelberg, it remains without rival for thoroughness and synthetic power in sixteenth:-century Calvinism. Zanchi’s debt to Aquinas and medieval scholasticism has already been recognized, particularly by Otto Griindler’s Die Gotteslehre Girolamo Zanchis und thre Bedeutung fitr seine Lehre von der Pridestination which examines three related problems: Zanchi’s understanding of reason, revelation, and faith; his doctrine of God; and his treatment of providence and predestination. In each of these areas Grundler rightly sees Zanchi as departing from the theology of Calvin and returning to the teaching and emphasis of Saint Thomas. My debt to Professor Grindler’s insightful pioneer study is great, but there are important points on which his study can be corrected or supplemented. My correc- 4 Vermigti,Dialogus de utraque in Christo nature (Zurich, 1561), fol. 23¥-24, 64, 71, 118. "8 Vermigti,Epistlue duae ad ecclesis Polonicas (Zutich 1561). * For a brief biobibliography of Zanchi see Otto Grindler, Die Gotteslehre Girolami Zanchls lund thre Bedeutung far sein Lehve von der Prédestination (Neukichen 1965) 16-21. Griindles’s ook was originally a Princeton University dissertation entitled “Thomism and Calvinism in the ‘Theology of Girolamo Zanchi (1516-1590).” Zanchi wrote a valuable biographical letter, Opera 8.2.204-205, Jurgen Moltmann, Pradestintion und Perseveranz (Neukirchen 1961) 72-109, treats Zanchi’s Strasbourg controversy on predestination. For Zanchi’s Italian career, see Luigi Santini, ‘La comunitd evangelica di Bergamo (Torre Pellice 1960) 228.239, 2 The first tome dealt with the Trinity, the second with the divine atributes, the third with creation, the fourth with Adam's fall, sin, and God's law. On the fist page of the fourth tome Zanchi stated that he planned to write additional tomes on the person and office of the Redeemer and on the Church in time and eternity. After he left Heidelberg, his other duties vented the complstin of he lwo tome. The text sone a he fur complete tre {ills 2886 folio columns. a te fe a‘CALVINIST THOMISM 4s nee lee Griindler concludes his chapter on the knowledge of God by arguing ae ones to both Calvin and Aquinas, taught that man can understand eee quali st Deus. Ate are reading ofthe tat] convinced oe ae just the opps; he i oth better ‘Thomist and a better oe aindler makes him.” Grindler also points out that Calvin regards as Siemens doctrine of providence in which God drets the contingent ot scoring to thei re human natures sine this woud reduce God 19 a debe pine move wh gives the word a. spin to get itstarted but who none ects the individual acts of men.”* Like Aquinas and Peter Martys.* Zanchi coe that divine providence directs human acts in accord with man's free nature, ve without coming under Calvi's strictures. Zan together wih Martyr and aan cai gti natin of proven, Al hein at Gl POE eines ee vats te pauls cominget scons of man ul i enlpan an automaton; they do not amit accord with man’s nature, without ™ areca ceo pec de freedom. Indeed Martyr and Zanchi each « se ‘Jotrine of predestination than Calin himself, and they link their teaching directly €© providence, something Calvin avoid, 4s Grindler points out.”* Griindler’s study posed a fruitful question: How does Zanchi diverge fom Calvin toward Aquinas? But Zanchi’s Calvinist ced from the opposite direction: since Zanc does his Calvinism cause him to treatment of the divine attributes in Dei proves very revealing. Since Calvin but only in how God acts towards vs: ates inthe nutes.” whereas “sme” of such tracts. ‘Thomism can be approst ‘ai was a Thomist before he became & Calvinist, how verge from Szint Thomas? A compe of the re Summa teotgiae nd in Zanchs De natura as not interested in what Godt himself, ve feted no formal tract of the COE ‘Zanci and Thomas do have ao teats Me teaastls,PEHESESEN autem rerum traci" thas: "Durch ie ERE, omen Erk GOS TN ren 4 sate) et DEAE a nls vel raiontbus veh ae se eae”, Ths the Gundle's interpret 23 Grundler 75 seems to have mist creaturum copuits in Del perfectistel Corto Seeeanen Volkommentciten werded Wit 2 ‘The ouner text is difficult: "Verum aun (QUT Fee ates err aominibus qui, aide &€ Nal Sh indica gue reek ative evincetur uoquam, sed Contin aarti sentence in te proot of a thes OA tion. Zanchi (n. 16 above) of at have era! Zan “Zane (16 above) 2.14, Thoushou 1 et a at 1, Zant H's comments, 107. ForCabin'sV=%" ch 1567) fl sionis) 1.164. tart 2 2 Aquinas, $7. 1.23.6. Vermisli/™ duos bros Samuel» comme 20, $7,277, 280. icy states rea (a. 16 above aa ayn, Zane 2438, 0 y nc 18 te) 24086 2453 Pe preeinion fH aia Her cng Tap OPO catéoe vey nna. ase i 326 pope 0368 that is view agrees with the of providence is admirable (0 6 Grundler 112. 2 Calvin, Institutes ta méthode thologique de Calvin 10.25 1.5.95 1485 ‘Reruede446 SOHN PATRICK DONNELLY, 8. ‘Thomas has twenty-three questions in his tract on the divine attributes; Zanchi has twenty-four chapters. Nineteen of the questions in the Summa theologiae have a parallel in Zanchi, Three of the others (5, 15, 17) do not really deal with divine attributes, so Zanchi does not treat them. Nor does Zanchi devote a chapter to the divine unity, probably because he felt his comments in conjunction with the Trinity and divine simplicity sufficient. The most striking difference is found in the four chapters Zanchi adds that have no parallel in Thomas. Zanchi’s chapter De gratia Det deals with the graciousness of God that justifies man ex sola fide. The influence of Luther and Calvin is clear. The new chapters on the divine wrath, hatred, and domination all prepare for Zanchi’s treatment of predestination and reprobation; their Calvinist stress is unmistakable. ‘The chapters that Zanchi devotes to the divine names, the divine will, and predestination also show a Calvinist emphasis. As Griindler has shown, Zanchi accepts and follows the scholastic doctrine of the triplex via and analogical predica- tion when speaking about God.®* Like Thomas he asserts that Qui est is the most appropriate name for God.” But Zanchi adds a lengthy study of the various Hebrew and Greek names that the Bible applies to God."* Indeed, the most striking difference between Zanchi’s “summa” and that of Aquinas is the great space and care that the Protestant gives to biblical exegesis from the original languages. His chapters on the divine will and predestination are easily the longest and most complex in his tome on the divine nature; indeed they take up over a third of the book, 199 folio columns out of $86. Fascination with the divine will become a distinguishing characteristic of Calvinist scholasticism.”' In contrast, the great Lutheran scholastic, John Gerhard, devoted only six pages in his nine-volume Loci theologiel to the divine will.” Zanchi’s chapter on predestination proved immensely influential. English and American Calvinists translated and published it as a separate ‘work repeatedly in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century as an answer to % Grandes (n. 20 above) 68-7 ® Zanchi (n. 16 above) 2.43, explains God's name, “I am who am,” in Exodus 3:14: “Ut sit sensus Ens, nec simpliciter Ens, quasi per allud subsistens: sed sum Ens per me subsistens, ideoque sum meum Esse et mea essentia; et meum Esse, non differt ab essentia, quia sum qui sum... Thomas Aquinas in 1 part. quaest. 13, art. LL, tes adfertrationes quibus demonstret hhoc nomen esse maxime proprium Dei nomen, Primum quia non significat formam aliquam, 64 simpliiter ipsum Ens. Explico. Quum dicimus, Ego sum homo, iste est equus, certassignificamus {formas et naturas, humanam slicet et equinam. At si dicas ile est ens, nullam certam significabis formam: cum omne quod est sit ens: sed simpliciter hoc nomen signifieat ipsum ens. Nulla est autem res creata quae sit simpliciter ens, sed est ens tale, aut tale ens, tall vel tali praeditum forma. Cum igitur Deus simpliciter vocetur 5 iv si significatur Deum esse ipsum simplicissimum et perfectissimum Ens; ac proinde hoe esse maxime proprium Dei nomen. Solus enim Deus est Ipsum Ens et suum. Esse, suague Essentia...." One will look in vain for such metaphysical passiges in Calvin. They are everywhere in Zanchi % Zanchi (n. 16 above) 2.29-46. 3% armstrong (n.4 above) 32. ® John Gerhard, Loci theologici (Berlin 1863) 1,357-363. Gerhard’s Loci has its own areas of octrnalelephantiass, for instance, his treatment of the hotly debated communicatio idiomatum in Chis, 1527-592,CALVINIST THOMISH “a7 "AQUINAS AND ZANCHI ON THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES: ‘COMPARATIVE TABLE ‘THOMAS AQUINAS: JEROME ZANCH! Summa theoloriae, pee elec : prima oa suse sire a took uestion ot act 3. De simplicitate Dei 22. ‘De simplicitte Det enone Del 4. De perfectione Dei 21. De perl 5. De bono in communt oui by Zann oe 6 Debontae Dei paca se 1. Detnfnate De eset ese ce eine 8. Deesistenta Dein rebus 26, Pei atarese nr) te De 9. Detmmuteihate De sa emis pte De 10. De acternitate Det 23. Destte oo teen 11, De unitate Dei 12. Quomodo Deus a nobis cognoseet- 13, De nominibus Det 14, De scientia Dei 15, De ldeis 16. De veritate 17. De falsitate 18, De vita Del 19, De voluntate Del 20, De amore Det 2. De ustta et mivericorde P&E 22, De providentia 23, De praedestinatione Det 24, Delibro vitae 25, De potentia Del 26. De beatitudine DEE ‘De diinis nomi448 JOHN PATRICK DONNELLY, 8. the Arminianism of John Wesley.”” It was the teaching of Zanchi and Martyr on predestination even more than that of Calvin that triumphed at the Synod of Dort and became normative for strict Calvinism in the seventeenth century.”* In those areas where there was no quarrel between Catholies and Calvinists, Zanchi follows Aquinas more closely. A good example of this is their treatment of divine knowledge. The sixteen articles devoted to God’s knowledge make it the longest and most complex question in the Prima,pars of the Summa theologiae. Zanchi’s chapter has sixteen theses which repeat all the articles in the Summa except one that deals with propositional knowledge. ”* Zanchi frequently mentions his agreement with Saint Thomas, giving precise citations to many of his theological writings. But Zanchi does not use the com- mentaries on Aristotle of Thomas or the other medieval scholastis since sixteenth- century scholarship considered them obsolete. Zanchi refers to Thomas and the other thirteenth-century Scholastics far more often than to the later nominalists.”* Some- times explicit references can be misleading; Zanchi seldom refers to the writings of Calvin and Peter Martyr, but his bonds with them were very close.” So too Zanchi’s debt to Saint Thomas is far greater than even his many explicit references would indicate. Thus his chapter on the divine knowledge, despite its striking corsespond- cence with the Summa, never refers to Aquinas. Yet Zanchi is no mere parrot. As was seen, his conclusions about God’s knowl edge closely parallel those of Aquinas; and while his arguments for reaching his conclusions often do not repeat those of Aquinas, they remain distinctly scholastic, and proceed from the seme basic philosophical and theological viewpoint. Often this fundamental viewpoint emerges best in a single phrase or sentence in Zanchi’s massive work; for instance: ““An object which is intelligible in act is the intellect itself in act""giving in a nutshell the whole Aristotelian-Thomistic doctrine of intentional % Zanchi's chapter on predestination was translated and published by Augustus Toplady as ‘The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination, There were British editions in 1769, 1779, 1807 and 1930; American editions, 1793 and 1807, Francis Gomarus, leader of the Counter-Remonstrants or Gomarists at Dort, was Zanchi's pupil at Neustadt. On Dort, see Armstrong (n. 4 above) 82-87. Also Basil Hall, “Calvin against the Calvinists," John Calvin: Collection of Essays, ed. G. Dulfield (Grand Rapids 1966). For ‘Vermigl’s influence see Donnelly (n. 11 above) 286-331. 2 Zanchi treats divine knowledge (a. 16 above) 2.195-226; for Thomas, S.7. 1.14, Zanchi somewhat rearranges and supplements the material in Thomas. % “Puriores et doctiores scholastic, Albertus, Thomas, Aegydius, Alexander,” Za “Thomas... purior reliquis esse sole,” 2.344; “Thomas etait sinceriores scholasti “Thomas pater scholasticorum,” 4.99; “scholastici et Thomas imprimis,” 2.438. Zanchi does respect the theology of grace of Gregory of Rimini, who combined Augustinianism with ‘nominalism, 4.111, 99. Luther considered Gregory the only non-Pelagian among the scholastcs: W.A. (n. L above) 2.394, % Zanchi’s affection for Calvin and Vermigi is best expressed in a letter to Calvin shortly after Vermigli’s death, in Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. William Baum et a, $9 vols. (Brunswick 1863-1900) 47.712.CALVINIST THOMISM 49 existence.” i's basi ot ive is Zanchi’s basic Thomism more clear than his passing remarks al distinction between essentia and esse, the omistic meta a ‘and esse, the key to Thomistic meta . Zanchi’s debt to Aristotle and Aquinas emergs ona masse seal on the works of God in which he reads the Genesis account of creation though Aristotelian slases"° His philosophical prcholoey defends the teaching of Aquinas on the unity" and direct ereation™ of the human soul he attacks “Averroes’s doctrine of| the Summa, the Contra the separate agent intellect with arguments drawn from entien and the Quaetiones dispute.” Te natural immorahiy of the human soul was hotly debated in the sixteenth century, especially by many Pedtan ‘Anistotelians, Cardinal Cajetan and Peter Marty dd not cin immortality could be proved rationally; Calvin hardly attempts 2 demonstra In contrast Zanchi defends immortality passionately; he provides 2 creo e858 of fourteen passages from Aristotle to show that the philosopher did not OPP immortality, then aaa aes rvrenty Give arguments forthe immortality of Oe soul, most of them strictly metaphysical, many echoing Saint “Tromas‘t Zanch’s whole pilosophis} hat he posts three instead of four psychology follows Thomas closely, except eee a ere He pus feat ses on the Wes ‘Chuistan life, and is Understanding of the virtues folios Thomas cs: nike Aquinas, Zane SF LrC———_- Chuistian morality ments." 1 but rather retains the more traditional schema Bult 8 the ten comma ration would hae taken pace e¥e2 if contrast to Thomas he teaches that the inc ‘Adam had not sinned.” % Zanehi (a. 16 above) 2.200. 2 Zanehl 16 aban) 2 indi compet oF cose i en 00008 IP, eso et aren tex c0 per quad ex Hs gee cane A Bee cee equ en Hera unt HOSEN rane ate ee eee quis vivens est «ct quod. st 168 ante tum oe abet FeO Ber cen inde mula rs existns est 5 Quire ane ats ee x xn esta” i140 66. The fis hs in anehi’s book 0” expecta eas posophia serait meal em careers prysits Dei operbus Tonge ane seen Toit.» Pol. 3217 * bid. 3.601. © [pid, 3.604.627. © pid, 3.603595. (a.12 above nein ee 18851 sa atv) 517, Vi (0-12 217,232. *F Zancht (a. 16 above) 36 ) fle van win ty 6ST s son gentiles 285 (hereafter Za et elation of plone!) ncn Se yc, ST. SS S06). Zanchi (a. 16 above 3.584588 “eid, 4.204382 7.3.13: © Compare ibid 3.699 with450 JUN PATRICK DONNELLY, $3. Why did Zanchi return to Aquinas and thiteenth-eentury scholastic for the methodology and philosophical substratum of his theology? Certainly his waining at fn Augustinian Canon was important, and doubtless he found @ philosophical theology personally congenial; but more important, Zanchi found in scholasicism potent weapon for the controversies of his time. Because the standard scriptural Rrguments had been used and reused to the point that there was a stock answes to very proof text, theological controversy in the later sixteenth century increasingly sresed showing the metaphysical absurdities and ancient heresies implicit in an opponent's position. Catholic apologists, especially in France, took over Pyrrhonian Scepticism as an engine of war against Calvinism: since reason can prove nothing, Frenchmen should stick to their ancestral Catholic tradition. Ths line of argument passa) Calvinists to defend the powers of human reason." Axe serious threat for Zanchi was posed by Italian radicals, ome of them former friends, who attacked the ‘doctrine of the Trinity partly on scriptural grounds, partly for philosophical reasons. seachi answered them in the thirteen books of his De tribus Elohim and in bis profound De Incamatione.”" Aristotle and Aquinas were invaluable allies seins there new opponents who put great store on reason in theology and who opened P for debate 2 whole series of inherently metaphysical questions. Against the Anti vhitarans “Aristotle or rather God through Aristotle presents us with a most useful ‘work, the Sophistical Refutations.™* Several times in his defense of the Tein Zanehi points out the harmony of his teaching with that of Saint Thomas."> Zancht ike Thomas understands the three persons of the Trinity as three subsistent relay tions" Zanchi and Vermigi both attacked the distinctive Lutheran interpretation tthe communicaioidiomatur between the two natures of Christ which was era} for the defense of the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Between 1560 and 1600 Lutherans and Calvinists published over ¢ hhundyed polemical tacts dealing with the communicatio, Both Vermigli and Zancht try to show that their interpretation of the communiatio idfomatum agrees with that of Aquinas." 18 Richard Popkin, A History of Skepticism (Assen 1960) 66-87. oe ist eolume of Zanchis Opera (0.16 above) reprints the De tribur Elohim. De Incarnation, Ibid, 8.15-295. SZanchi 1381 3al50 see 1.388-389. + pid, 1338, 383, 547, ‘Guia perfectisimus est, nesessum esse ut in o sitet unia simplex esentia et relationes aquibus dstinguantur personae, quee tamen relatones mullam in Deo statuunt composi ionsr aa eat propterea quod relationes in Deo non sunt accientia. Accidens enim in Deum cagere Mase quia perfectissimus ext. Neque sunt nil. Sunt enim relations reales: quia perso reat distinguuntur Quid igtar sunt? Secundum rem, utToguitur Thomas, idem sunt cum ipse eaanel sed ratone quadam ab ea differentes: qua ratione fit ut ura persona non sit alia, $0 aa ein Deo compositone.” Ibid. 2.151. Zanchi also diseuses Thomas's teaching on this same point in 2.69. Veipanent cites the S.P, S.CG. and In Sent, against the Lutherans, especially Martin Chemmits; ibid, 2.170, 8.295, Vermigli also cites Thomas as favoring the Calvinist view