As there continues to be pushback against those of us who would refer to ourselves as “Biblicists” (or, better yet, as “Reformed Biblicists“), I have been looking at the history of the usage of the term. This is not very hard to do, yet some professors and pastors seem to have difficulty with it. In my previous article, which detailed the first usage that Matthew Barrett lists in his forthcoming Systematic Theology, I looked at its usage in 1827 by a Roman Catholic Priest. Dr. Barrett stated that “The earliest usage of the word ‘biblicism’ in English occurred in 1827 in a work by Sophei Finngan in criticism of ‘biblicism’.” I took his word that this was indeed the “earliest usage”. In that article, I also demonstrated that Finngan used the term to describe what we know as the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. Of course, for Finngan, the positive doctrine of sola scriptura would be something of which he would provide criticism.More recently, I have seen a blog post by Josh Sommer titled “Sola Scriptura & Biblicism: What’s the Difference” in which he critiques a modern-day iteration of “Biblicism”. I posted some initial responses to that post on Twitter / X here. Regarding the origins of the term, Josh wrote the following:The term “biblicist” or “biblicism” evidently first appeared in the 19th century, notably used by Jon Jacob van Oosterzees and Thomas Carlyle. Both men apparently use the term derogatorily. Oosterzees defines it as “idolatry of the letter,” in his Dogmatics.[4] Carlyle uses the term in passing, either to characterize those opposed to England’s Lord Protector in the 1650s or the opposition to the crown during the 1640s.We note that Matthew Barrett and Josh Sommer both mentioned Oosterzees. His usage is a mention, in passing, from his “Dogmatics” of 1874 (about 50 years after Finngan). There is no definition of the term offered. Josh also mentioned Carlyle. The usage was from Carlyle’s “The Life of Friedrich Schiller and the Life of John Sterling” from 1905. As a bit of a correction, Carlyle was actually quoting a letter written to him by John Sterling so it was Sterling who was using the term in passing.After some further research, I would like to offer a few more examples of earlier and later 19th Century uses of the term “Biblicism”. Some of these have context which further demonstrates that Protestants used the term with good intentions and/or as shorthand for sola scriptura.In 1821, a few years prior to the usage I have detailed from Finngan, Daniel Wilson used the term in a funeral sermon upon the passing of Rev. Thomas Scott. Wilson mentioned the “scriptural and moderate Articles of Religion” used by Protestant churches to “guard against the intrusion of heresy”. But he saw confessions and “articles of faith” as “only an outline”. He stated “that a scriptural divinity – BIBLICISM, if I may be allowed the term – is of the greatest importance, and will be most apparent. And I consider it as the harbinger of a better day for the universal church…that the Bible is the true point of union…” Further, it was Scripture itself and “not certain propositions deduced from it” which should be “the source and model of a scriptural theology”.We never can expect a general and extended revival of pure primitive religion, till God in his holy book is more honoured, and man in his fallible systems less. I say not this to reflect on the scriptural and moderate Articles of Religion by which our own, or any other Protestant Church, endeavours to guard against the intrusion of heresy, and to perpetuate a succession of pure evangelical Ministers. Something of this kind seems a necessary part of discipline in every church. It is in the filling up of the picture, of which articles of faith are only an outline, that a scriptural divinity—BIBLICISM, if I may be allowed the term—is of the greatest importance, and will be most apparent. And I consider it as the harbinger of a better day for the universal church, that it seems to be the conviction of the most eminent persons, in common with our departed and esteemed friend, that the Bible is the true point of union, and that this book itself, and not certain propositions deduced from it, is to be the source and model of a scriptural theology.Jean Henri Merle d’Aubigné wrote a book in 1851 titled “Rationalism and Popery Refuted: Three Discourses on the Authority of Scripture”. In this book, he mentioned “biblicism” several times. According to the Banner of Truth biography page, “Jean Henri Merle d’Aubigné (1794–1872), the most popular church historian of the nineteenth century, was born on 16 August 1794 into a well-known Huguenot family in Geneva.” In a passage on pages 25-26, d’Aubigné would write what we see below. He would repeatedly pronounce that “This is biblicism!” when he refers to Paul and Apollos reasoning directly from the Scriptures.in his first epistle, he gives directions regarding the manner of acting in the church as stewards of the grace of God? If any man speak,” says he, “let him speak as the oracles of God.” This is thorough biblicism!And Paul of Tarsus; how does he act? When he was at Rome, did he speak against biblicism, like Pius VII., Gregory XVI., Pius IX., and others? Oh, no! He appeals to the Bible. Amid the Israelites assembled in his house, he teaches them the things which refer to Jesus, according to the law of Moses and the prophets.” This is biblicism! When he writes to Corinth, how does he express himself? I delivered unto you, first of all, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” This is biblicism!But, it is chiefly in teaching Christian doctrines, it is when they labour to prove that Jesus is the Christ, that the apostles recur to the Scriptures. Paul is at Thessalonica! How does he act there? Paul, according to his custom,” says Luke, his companion, “went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures; opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.” This is biblicism!But this is not the only case. Let us proceed to Corinth, and behold a man of great eloquence, who speaks in the assemblies. He is called Apollos. How does he act? He mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly.” says Luke, “showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” This is biblicism!And on pages 58-59, d’Aubigné mentioned Catholics stating things to the effect that “Biblicism is the scourge of the church!” He would ask if a proper “deference to the authority of the Bible, that biblicism” is indeed a scourge of the Church.Thus, while treating of the authority of Scripture, Roman Catholics and Rationalist Protestants toss the ball between them—neither party will retain it. That authority, according to each of the two parties, is an invention of the other. In our day, and among ourselves, the ideas Of Lessing and of Staphylus have been renewed regarding the recent invention of the authority of Scripture. Let us try to ascertain the mind Of the first ages; and, upon this subject, let us see if they believed — yea or nay — that deference to the authority of the Bible, that biblicism, in short, is the scourge Of the Church.He would also pick the discussion of biblicism back up on page 73 where he mentioned Wycliff’s translation – which was a “biblicism” which the Roman Church did not like. And, finally, he would state the following on page 95. He believed that “biblicism is the salvation of the Church.”If there be a salvation for the church, it is needful that the church recognise that salvation ; and in order to such a recognition, she must have a revelation from God to announce it. If there be no Word of God in the world, there is no salvation. It is necessary that a message come from heaven to earth, or never will my soul be raised from earth to heaven. Christian instruction should be founded on the Bible. Its substance should be biblical. Without that holy, without that living biblicism, we cannot have a saving communication Of eternal truth.Yes, my brethren—that is what I ask of you—biblicism is the salvation of the church. Servants of the Word of God, and private believers, we have all been remiss in this respect. It is requisite that every one begin anew the study Of the Bible, as if he had never studied it before. We must not adhere simply to the grammatical or edifying interpretation of the isolated meaning of a single passage, as the Christians of our day too exclusively do; we must examine the order, the connection of the passage—the relation of each passage of the Bible to the entire system of the Bible.Dr. William Garden Blaikie wrote in “The Catholic Presbyterian” in 1880 that he wanted to focus on some “chief characteristics of the Reformation three centuries ago.” He proceeded with a discussion of six characteristics which he stated were: 1. Nationalism, 2. Biblicism, 3. Confessionism, 4. Intellectualism, 5. Fraternalism, and 6. Liberalism. According to the Banner of Truth biography page, “Dr William Garden Blaikie (1820-99) was Professor of Apologetics and Pastoral Theology at New College, Edinburgh, from 1868 to 1897….He was Moderator of the General Assembly in 1892.” He wrote the following on page 244:2. Biblicism — The Reformation was eminently a Biblical movement. It sought an authority external to that Church which had overlaid and stifled the Gospel by ifs traditions, and it found that authority in the Bible. Therefore, to translate the Bible, to circulate it, to interpret it grammatically and honestly, to read it in churches in the vulgar tongue, were objects of the greatest the strongest weapons to be found against the Church of Rome. Luther, Calvin, and Tyndale took the right way to counteract all the decretals and menaces that Rome could issue. They caused men to know the Holy Scriptures, and to bow down before the supreme authority of the Word of God. By this Word, Popes and Councils, decrees, traditions, usages, ceremonies, dogmas — all were to be tried and judged.Is this characteristic fading from our modern Protestantism? Does not the Bible retain its place of authority on our reading-desks and pulpits? Is it not road in our families and schools as the incomparable and inspired Book? Yes.And then, on page 246, we read the following:The interpretation of the Bible is not with us fixed and perfected. There is a science of Hermeneutics—a living: progressive science. We encourage our scholars to devote themselves to this science, and hold that each generation should make an advance in exegetical accuracy. We also most anxiously desire that our divines should so handle the Bible as to exhibit its organic unity under diversity; state correctly, and neither overstate nor understate, what is meant by its being Theopnoustic – man-written but God-breathed; and apply a true historical perspective to what is really a series of compositions stretching over a very long period in the authorship, and avowedly referring to a succession of religious dispensations. The Biblicism of the future may not quote texts exactly in the same way as that of the Reformers or of the Puritans; but Biblicism there must be, or Protestantism dies, and infidelity and superstition divide the world between them.Still earlier, we find in “The British Review, and London Critical Journal, Volume 16” of 1820 a review and discussion of “Horae Homileticae; or Discourses (in the Form of Skeletons) upon the whole Scriptures” by Rev. C. Simeon, M.A. Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge. The identification of the author of “The British Review” appears to be lost to us, but his description of “biblicism” is interesting, nonetheless. Some of his statements from pages 137-138 are quoted below. It seems that one of his concerns is that Simeon “still uses without hesitation or constraint all the hortatory, and alarming language which the Scriptures furnish.” in order to arrive at his conclusions. Yes, this author was alarmed that Simeon used the language of Scripture! And later on page 141 he mentions that an excess of Simeon is his “over-statement” and that “the danger which would otherwise arise from this excess, is, moreover, very much neutralized by the leading characteristic of the work, to which we have before adverted – it’s biblicism.”It is of course impossible for us to present our readers with any thing like a detail of such a copious store of theological topics. We will advert to a few leading points.On the main characteristic endeavour of the whole work, BIBLICISM, if such a word may be forgiven, we find perpetual examples of the most free and unfettered discussions of man’s fall and impotency, and of his duty and obligation to repent; of the universal redemption by Christ, and its efficacy to the believer only; of the importance of the sacraments, and yet their inutility if improperly relied on; of justification by faith alone, and the necessity of abounding in every good work ; of the Divine purposes, and man’s free agency; ot the promises of God to the humble Christian that he shall continue unto the end, and the cautions, warnings, and alarms, which are addressed to him. On this latter topic we are disposed to think the merits of our author to be more considerable than on some others; and we mention it, because, after all, it is perhaps the most important point in the practice and application of religion, and that on which, theoretically, divines have been found the most widely to differ. Our author, holding, as he does, the doctrine of the perseverance of the sincere Christian in faith and holiness, and conceiving this to be secured by the promises of God and the intercession of the Mediator, still uses without hesitation or constraint all the hortatory, and alarming language which the Scriptures furnish.Finally, in “The New Annual Register” of 1804, there is a passing mention of “biblicism” on page 365 in a discussion of “Foreign Literature, Biblical and Theological”. This may be the first mention of the term, at least in the 19th Century. This first chapter is brief and does not lend us much in the way of a definition of “biblicism as a science”.On page 364 there is a discussion of “the different ramifications of the Kantian school” as there has been some attempt at an “amalgamation”. It was stated that “the gospel can gain nothing from transcendental philosophy.” He then goes on to mention the expansion of the Gospel in Germany and England. There is mention of missionary work to the Cape of Good Hope “and it is to this church also that the missionary society of the established church of England has applied for adventurous legates. While neither Spain, Portugal, nor Italy has offered us any thing worthy of individual enumeration, biblicism as a science has occupied but little attention in France. The religion which has once more come an engine of this last State, has merely presented to the hands of its votaries new editions of books that were formerly in esteem, and of which many ought never to have sunk in the public estimation.”In summary, we have seen Matthew Barrett mention the earliest uses of Biblicism being by Finngan (1827) and Oosterzees (1874) and Josh Sommer mentioned Carlyle’s use quoting Sterling (1905). All of these “earliest” and “first” uses of the term are related to us in a way which is meant to scare us. Finngan was “in criticism”, Oosterzees said it was “idolatry of the letter” and Sterling’s use may have been in opposition to the English civil leadership. But these examples arrive quite short in giving an objective picture of the earliest usage of the term.To conclude, allow me to summarize some of the data we have found in the following timeline from the 19th Century. There are seven uses of the term from the 19th Century which we have detailed (I also noted some other 19th Century Catholics using it derisively, but which do not have any bearing except in seeing that the Catholics continued, after Finngan, to use the term as synonymous with sola scriptura). Five of them are positive uses and two of them are negative. It should be noted that only the two negative uses were mentioned by Matthew Barrett. This would have the effect of leaving his readers with a skewed understanding of the earliest uses of the term in English.1804 – “The New Annual Register” in passing referred to it as “Biblicism as a science”1820 – “The British Review” referred to it as using “without hesitation or constraint all the hortatory, and alarming language which the Scriptures furnish” and saw Biblicism as a safeguard for the potential danger of Simeon’s overstatements1821 – Daniel Wilson, in a funeral sermon for Rev. Thomas Scott stated that “Biblicism, if I may be allowed the term – is of the greatest importance, and will be most apparent. And I consider it as the harbinger of a better day for the universal church…that the Bible is the true point of union…”1827 – Sophei Finngan, Catholic Priest, was indeed critical of Biblicism – because he saw it as being equivalent to Protestantism’s sola scriptura1851 – Jean Henri Merle d’Aubigné referred to Paul’s (and others in the NT) quotation and “appeals to the Bible” under a constant refrain of “This is biblicism!” He would also note the Catholics’ derisive usage of the term.1874 – Oosterzees labeled biblicism as “idolatry of the letter”. However, he saw that it was far better that the simple man read Scripture than the Roman Catholic Church’s prohibition against allowing the church to be read in the vulgar.1880 – Dr. William Garden Blaikie referred to Biblicism as a “chief characteristics of the Reformation” and a way to prevent Protestantism from dying!

This is a follow up to the previous posts in this blog series where I will go through the works of John Owen detailing where he has mentioned Thomas Aquinas. I hope that this series is helpful.In this sixth part, I would like to finish looking at the mentions of Thomas Aquinas in the 7 Volumes of his “Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews”.As I mentioned previously, there are 20 of the 36 works which do not have any mention of Thomas Aquinas (not even in editorial footnotes). And from the other 16 books there are only 36 mentions of Thomas Aquinas. This post will be the final one going through the data from those 36 books. A seventh post will look at some of the mentions of Aquinas in Owen’s “Biblical Theology”, which will be relevant to some of the current discussions.Mentions of Aquinas in An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol. 3This first quote has Owen listing Aquinas among some other “expositors of the Roman church.” It is also interesting that they’re listed as departing from the Vulgate.Hebrews 1:3: The Vulgar Latin renders these words, “Purgationem peccatorum faciens,” not without sundry mistakes. For, first, these words, διʼ ἑαυτοῦ, “by himself‚” and ἡμῶν, “our,” are omitted; and yet the emphasis and proper sense of the whole depend upon them. Secondly, ποιησάμενος, “having made,” is rendered in the present tense, “making;” which seems to direct the sense of the words to another thing and action of Christ than what is here intended. And therefore the expositors of the Roman church, as Thomas, Lyranus, Cajetan, Estius, Ribera, à Lapide, all desert their own text, and expound the words according to the original. The ancients, also as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Oecumenius, lay the chief weight of their whole exposition of this place on the words omitted in that translation.Here is a discussion about the “again” in Hebrews 1:6 and what it could mean. It seems from the ensuing context that Owen agrees that it refers to the Second Coming.Hebrews 1:6: We must also inquire what is the introduction or bringing in here intended, how and when performed; as also what is the world where-into he was brought. The difficulties about all which must be severally considered.1. Πάλιν, “again,” may be joined with εἰσαγάγῃ, and then the sense of the words must run as above intimated,—namely, “When he bringeth in again the first-born into the world.” And it is evident that most expositors, both ancient and modern, embrace this sense. So do Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrose, Oecumenius, Thomas, Lyra, Cajetan, Ribera, Cameron, Gomarus, Estius, à Lapide, our Mede, with many others. But about what this bringing in again, or second bringing in, of the first-born into the world should be, they are greatly divided.The ancients refer it to his incarnation; affirming, somewhat harshly, that he was brought before into the world, when all things were made by him.Here, Aquinas is included in a list of a few others along with “sundry of the schoolmen” who saw in Hebrews 1:14 a certain division of Angels into those ministering to God and others just standing before him. Owen disagrees with this assertion.Hebrews 1:14: And this some of the later Jews have retained the tradition of; whence is that of Maimonides, More Nebuch. part. ii cap. vi., which he citeth out of the Talmud: אין הקבה עושה דבר עד שנמלר בפמליא של מעלה;—”The holy, blessed God doth nothing unless he consult with his superior family.” Only, not knowing the rise of the word פמליא, nor what it should signify, he tells us, פמליא הוא המחנה בלשין יוון, “that in the Greek tongue it signifies a host;” whereas it is purely the Latin “familia,” without the least alteration. And the description of this superior part of the family of God is given us, Dan. 7:10, “Thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.” In which words Pseudo-Dionysius, Gregory, and Aquinas, with sundry of the schoolmen, have coined a distinction of angels, into “ministrantes,” those that minister unto God, and “assistentes,” those that stand before him; whereas the whole intendment of the expression is, that all the angels stood ministering before him, as John declares the matter, Rev. 5:11. And therefore the apostle expressly here affirms that they are “all ministering spirits,” cutting off one member of their distinction. Neither is there more intended in the ministry of that upper part of the family of God than is expressed concerning the lower part of it of old: Deut 18:5, God chose the priests and the Levites לַעֲמדֹ לְשָׁרֵת,”—”to stand and to minister in the name of the LORD.” The same persons were both “assistentes” and “ministrantes;” they stood to minister before the Lord.Mentions of Aquinas in An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol. 4Aquinas is cited here as stating that Hebrews 4:16 means the throne of Christ. Owen says that this is a “woeful mistake” that Thomas and others have fallen into when they did not consult the original but relied upon the Vulgate translation.Hebrews 4:16: I cannot omit one argument that is used by Primasius, Haymo, and Ludovicus de Tena, on this place, to prove that it is the throne of Christ that is here intended. And this is because it is called a “throne of grace;” ‘that is,’ say they, ‘of Christ, for so is he called by our apostle, chap. 2:9.’ For, following the Vulgar translation, and reading the words, “ut gratia Dei gustaret mortem pro omnibus,” they say “gratia” is of the nominative and not of the ablative case,—that “the Grace of God should taste of death for all.” And herein Tena urgeth the consent of Thomas and the ordinary gloss. Such woful mistakes do men, otherwise wise and learned, fall into, who undertake to expound the Scriptures without consulting the original, or an ability so to do. The “throne of grace,” therefore, is unto us, God as gracious in Christ, as exalted in a way of exercising grace and mercy towards them that through the Lord Jesus believe in him and come unto him.Mentions of Aquinas in An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol. 5Owen includes Aquinas in a list of “expositors of the Roman church” who are tossing chaff up and down in their comments upon Hebrews 6:10.Hebrews 6:10: The expositors of the Roman church do greatly perplex themselves and others in their comments on this text. They generally agree in an endeavour from hence to prove the merit of works against Protestants, because the council of Trent applies this text to that purpose. …. This sense is opposed by others. For they think those mentioned are justified persons, and the apostle expresseth the merit of their present works, with respect unto the righteousness of God. The reader who desires to see such chaff tossed up and down, may find these things debated in Aquinas, Adamus, Estius, à Lapide, Ribera, Maldonatus, de Tena, and others of them on the place.Owen includes Aquinas here in a list of some others who were said to have been contradictory to each other in discussing whether Christ’s intercession was of a vocal nature or not.Hebrews 7:23-25: Expositors, especially those of the Roman church, inquire with many disputes into the external form of the intercession of Christ, as namely, whether it be oral and vocal, or no. And they produce many testimonies out of the ancients upon the one side and the other. And great weight is laid by some on the difference and determination of it. For whereas Ribera grants that the dispute is more about words and the manner of expression, than the matter itself; Tena affirms that what he says is most false. And it is evident that the testimonies produced by themselves out of the ancients, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ambrose, Austin, and so to Rupertus and Thomas, are expressly contradictory to one another. Now, although our principal concernment lieth in the internal form and efficacy of the intercession of our high priest, rather than in the outward manner of it, yet, so far as that also is revealed, we may inquire into it. And we shall find that the true stating of it tends unto the encouragement and establishment of our faith. And the things ensuing may be observed unto this purpose:—Mentions of Aquinas in An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol. 7Again, Owen is critical of interpretations based on the Vulgate rather than the Greek.Hebrews 11:35-37: All suppose that translator understood not the sense of the Greek word, and so retained it. And Erasmus makes himself very merry in reflecting on Thomas, who gives some wild interpretations of it. Μῆλον is “a sheep.” “In sheep-skins.”Regarding Hebrews 12:18-29, Owen stated here that Aquinas, along with other Roman Catholics, said the “first born” referred to the apostles and evangelists. However, Owen asserts that this actually refers to all of the elect. Interestingly, if you look at Aquinas’s comments on this verse, he stated “The firstborn saints, who received the gifts of grace first and more abundantly, are the apostles, through whom it flows to others” – his concern was the primacy and “dignity of the apostles” having their names written but that it would “flow to others” through the Apostles. This could be considered part of the Apostolic Succession which Rome teaches.Hebrews 12:18-29: “Of the first-born, which are written in heaven.” Some late expositors, as Schlichtingius, Grotius, and his follower, confine this unto the apostles and evangelists, with some others of the first Christian assembly. And in the same judgment Aquinas, with some others of the Roman church, went before them. The Greek scholiasts apply the words unto the elect, or all true believers: whom we must follow; for it is evident that not the apostles only are here intended. For, (1.) It may be inquired, whether the apostles themselves, upon their call by the gospel, did not come unto “the assembly of the first-born?” If they did, then are not they themselves alone here intended. (2.) Had the apostles alone their names written in heaven, as these first-born had, they, and none but they, are so written in heaven. But this is untrue, as we shall see. (3.) Are not all elect believers capable of this character? For, [1.] Doth not God call all Israel, who were a type of the spiritual church, his “first-born?” Exod. 4:22. [2.] Are not all believers “the first-fruits of the creatures?” James 1:18; which, as unto dedication unto God, answereth the first-born among men. All redeemed ones are “the first-fruits unto God, and to the Lamb,” Rev. 14:4. [3.] Are they not all of them “heirs of God, and coheirs with Christ?” which is to be the first-born, Rom. 8:17; “heirs of salvation,” Heb. 1:14. [4.] Are they not all “kings and priests unto God?” which compriseth the whole right of the first-born. Wherefore there is no reason to confine this expression unto the apostles; especially since most of them at that time were among “the spirits of just men made perfect.” Wherefore it is elect believers that are intended.

In 2022, Dr. Sam Renihan wrote “Crux, Mors, Inferi: A Primer and Reader on the Descent of Christ”. This is a helpful guide through the Biblical Data regarding Christ’s Descent as well as a look at the history of the doctrine as taught in the early church by the Apostle’s Creed (as well as the Athanasian Creed, although it was not mentioned in the work) and on through the period of the Reformed Confessions of the 17th Century. The intent of this blog article is not to interact with the doctrine itself, but with some assertions being made regarding methods of Confessional Subscription in the Reformed Baptist community at large.As a bit of background, I would like to offer a definition from Chapter 9 of the book “The Confessing Baptist”. This chapter is one of Dr. Bob Gonzales’s essays in the volume, and it is specifically on the topic of Confessional Subscription models. In this chapter he gives some terminology and then defines several subscription models. Regarding the “Historical Subscription” model, we see its distinctive focus on the necessity to assent to the original intent of the framers of the confession. Dr. Gonzales wrote that this model was introduced in 2014 by Dr. James Renihan in a paper titled “Confessional Subscription”. Dr. James Renihan provided an example where John Gerstner suggested that a Presuppositional apologist (such as Van Til) could not hold to the strict historical view because Puritans affirmed the classical view of apologetics. As Dr. Gonzales stated, this would require agreement “with all the metaphysical and epistemological viewpoints of the confession’s authors or signatories”, which is something that would cause a problem with a Presuppositionalist.One example of how the Historical Subscriptionist model is affecting us today is with the understanding of the Confessional statement that God is “without body, parts, or passions”. It is often argued that if one does not assent to “all the metaphysical and epistemological viewpoints of the confession’s authors or signatories”, then one cannot honestly claim that he is “Confessionally Reformed”. In a nutshell, the argument is that all of the authors and signatories, without exception, understood “without body, parts, or passions” using the metaphysical system of Thomas Aquinas. And anyone who may actually agree with the statement using another Biblical understanding is still someone who is dishonest in saying they subscribe to the Confession.(As an aside, there are several other models of Confessional Subscription. As a brief summary of Dr. Gonzales’s essay on this, they are as follows. Absolute subscription is taken in good faith without exceptions to wording, phrases, or doctrines. Full (or Strict) subscription has allowances for exceptions to some of the wording. System subscription provides for “non-essential doctrinal exceptions.” Finally, substance subscription is one in which there is an affirmation of all of the core doctrines and usually doesn’t require identifying exceptions. A more thorough treatment of this can be found here.)With this in mind, I would first like to offer two quotes where Dr. Renihan summarizes his beliefs (the remainder of this post will deal only with Sam Renihan’s book – mentions of Dr. Renihan will be to him rather than his father, James). As you can see, he believes that Jesus’s soul descended to hell with a purpose. (The page numbers referred to below correspond with the Kindle edition.)Why, then, do we say that Jesus Christ descended to Hades, to the compartment of the wicked, if not to suffer? As previously stated, Jesus descended to bind the strong man. Jesus Christ descended to the lair of the serpent to crush his skull in the sight of every wicked angel and unbelieving soul. Thus victorious, Jesus Christ is possessor of the keys that belonged to death and Hades.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 70The realms of creation consist of heaven, earth, and Sheol beneath the earth. The souls of the dead descended to Sheol, separated into the righteous at rest in Abraham’s Bosom, and the wicked in torment in Hades. Jesus Christ was crucified and died. His body was buried, and his soul descended to Sheol, not to languish but to liberate his resting saints, not to suffer but to subdue Satan, not to preach but to proclaim just victory over the spirits in prison. In his resurrection and ascension Jesus Christ carried his bride home to heaven, presenting himself as a sacrifice in the holy of holies not made with hands. Henceforth, Hades is a ruin of darkness and misery; heaven is a city of light and beatitude.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 207This belief is bolstered, not only by Dr. Renihan’s exegesis of the scriptural texts, but from the examples of the Early Church Fathers’ discussions on this matter. Chapters 7 and 8 were a lengthy reproduction of the views of Thomas Bilson (an Anglican Bishop who died in 1616) on the Descent (chapter 7) and his discussion of the “modern sources” (chapter 8). Dr. Renihan introduces chapter 7 by stating this on page 131:The previous chapter discussed the redefinition of the descent in Reformed theology, and its subsequent decline and neglect. Despite the prominence and influence of Calvin and Beza, Ursinus and Olevianus, and Perkins and Ussher, and despite the permanence of their views in confessional documents, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were not without proponents of the ancient doctrine of the local descent of Christ. This chapter is dedicated to Bishop Thomas Bilson’s defense of the descent. The length of the source produced below necessitated its own chapter. Notwithstanding, Bilson’s work is very useful for at least four reasons.And in Chapter 7, Bilson was cited as stating the following.Howbeit of the time When he triumphed, we shall afterward speak; we now observe What he did in his triumph over Hell and Satan; and by the Scriptures we find that Christ Entered Satan’s house, Tied him, and Spoiled his goods; or as the Apostle expresses it, he spoiled powers and principalities, made an open show of them, and triumphed over them in his own person. (He would then go on to state that this was the belief of Origen, Epiphanius, Chrystostom, Theodoret, Tertullian, Augustine, Hilary, Fulgentius, Hieronymus, Ambrose, Ruffinus, “and so throughout the Latin Church without any dissenting.”)
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Thomas Bilson on the Descent, Pages 136-137Relevant Historical Background on The DescentWithout letting the main body of this post get too lengthy, I will offer some brief quotes in the following section. Following the conclusion, I will include the context of the quotes. The Apostles’ Creed is one of the oldest statements of collective Christian beliefs, which many churches continue to confess today. The phrase “He descended to hell” or “He descended to the dead” has made some reluctant to embrace this creed. Others, as will be presented in the second part of this book, redefine this article into something entirely contrary to its intended meaning. This book has attempted to teach the Bible’s doctrine of the descent, so that we can unite our voices with Christians of all ages in the Apostles’ Creed and confess confidently that “He descended to the dead.”
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 95On Page 105, Dr. Renihan introduces Chapter 6 as focusing “on the reception of the article of Christ’s descent in various branches of the Reformed churches during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The truth is that the major authors and influences of the Reformed wing of Protestantism redefined this article of the Creed into something quite different from the way the church had understood it in prior generations.” He then mentions, on page 106, that beyond the exegetical and systematic challenges there was “the Creed itself” and “the consent of the fathers” “in affirming a local descent of Christ’s soul to the realm of the dead.” And on page 107, he stated that “It is understandable that the Reformed retained the descent clause, despite redefining it. An outright rejection of an article of the Apostles’ Creed would have been considered a bold embrace of heresy.” Further, “It was primarily a rejection of a local descent of Christ’s soul, that is, the descent of Christ’s soul to a lower place, the place of the dead. So, the Reformed churches of that time, as today, continued to confess the Apostles’ Creed with this clause intact. Confusion has attended the clause in Reformed churches ever since because Reformed theologians ‘crossed the current of antiquity’ by redefining and thus rejecting the clause, though retaining its words. The primary source of this redefinition, rejection, and retention was John Calvin.” Continuing to page 109, he cited Calvin and Beza’s influence on the Westminster Divines “in the Westminster Assembly’s Annotations on the whole Bible.” He then mentions the influence of William Perkins and two specific Westminster Divines, James Ussher and Daniel Featley, on pages 112-115. We read that “Perkins proposed a fourth view, his own. He stated that Christ ‘was held captive in the grave, and lay in bondage under death for the space of three days.’ For Perkins, then, Christ’s permanence in death for three days was the final part of his humiliation.” Ussher stated “he went to the dead, and continued in the state of death until the time of his resurrection.” And, finally, Featley wrote that “no man need to make scruple of subscribing to the Article, as it stands in the creed, seeing it is capable of so many orthodoxical explications”And to sum it all up, on Page 115 we read the following.The Assembly published a brief report of their “clearing” and “vindicating” of the first fifteen articles, in which they made the following comment about Article 3, of Christ’s descent, As Christ died for us, and was buried; so it is to be believed, that he continued in the state of the dead, and under the power and dominion of death, from the time of his death and burial, until his resurrection: which hath been otherwise expressed thus, He went down into Hell. 
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 115This Reformed view of The Descent was dogmatically inserted in the 17th Century Confessions. For example, the Westminster Confession in 8.4 asserts that Christ “was crucified, and died; was buried, and remained under the power of death”. And the Second London Baptist Confession, The 1689, stated similarly that Christ “was crucified, and died, and remained in the state of the dead”. On Page 129, Dr. Renihan stated that “The complicating factor, however, is that the clause itself has continued in Reformed churches despite being substantially redefined from its understanding in the church until the Reformation. No wonder Bilson remarked, Retaining the words, many doubt or deny the sense thereof.”In his “Conclusion of Part 2”, Dr. Renihan stated the following:While a local descent of Christ’s soul was held as a longstanding truth, confessed in the Apostles’ Creed, certain wings of the Protestant Reformation redefined and thus rejected the Creed’s theology while retaining its words. For Christians in those traditions who desire to rethink this point, part two of this book has provided resources for considering how our doctrine of the descent, or lack thereof, relates to the church’s theology reaching back before our documents were drafted and adopted.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 205ConclusionWithout belaboring the point, something becomes quite clear when one poses the question “Do you believe in the Descent of Christ into Hell?” within the framework of a Strict Historical Subscription model. As Dr. Renihan has clearly demonstrated, the Early Church believed that “Christ descended into hell” meant a descent of Christ’s soul to the realm of the dead.To subscribe to the Apostles’ and Athanasian Creeds using the strict historical model would mean that you are bound to accept the Early Church’s understanding of that doctrine. (That is, unless one would try to argue that the authors of those Creeds understood the doctrine in a vacuum and differently than the rest of those who were writing in the early church).However, to subscribe to either the Westminster or 1689 Confessions using the strict historical model would mean that you are bound to accept the Confessional Divines’ understanding of the doctrine of Christ’s Descent to Hell. Their understanding is an explicit rejection of the belief that the early church would have had when the Creeds were written. To be clear, it is impossible to subscribe to the historical intent of the authors of both the Creeds and Reformed Confessions on the doctrine of Christ’s Descent to Hell.And let’s not forget the assertion by Dr. Renihan on page 107 (and repeated on page 205) that “Reformed theologians ‘crossed the current of antiquity’ by redefining and thus rejecting the clause.” As it seems we are to understand him, he is stating that the redefinition of the descent clause in the Reformed Confessions is tantamount to their actual rejection of the descent clause.Of course, this leaves one in a conundrum. Surely those today who are advocating for Strict Historical Subscription to the Reformed Confessions must themselves also advocate for the same level of Subscription to the earlier and more widely accepted Creeds of the Early Church. But it has been clearly demonstrated that our Reformed forebears believed they could honestly and sincerely confess the terminology of the Creeds while coming to an understanding which did not require them to affirm every notion of those in the early church who may have been responsible for writing “descended into hell” with the meaning of a local descent of Christ’s soul.The following citations from Crux, Mors, Inferi were mentioned in the above article. Here they are in their direct context.This chapter will focus on the reception of the article of Christ’s descent in various branches of the Reformed churches during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The truth is that the major authors and influences of the Reformed wing of Protestantism redefined this article of the Creed into something quite different from the way the church had understood it in prior generations. Because many Reformed churches have continued to recite and teach the Apostles’ Creed, two things are true simultaneously in Reformed churches—the descent clause has continued into modernity, but the doctrine of the descent has not. In particular, I refer to churches whose heritage is found in the Three Forms of Unity (the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordt) and the Westminster Standards (The Westminster Confession and its catechisms).
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 105In addition to exegetical and systematic challenges, writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries faced two historical hurdles. The first was the Creed itself, which affirmed the descent of Christ after his death and burial. The second was the “consent of the fathers” in affirming a local descent of Christ’s soul to the realm of the dead.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 106It is understandable that the Reformed retained the descent clause, despite redefining it. An outright rejection of an article of the Apostles’ Creed would have been considered a bold embrace of heresy. Protestants claimed to be the continuation of the true church, forced out of Rome, so their attempts to retain the article, while truly rejecting it, make sense. They wanted to remain connected to the ancient church. And if it was possible to affirm that article of the Creed in a way that fit their theological system, they were going to do it. Their own writings say this. Furthermore, the Reformed did embrace much of what was commonly affirmed in expositions of the descent (atonement, victory over death and Satan, etc.). So, their rejection of the descent was not a complete rejection of everything related to the doctrine. It was primarily a rejection of a local descent of Christ’s soul, that is, the descent of Christ’s soul to a lower place, the place of the dead. So, the Reformed churches of that time, as today, continued to confess the Apostles’ Creed with this clause intact. Confusion has attended the clause in Reformed churches ever since because Reformed theologians “crossed the current of antiquity” by redefining and thus rejecting the clause, though retaining its words. The primary source of this redefinition, rejection, and retention was John Calvin (1509-1564).
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 107Calvin and Beza’s influence can be seen in the Westminster Assembly’s Annotations on the whole Bible. On Psalm 16:10, the annotation reads, “my soul in hell” Or, me in the grave. Psalm 3:2 and 11:1 as Leviticus 22:4 or rather my body in the grave. So it suits best with that which follows, and with Peter’s proof of Christ’s resurrection, Acts 2:27, 31. Soul, for dead body, Leviticus 21:1, Numbers 6:6, the other word is put for the grave, Genesis 37:35.10
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 109But the redefinition and rejection of the descent was advanced by English theologians themselves. Two of the most significant figures were William Perkins (1558-1602) and James Ussher (1581-1656).Perkins taught through the articles of the Apostles’ Creed, in which he enumerated four views on the descent of Christ. The first was a local descent to hell, which he rejected. The second was that the descent was “into the grave,” meaning burial. Perkins rejected this also because it did not fit the progression of the articles of the Creed, which mention burial immediately before the descent. The third view was that the descent of Christ referred to his suffering the pains of hell on the cross. Perkins opined that “This exposition is good and true, and whosoever will may receive it. Yet nevertheless it seems not so fitly to agree with the order of the former articles.” So, Perkins agreed with Calvin’s doctrine, but insisted that it did not match the meaning of the Creed. Perkins proposed a fourth view, his own. He stated that Christ “was held captive in the grave, and lay in bondage under death for the space of three days.” For Perkins, then, Christ’s permanence in death for three days was the final part of his humiliation. And this, he averred, was “most agreeable to the order and words of the Creed.”
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 112James Ussher dedicated a lengthy chapter to the descent in a book entitled, An Answer to a Challenge Made by a Jesuite in Ireland. Ussher quotes extensively from Patristic sources and Greek and Latin poets to make his arguments, which sum up to this, 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.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 113Daniel Featley offers a more expanded view into the debates, in a speech he gave to the Assembly. Concerning [the] descent into Hell, all the Christians in the world acknowledge, that Christ some way descended into hell, either locally, as many of the ancient fathers, Latimer, the Martyr, Bilson and Andrews, and Noel in his catechism (commanded to be taught in all schools, soon after the publishing the 39 Articles to expound it) or virtually as Durand, or metaphorically as Calvin, or metonymically as Tilenus, Perkins, and this Assembly; and therefore no man need to make scruple of subscribing to the Article, as it stands in the creed, seeing it is capable of so many orthodoxical explications, and therein I desire that this Assembly in their aspersions would (after the example of the harmony of confessions27) content themselves with branding only the Popish exposition of this Article, which takes hell for limbus patrum, or purgatory (Netherland regions, extra anni solisque vias [beyond the paths of the year and the sun]) for any of the other four interpretations, they are so far from being heretical, that it has not been proved that any of them is erroneous.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Pages 114-115The Assembly published a brief report of their “clearing” and “vindicating” of the first fifteen articles, in which they made the following comment about Article 3, of Christ’s descent, As Christ died for us, and was buried; so it is to be believed, that he continued in the state of the dead, and under the power and dominion of death, from the time of his death and burial, until his resurrection: which hath been otherwise expressed thus, He went down into Hell. 
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 115This chapter has surveyed influential theologians of the Reformed tradition to examine the doctrine of the descent in their theology and in the literature they left behind. When popular theologians, Bible translations, annotators, Confessions, and catechisms of the Reformed tradition redefine or reject the descent its decline is no surprise. The complicating factor, however, is that the clause itself has continued in Reformed churches despite being substantially redefined from its understanding in the church until the Reformation. No wonder Bilson remarked, Retaining the words, many doubt or deny the sense thereof.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Pages 128-129

This is a follow up to the previous posts in this blog series where I will go through the works of John Owen detailing where he has mentioned Thomas Aquinas. I hope that this series is helpful.In this fifth part, I would like to begin looking at the mentions of Thomas Aquinas in the 7 Volumes of his “Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews”.As I mentioned previously, there are 20 of the 36 works which do not have any mention of Thomas Aquinas (not even in editorial footnotes). And from the other 16 books there are only 36 mentions of Thomas Aquinas. The first four parts covered 22 of those 36 mentions and this post will cover an additional 6. Including the information in this post, the 28 mentions of Aquinas only span 11 books. Counting the 20 without mentions, this is 31 of the 36 books which we will have covered by the end of this post.The posts from Hebrews will be in multiple parts and they will be in order of occurrenceMentions of Aquinas in An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol. 1In this first citation, Owen is discussing the definition and contents of the Canon of Scripture and cites the synod at Laodicea, the deposition of Paulus Samosatenus, Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Augustine and Aquinas. The only thing he states about Aquinas is a basic definition of the Canon.Section I. The canonical authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews: And he pursues the metaphor of a scale and a measure in many words elsewhere. And thus Aquinas himself confesseth 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 hath 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.Next, and in the same section, Owen mentions how some have objected to the canonical authority of Hebrews because of various things in Chapters 11 and 12 stated as being from the Old Testament but not contained in the Old Testament writings. He brings up a poor solution offered by Aquinas with which Owen disagrees.Section I. The canonical authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews: The remaining objections are more particular and direct to their purpose by whom they are pleaded; as, first, that the author of this Epistle cites sundry things out of the Old Testament which are not therein contained. Such are many of the stories related in the 11th chapter; and that, in particular, in chap. 12:21, where he affirms that Moses, upon the terror of the sight that appeared unto him, said, “I exceedingly fear and quake.” This place Erasmus supposeth Jerome to have intended when he says that some things are mentioned in this Epistle that are not recorded in the Old Testament. And Aquinas perplexeth himself in seeking for a solution unto this difficulty; for, first, he would refer the place to Moses’ sight of the Angel in the bush, and not to the giving of the law, contrary to the express discourse of the context. And then he adds, “Dixit saltem facto;” though he said not so, yet he did so. And lastly, worst of all, “Vel forte apostolus aliâ utitur literâ quam nos non habemus;”—”Or, it may be, the apostle used another text, that we have not.” But there is no need of any of these evasions. The author quotes no book nor testimony of the Old Testament, but only relates a matter of fact, and one circumstance of it, which doubtless he had by divine revelation, whereof there is no express mention in the place where the whole matter is originally recorded.The final mention in the first Volume is again a mention of Aquinas alongside other authors. Owen states agreement with this notion if it was meant only that Paul us unskilled in “seducing, enticing rhetoric”.Section II. Of the penman of the Epistle to the Hebrews: Again, he answers by concession in this place, Εἰ δὲ καὶ ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ,—”Suppose I be (or were) rude or unskilful in speech, doth this matter depend thereon? Is it not manifest unto you that I am not so in the knowledge of the mystery of the gospel?” “He doth not confess that he is so,” saith Austin, “but grants it for their conviction.” And in this sense concur Oecumenius, Aquinas, Lyra, Catharinus, Clarius, and Cappellus, with many others on the place. If, then, by λόγος here, that seducing, enticing rhetoric wherewith the false teachers entangled the affections of their unskilful hearers be intended, as we grant that St Paul, it may be, was unskilful in it, and are sure that he would make no use of it, so it is denied that any footsteps of it appear in this Epistle; and if any thing of solid, convincing, unpainted eloquence be intended in it, it is evident that St Paul neither did nor justly could confess himself unacquainted with it; only he made a concession of the objection made against him by the false teachers, to manifest how they could obtain no manner of advantage thereby.Mentions of Aquinas in An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol. 2In this first mention, Owen states his agreement with Aquinas on whether Christ would have been made flesh had sin never entered the world. Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Calvin are stated as also being opposed to this notion.Section XXVI. Of the origin of the priesthood of Christ: And those of this persuasion are of two sorts:—First, Such as acknowledge a pre-existence of the Lord Christ in a divine nature. These affirm that [even] had not sin entered into the world, he should have been so made flesh by the uniting of our nature unto himself in his own person, as now it is come to pass. This some of the ancient schoolmen inclined unto, as Alexander ab Ales., Albertus Magnus, Scotus, Rupertus; as it is opposed by Aquinas, p. 3, q. 3; Bonaventura in Sentent., lib. iii. dist. i. ar. 2, q. 1, and others. Immediately on the Reformation this opinion was revived by Osiander, who maintained that Adam was said to be made in the image of God, because he was made in that nature and shape whereunto the Son of God was designed and destinated. And he also was herein opposed by Calvin, Instit. lib. ii. cap. xii., lib. iii. cap. xi.; by Wigandus de Osiandrismo, p. 23; and Schlusselburgius, lib. vi. Yet some are still of this judgment, or seem so to be.The other sort are the Socinians, who contend that God would have given such a head unto the creation as they fancy Christ to be; for as they lay no great weight on the first sin, so they hope to evince by this means that the Lord Christ may discharge his whole office without making any atonement for sin by sacrifice. And this, with most of their other opinions, they have traduced from the ancient Pelagians, as an account is given in this particular by Cassianus de Incarnatione, lib. i. p. 1241.This next citation is several pages later and is on the same topic as above – it’s dealing with “arguments or reasons” put forward by those who think Christ would still have become incarnate even had Adam never sinned. Owen utilized the general outline of the arguments which Aquinas proposed, but Owen thought that the answers of Aquinas were “insufficient in many instances.”Section XXVI. Of the origin of the priesthood of Christ: Let us, therefore, now consider the arguments or reasons in particular which they plead who maintain this assertion. The principal of them were invented and made use of by some of the ancient schoolmen; and others have since given some improvement unto their conceptions, and added some of their own. Those of the first sort are collected by Thomas, 3 p. q. 1, a. 3, as traduced from the Pelagians. I shall examine them as by him proposed, omitting his answers, which I judge insufficient in many instances.This final example is also from the same section and just a few pages later. Owen offers a tongue-in-cheek agreement with the assertion by Thomas that we must look for answers to spiritual matters “in so far as they are transmitted in the sacred Scriptures”. Regardless of whether Thomas could have been more consistent in this matter (as Owen stated), in this case he was correct. He then also mentions another argument which Thomas brought forward regarding the “predestination of the man Christ Jesus”. Owen said that modern Scotists had improved upon this as well as “some divines of our own.”Section XXVI. Of the origin of the priesthood of Christ: But both these things were so ordered, in the wisdom of God, as that they might represent another union, in a state that God would bring in afterwards, namely, of Christ and his church. What Adam spake concerning the natural condition and relation of himself and Eve, that our apostle speaks concerning the spiritual and supernatural condition and relation of Christ and the church, because of some resemblance between them. Aquinas himself determines this whole matter, with an assertion which would have been to his own advantage to have attended unto upon other occasions. Saith he, “Ea quæ ex sola Dei voluntate proveniunt supra omne debitum creaturæ, nobis innotescere non possunt, nisi quatenus in sacra Scriptura traduntur, per quam divina voluntas innotescit. Unde cum in sacra Scriptura ubique incarnationis ratio ex peccato primi hominis assignetur, convenientius dicitur incarnationis opus ordinatum esse a Deo in commodum contra peccatum, quod peccato non existente incarnatio non fuisset.” (As translated from translate.com: “Those things which proceed from the will of God alone above all the debt of creatures, cannot be known to us, except in so far as they are transmitted in the sacred Scriptures, through which the divine will is known. Hence, when in the Holy Scriptures the reason for the incarnation is everywhere attributed to the sin of the first man, it is more fittingly said that the work of the incarnation was ordained by God for the benefit of sin, for if there had been no sin there would have been no incarnation.“)17. There is yet another argument mentioned by Aquinas, and much improved by the modern Scotists, insisted on also by some divines of our own, which deserves a somewhat fuller consideration; and this is taken from the predestination of the man Christ Jesus. This the schoolmen consider on that of our apostle, Rom. 1:4, “Concerning Jesus Christ, ὁρισθέντος Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει:” which the Vulgar renders, “Qui prædestinatus est Filius Dei in virtute;”—”Predestinate the Son of God with power,” as our Rhemists. But ὁρισθέντος there is no more than ἀποδεδειχθέντος, “manifested, declared,” as it is well rendered by ours. Nor can expositors fix any tolerable sense to their “predestinate” in this place. But the thing itself is true. The Lord Christ was predestinated or preordained before the world was. We were “redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, προεγνωσμένου πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου” 1 Pet. 1:20,—”foreordained” (“predestinated”) “before the foundation of the world.” Now, it is pleaded that “this predestination of Christ unto the grace of union and glory was the first of God’s purposes and decrees in order of nature, and antecedent unto the predestination of the elect, at least as it should comprise in it a purpose of deliverance from the fall. For God first designed to glorify himself in the assumption of human nature, before he decreed to save the elect by that nature so assumed; for we are said to be ‘chosen in him,’ that is, as our head, Eph. 1:4, whence it necessarily ensues that he was chosen before us, and so without respect unto us. So in all things was he to have the preeminence, Col. 1:19; and thence it is that we are ‘predestinated to be conformed to his image,’ Rom. 8:29. This preordination, therefore, of the Lord Christ, which was unto grace and glory, was antecedent unto the permission of the fall of man; so that he should have been incarnate had that never fallen out.”

This is a follow up to Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 in this blog series where I will go through the works of John Owen detailing where he has mentioned Thomas Aquinas. I hope that this series is helpful.In this fourth part, I would like to look at the mentions of Thomas Aquinas in Volume 14 of the Banner of Truth edition of Owen’s works. This volume is titled “True and False Religion”.As I mentioned previously, there are 20 of the 36 works which do not have any mention of Thomas Aquinas (not even in editorial footnotes). And from the other 16 books there are only 36 mentions of Thomas Aquinas. The first three parts covered 15 of those 36 mentions and this post will cover an additional 7. Including the information in this post, the 22 mentions of Aquinas only span 9 books. Counting the 20 without mentions, this is 29 of the 36 books which we will have covered by the end of this post.This post, dealing with only quotes from “Owen’s Works, Volume 14 – True and False Religion” will be broken into several sections below. They will deal with Thomas’s promotion of image worship, Owen’s statement that Thomas has provided a guideline for the articles of faith for the Catholic Church, and a section with a few brief general mentions.Mentions of Thomas Aquinas and his promotion of image worshipIn this passage, Owen points to the fact that Thomas should be included alongside the “great champions” of the Roman Catholic Church. From the Second Council of Nicea through Trent and the moderns, Thomas and the rest of them believed what Azorius was quoted as saying below: “It is the constant judgment of divines, that the image is to be worshipped with the same honour and worship wherewith that is worshipped whose image it is.” Furthermore, Owen correctly stated that “Thomas contendeth that the cross is to be worshipped with ‘latria’”. This is nothing less than “idolatry” (latria given to idols).Your church is fallen by idolatry, as otherwise, so in that religious veneration of images which she useth; 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,” as you do the posts that they are made of with gold, when, as the prophet speaks of your predecessors in that work, you lavish it out of the bag for that purpose. But to what purpose? Your first council, the second of Nice (which yet was not wholly yours neither, for it condemns Honorius, calls Tharasius the oecumenical patriarch, and he expounds in it the rock on which the church was built to be Christ, and not Peter); 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. Hence Azorius, Institut. lib. ix. cap. 6, tells us that “It is the constant judgment of divines, that the image is to be worshipped with the same honour and worship wherewith that is worshipped whose image it is.” The Nicene council, by the instigation of Pope Adrian, anathematizeth every one who doth but doubt of the adoration of images, act. 7. Thomas contendeth that the cross is to be worshipped with “latria,” p. 3, q. 25, a. 4; which is a word that he and you suppose to express religious worship of the highest sort. And your council of Trent, in their decree about this matter, confirmed the doctrine of that lestrical convention at Nice, whose frauds and impostures were never paralleled in the world but by itself.And here is Owen reiterating this same thing.In the meantime, the most prevalent opinion of your doctors is that of Thomas and his followers, “That images are to be adored with the same kind of worship wherewith that which they represent is to be worshipped.” And, therefore, whereas the Lord Christ is to be worshipped with ” latria,”—that which is peculiar, in yourjudgment, to God alone,—” it follows,” saith he, ” that his image is to be worshipped with the same worship also.” And as some of your learned men do boast that this indeed is the only approved opinion in this matter in your church, so the truth is, if you will speak congruously, and at any consistency with yourselves, it must be so; for whereas you lay the foundation of all your worship of them, be it of what sort it will, in that figment, that the honour which is done to the image redounds unto him whose image it is, if the honour done to the image be of an inferior sort and kind unto that which is due unto the exampler of it, by referring that honour thereunto, you debase and dishonour, it by ascribing less unto it than is its due. If, then, you intend to answer just expectation in this matter, the next time you speak of figures, pray consider what your Thomas teacheth as the doctrine of your church, 3 p. q. 25, as. 3, which Azorius says is the constant judgment of divines, lib. ix. cap. 6 as also the exposition of the Tridentine decree by Suarez, torn. i. d. 54, sect. 4 ; Yasquez, Costerus, Bellarmine, and others.And here is another paragraph on the same topic.Did you never read your Tridentine decrees, or the Nicene canons commended by them? is not the adoration of images asserted a hundred times expressly in it? Hath no man alive such thoughts? Are not only Thomas and Bonaventure, but Bellarmine, Gregory de Valentia, Baronius, Suarez, Vasquez, Azorius, with all the rest of your great champions, now utterly defeated, and have not one man left to be of their judgment? I would be glad to hear more of this matter. Speak plainly. Do you renounce all adoration and worship of images? is that the doctrine of your church? Prove it so, and I shall publicly acknowledge myself to have been a long time in a very great mistake.Mention of Thomas Aquinas as a guideline for the Catholic Articles of ReligionOwen mentioned that Thomas was indeed “the best and most sober of all your school doctors” and that he had laid out 522 articles of the Catholic Religion in his Summa Theologica. This Summa was so important that Owen would say to the Catholic that “much of the religion amongst some of you lies in not dissenting from them”. It wasn’t without reason that the Council of Trent laid the Summa alongside the Bible as one of its authorities.Lastly, The determinations of your church you make to be the next efficient cause of your unity. Now these, not being absolutely infallible, leave it, like Delos, flitting up and down in the sea of jwobabilities only. This we shall manifest unto you immediately; at least, we shall evidence that you have no cogent reasons nor stable grounds to prove your church infallible in her determinations. At present, it shall suffice to mind you that she hath determined contradictions, and that in as eminent a manner as it is possible for her to declare her sense by,—namely, by councils confirmed by popes ; and an infallible determination of contradictions is not a notion of any easy digestion in the thoughts of a man in his right wits. We confess, then, that we cannot agree with you in your rule of the unity of faith, though the thing itself we press after as our duty. For, (2.) Protestants do not conceive this unity 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 church or any other way. Your Thomas of Aquine, who without question is the best and most sober of all your school doctors, hath in one book given us five hundred and twenty-two articles of religion, which you esteem miraculously stated: “Quot articuli, tot miracula.” 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.General Mentions of Thomas AquinasHere, Thomas is offered as giving another definition of what idolatry is. He is also referred to derisively as the “angelical doctor.”Are idolatry and heresy the same? Tertullian, who, of all the old ecclesiastical writers, most enlargeth the bounds of idolatry, defines it to be ” Omnis circa omne idolum famulatus et servitus ;”—” Any worship or service performed in reference to or about any idol.” I do not remember that ever I met with your definition of idolatry in any author whatever. Bellarmine seems to place it in ” Creaturam aeque colere ac Deum;”—” To worship the creature as much or equally with the Creator:” which description of it, though it be vain and groundless (for his “seque” is neither in the Scripture nor any approved author of old required to the constituting of the worship of any creature idolatrous), yet is not this heresy neither, but that which differs from it ” toto genere.” We know it to be ” Cultus rehgiosus creaturge exhibitus,”—” Any religious worship of that which by nature is not God;” and so doth your Thomas grant it to be. … But if it will follow hence that your church is guilty only of lawful idolatry, I shall not much contend about it; yet I must tell you, that as the poor woman, when the physicians in her sickness told her still that what she complained of was a good sign, cried out, “Good signs have undone me,” —your lawful idolatry, if you take not better heed, will undo you. In the meantime, as to the coincidence you imagine between idolatry and heresy, I wish you would advise with your “angelical doctor” who will show you how they are contradistinct evils; which he therefore Aveighs in his scales, and determines which is the heaviest, 22se q. 94, a. ad 4.In this section, Owen is stating how he can produce “authentic instruments of [RCC] worship and prayers” with prayers to Thomas, among many others. Also note that he understood purgatory to be something that indulgences were used by the popes to grant time off of for those who sought them.Instead of this, he tells us that his Catholics do not invocate saints directly when I shall undertake (what he knows can be performed) to give him a book, bigger than this of his, of prayers allowed by his church, and practised by his Catholics, made unto saints directly, for help, assistance, yea, grace, mercy, and heaven, or desiring these things for their merit, and upon their account : which, as I showed, are the two main parts of their doctrine condemned by Protestants. I can quickly send him Bonaventure’s Psalter; Prayers out of the Course of Hours of the Blessed Virgin ; Our Lady’s Antiphonies of her Sorrows, her Seven Corporeal Joys, her Seven Heavenly Joys, out of her Rosary ; Prayers to St Paul, St James, Thomas, Pancratius, George, Blase, Christopher, whom not?—all made directly to them, and that for mercies spiritual and temporal ; and tell him how many years of indulgences, yea, thousands of years, his popes have granted to the saying of some of the like stamp: and all these, not out of musty legends, and the devotion of private monks and friars, but the authentic instruments of his church’s worship and prayers.This final citation from this work is a reference to “one of the angelical or seraphical doctors” of the Roman church who would undertake “very profound theological discourses”. The mention of an angelical doctor can only refer to Thomas.“Nor doth it stand with his nature and deity to change, dispense, or vary the first table of his law concerning himself, as he may the second, which concerns neighbours, for want of that dominion over himself which he hath over any creature, to take away its right, to preserve or destroy it, as himself pleaseth; and therefore you conclude, that if God had commanded his people to set up no images, he could not have commanded them to set up any, because this would imply a contradiction in himself.” A very profound theological discourse, which might become one of the angelical or seraphical doctors of your church! But who, I pray, told you that there was the same reason of all the commands of the first table? Vows and oaths are a part of the worship of God prescribed in the third commandment; yet, whatever God can do, your pope takes upon himself to dispense with them every day.

This is a follow up to Part 1 and Part 2 in this blog series where I will go through the works of John Owen detailing where he has mentioned Thomas Aquinas. I hope that this series is helpful.In this third part, I would like to look at two different types of usage. First will be a couple of disagreements in which Thomas is mentioned alone, not in a list of others. Second, there are what appear to be a few points of agreement, one where Thomas is mentioned alone and another among a few others. Also note that these first three posts do not deal with Owen’s usage of Aquinas in the Hebrews volumes. I believe I will begin working through those in part 5.As I mentioned previously, there are 20 of the 36 works that do not have any mention of Thomas Aquinas (not even in editorial footnotes). And from the other 16 books there are only 36 mentions of Thomas Aquinas. The first two parts covered 11 of those 36 mentions and this post will cover an additional 4. At this point, the 15 mentions of Aquinas only span 8 books. Counting the 20 without mentions, this is 28 of the 36 books which we will have covered by the end of this post.Mentions of Thomas Aquinas where Owen disagreed with himIn “Owen’s Works, Volume 03, Part 1 – Pneumatologia”, Owen offers a disagreement with Thomas regarding the means of revelation.1. Prophecy: The distinct outward manners and ways of revelation mentioned in the Scriptures may be reduced to three heads: 1. Voices; 2. Dreams; and 3. Visions.And there are two incidental adjuncts of it: 1. Symbolic actions; and 2. Local movements.The schoolmen, following Aquinas, 22. q. 174, a. 1, commonly reduce the means of revelation to three heads, for there are three ways by which we come to know anything — 1. By our external senses; 2. By impressions on the fantasy or imagination; and 3. By pure acts of the understanding.So God revealed his will to the prophets in three ways —1. By objects of their senses, such as audible voices;2. By impressions on the imagination in dreams and visions;3. By illustration or enlightening of their minds.But because this last way expresses divine inspiration, I cannot acknowledge it as a distinct way of revelation by itself — for it was absolutely necessary to give an infallible assurance of mind in the other ways also.In “Owen’s Works, Volume 12 – The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated”, he relates a discussion between Franken and Socinus regarding “a twofold religious worship”. Owen, of course, disagreed with the assertion by Thomas Aquinas that the same worship is due to an image of Christ or a crucifix that is due to Christ.XIX: The next argument of Franken, whereby he brought his adversary to another absurdity, had its rise from a distinction given by Socinus about a twofold religious worship;—one kind whereof, without any medium, was directed to God; the other is yielded him by Christ as a means. The first he says is proper to God, the other belongs to Christ only. Now, he is blind that doth not see that, for what he doth here to save himself, he doth but beg the thing in question. Who granted him that there was a twofold religious worship,—one of this sort, and another of that? Is it a sufficient answer, for a man to repeat his own hypothesis to answer an argument lying directly against it? He grants, indeed, upon the matter all that Franken desired,—namely, that Christ was not to be worshipped with that worship wherewith God is worshipped, and consequently not with divine. But Franken asks him whether this twofold worship was of the same kind or no? to which he answered, that it was because it abode not in Christ, but through him passed to God. Upon which, after the interposition of another entangling question, the man thus replies unto him: “This, then, will follow, that even the image of Christ is to be worshipped, because one and the same worship respects the image as the means, Christ as the end, as Thomas Aquinas tells us, from whom you borrowed your figment.” Yet this very fancy Socinus seems afterward to illustrate, by taking a book in his hand, sliding it along upon a table, showing how it passed by some hands where truly it was, but stayed not till it came to the end: for which gross allusion he was sufficiently derided by his adversary. I shall not insist on the other arguments wherewith on his own hypothesis he was miserably gravelled by this Franken, and after all his pretence of reason forced to cry out, “These are philosophical arguments, and contrary to the gospel.” The disputation is extant, with the notes of Socinus upon it, for his own vindication; which do not indeed one whit mend the matter. And of this matter thus far.Mentions of Thomas Aquinas where Owen agreed with himIn “Owen’s Works, Volume 10, Part 2 – The Death of Death in the Death of Christ”, Owen brings up an objection to free Grace that is made by Arminians in his day. Looking back over this one, Owen actually does mention Thomas here as being in line with Augustine and Calvin’s objections to the matter.Chapter 21: First, That which is now by some made to be a new doctrine of free Grace is indeed an old objection against it. That a non-necessity of satisfaction by Christ, as a consequent of eternal election, was more than once, for the substance of it, objected to Austin by the old Pelagian heretics, upon his clearing and vindicating, that doctrine, is most apparent. The same objection, renewed by others, is also answered by Calvin, Institut. lib. 2, cap. 16; as also divers schoolmen had before, in their way, proposed it to themselves, as Thom. 3. g. 49, a. 4. Yet, notwithstanding the apparent senselessness of the thing itself, together with the many solid answers whereby it was long before removed, the Arminians, at the Synod of Dort, greedily snatched it up again, and placed it in the very front of their arguments against the effectual redemption of the elect by Jesus Christ. Now, that which was in them only an objection is taken up by some amongst us as a truth, the absurd inconsequent consequence of it owned as just and good, and the conclusion deemed necessary, from the granting of election to the denial of satisfaction.And, finally, in “Owen’s Works, Volume 10, Part 1 – Display of Arminianism”, Owen is discussing God’s secret and revealed wills and how there must be some distinctions. This section starts with a quotation that can be found in Thomas and Owen also agrees with how Thomas says that the revealed will can only metaphorically be called God’s will as it is a sign of His will.Chapter 5: “Divinum velle est ejus esse,” 130 say the schoolmen: “The will of God is nothing but God willing;” it does not differ from his essence “secundem rem,” in the thing itself, but only “secundem rationem,” in a relation to the thing that is willed. The essence of God being a most absolute, pure, and simple act or substance, his will can only and simply be one; we ought to make neither division nor distinction in it. If what signifies God’s will was always taken properly and strictly for the eternal will of God, then the distinctions that are usually made about it, are distinctions about the signification of the word, rather than the thing itself.In this regard, these distinctions are not only tolerable, but necessary, because without them it is utterly impossible to reconcile some places of Scripture that are seemingly repugnant to one another. In the 22nd chapter of Gen, verse 2, God commands Abraham to take his only son Isaac, and offer him for a burnt-offering in the land of Moriah. Here the words of God declare some will of God to Abraham, who knew it ought to be performed, and thought little but that it should be. Yet, when he actually addressed himself to his duty, in obedience to the will of God, he received a countermand in verse 12, that he should not lay his hand upon the child to sacrifice him. The event plainly manifests that it was the will of God that Isaac should not be sacrificed; and yet notwithstanding, by reason of his command, Abraham beforehand seemed bound to believe that it was well-pleasing to God that he should accomplish what he was enjoined to do. If the will of God in the Scripture is conceived of in only one way, then here is a plain contradiction. Thus God commands Pharaoh to let his people go. Could Pharaoh think otherwise? No. Was he not bound to believe that it was the will of God that he should dismiss the Israelites at the first hearing of the message? Yet God affirms that he would harden Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not allow them to depart until God had showed his signs and wonders in the land of Egypt. To reconcile these and similar places in Scripture, the ancient fathers and schoolmen, along with modern divines, affirm that the one will of God may be said to be diverse or manifold with regard to the various ways by which he wills things to be done, and in other respects. Yet, taken in its proper signification, God’s will is simply one and the same. The common distinction between God’s secret will, and his revealed will, is such that all the other distinctions may be reduced to these two; and therefore I have chosen to insist upon it.The Secret Will of God is his eternal, unchangeable purpose concerning all things which he has made, to be brought to their appointed ends by certain means. He himself affirms that “his counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure,” Isaiah 46:10. Some call this the absolute, efficacious will of God, the will of his good pleasure, which is always fulfilled. Indeed this is the only proper, eternal, constant, immutable will of God, whose order can neither be broken nor its law transgressed, so long as there is neither change nor shadow of turning with him. Jas 1.17The Revealed Will of God does not contain his purpose and decree, but our duty – not what he will do according to his good pleasure, but what we should do if we would please him; and this will, consisting of his word, his precepts and promises, belongs to us and our children, so that we may do the will of God. Now this, indeed, is to< qelhto >n rather than to< qe >lhma – that which God wills, rather than his will – but what we call the will of a man is what he has determined shall be done: “This is the will of him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life,” says our Savior, John 6:40; that is, this is what his will has appointed. Hence it is called “voluntas signi,” or the sign of his will. It is only metaphorically called his will, says Aquinas; 131 for inasmuch as our commands are the signs of our wills, the same is said of the precepts of God. This is the rule of our obedience, the transgression of which makes an action sinful; for hJ aJmarti >a ejstia, “sin is the transgression of a law;” such a law is given to the transgressor to be observed. Now, God has not imposed on us the observation of his eternal decree and intention (his secret will); and as it is utterly impossible for us to transgress or frustrate it, we would be unblamable if we should. A master requires of his servant to do what he commands, not to accomplish what he intends, which perhaps he never revealed to him. No, the commands of superiors are not always signs that the commander would have the things commanded actually performed, but only that those who are subject to his command are obliged to obedience, as far as the sense of that extends. “Et hoc clarum est in praeceptis divinis,” says Durand,132 etc. – “And this is clear in the commands of God,” by which we are obliged to do what he commands. Yet it is not always his pleasure that the thing itself, in regard to the event, should be accomplished, as we saw before in the examples of Pharaoh and Abraham.Footnote 130: Aquinas, p. q. 19, ar. ad. 1.Footnote 131: Aquin., q. g. 19, a. 11, c.

This is a follow up to Part 1 in this blog series where I will go through the works of John Owen detailing where he has mentioned Thomas Aquinas. I hope that this series is helpful.In this second part, I would like to look at a couple of different types of usage that we find. First will be some cases where there is an editorial footnote that mentions Thomas Aquinas. Secondly, there will be a mention of a story that Thomas wrote about. Again, note that these first two posts do not deal with Owen’s usage of Aquinas in the Hebrews volumes. I believe I will begin working through those in part 5, I believe.As I mentioned in Part 1 of this series, 20 books out of the 36 works do not have any mention of Thomas Aquinas (not even in editorial footnotes). And from the other 16 books there are only 36 mentions of Thomas Aquinas. The first part covered 5 of those 36 mentions and this post will cover an additional 6.Mentions of Thomas Aquinas in Editorial FootnotesIn “Owen’s Works, Volume 03, Part 1 – Pneumatologia”, we have the following mention in Chapter 5. In a discussion of “disputes managed by some of the ancients” which Owen saw as “altogether needless”, the editor refers us to where both Aquinas and Ambrose discussed this. The context does make it appear that Owen had Aquinas in mind here as you can see from the footnote.The same work is assigned to both as causes of a different kind — it is assigned to the Holy Spirit as the active, efficient cause, who by his almighty power produced the effect. And the disputes managed by some of the ancients (350) about “de Spiritu Sancto” and “ex Spiritu Sancto” were altogether needless; for it is his creating efficiency that is intended. And his conceiving is ascribed to the holy Virgin as the passive, material cause; for his body was formed of her substance, as declared before. And this conception of Christ was after her solemn espousals to Joseph, and that was for various reasons; Footnote 350: For example, Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Third Part, ‘Treatise on the Incarnation,’ q. 32, point 2. Reply to Objection 1: Christ’s body, through not being consubstantial with the Holy Ghost, cannot properly be said to be conceived “of” [de] the Holy Ghost, but rather “from [ex] the Holy Ghost,” as Ambrose says (De Spir. Sanct. ii.): “What is from someone is either from his substance or from his power: from his substance, as the Son who is from the Father; from his power, as all things are from God, just as Mary conceived from the Holy Ghost.”And in “Owen’s Works, Volume 03, Part 2 – Pneumatologia”, Owen mentioned the schoolmen and there is a footnote defining what Scholasticism is and who some of them were.Schoolmen: Scholasticism is a method of critical thought taught in medieval universities in Europe c. 1100-1700. Practitioners were called “scholastics” or “schoolmen.” They included Aquinas, Anselm, Abelard, Scotus, Bernard of Clairvaux, et al.In “Owen’s Works, Volume 10, Part 1 – Display of Arminianism” we have two mentions in Chapter 14 of Aquinas in footnotes only (later we will see him mentioned in the text along with other footnotes to the Summa).In this first one, Owen stated that Diego Alvarez demonstrated something the schoolmen “universally consented to this truth” about. And in the footnote, it is just stated that Aquinas’ commentaries were often used in opposition to Molinism.So certain is God of accomplishing all his purposes, that he confirms it with an oath: “The LORD of hosts has sworn, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand,” Isaiah 14:24. And indeed it would be a very strange thing if God intended what he foresees will never come to pass. But I confess this argument will not be pressing against the Arminians, who question that prescience of God. Yet, they should also observe from the Scripture that the failing of wicked men’s counsels and intentions is a thing that God is said to “deride in heaven,” as in Psalm 2:4. He threatens them with it. “Take counsel together,” he says, “and it shall come to nothing; speak the word, and it shall not stand,” Isaiah 8:10. See also chapter 29:7-8. And shall they be enabled to recriminate, and cast a similar aspersion on the God of heaven? No, surely. Says St. Austin, “Let us take heed that we are not compelled to believe that Almighty God would have anything done which does not come to pass.” 149 The schoolmen have universally consented to this truth, also, as shown by Alvarez, Disput. 32, pro. 3. 150 Footnote 150: Probably Diego Alvarez (1550-1635), who represented the Dominicans in a dispute concerning the heretical teachings of the Spanish Jesuit Luis de Molina (from whom ‘Molinism’ arose, c.1558). A debate ensued (Congregatio de Auxiliis) that didn’t end until 1607 when the Dominicans and the Jesuits agreed to disagree. By decree of the Inquisition in Dec 1611, intended to keep the peace between these two factions, no book could be published pro or con about efficacious grace without the consent of the Holy See. That prohibition lasted through most of the 17th century – although Thomas Aquinas’ commentaries were often quoted by the Dominicans in opposition to Molinism.In this second example from Chapter 14, the Summa is given as an example where Aquinas was citing Augustine and discussing how the number of the elect is set. It would appear that Owen does have Aquinas in mind by the language used by Owen and that provided in the editorial footnote.The article is clear that the object of this predestination is some particular men chosen out of mankind; that is, it is an act of God that concerns some men in particular. It is taking them aside, as it were, from the midst of their brothers, and designing them for some special end and purpose. The Scripture also abounds in asserting this truth, calling those who are so chosen a “few,” Mat 20:16 – which must denote some certain persons; and the “remnant according to election,” Rom 11:5; those whom “the Lord knows to be his,” 2Tim 2:19; men “ordained to eternal life,” Acts 13:48; “us,” Rom 8:39; those whose names are “written in the Lamb’s book of life,” Rev 21:27. All of these verses and various others, clearly prove that the number of the elect is certain – not only materially, as the Arminians say, that there are only so many [unspecified persons], but formally also: they are these particular persons and no others, which cannot be altered. 160 The very nature of the thing itself so demonstrably evinces it, that I wonder that it could possibly be conceived of under any other notion. To apprehend an election of men that is not circumscribed to particular persons, is such a conceited, Platonical abstraction, that it seems strange for anyone to dare profess to understand that there can be predestination, and yet none are predestined; an election, and yet none are elected; a choice among many, and yet none are left or taken; a decree to save men, and yet salvation by that decree is destined for no one man – either in deed or in expectation.161 In a word, asserting that there can be a purpose of God to bring men to glory, which stands inviolable, even though no one ever attained the purposed end, is such a riddle that no Oedipus can unfold it.Footnote 160: Aquinas Summa Theologica, Quest 23, Predistination; Art. 7 Obj. 3: Augustine says (De Corr. et Grat. 13): “The number of the predestined is certain, and can neither be increased nor diminished.” I answer that, The number of the predestined is certain. Some have said that it was formally, but not materially certain; as if we were to say that it was certain that a hundred or a thousand would be saved; not however these or those individuals. But this destroys the certainty of predestination; of which we spoke above (Article 6). Therefore we must say that to God the number of the predestined is certain, not only formally, but also materially. It must, however, be observed that the number of the predestined is said to be certain to God, not by reason of His knowledge, because, that is to say, He knows how many will be saved (for in this way the number of drops of rain and the sands of the sea are certain to God); but by reason of His deliberate choice and determination.Mention of story that Thomas Aquinas wrote aboutIn both “Owen’s Works, Volume 08 – Sermons to the Nations” (Sermon 1) and “Owen’s Works, Volume 10, Part 1 – Display of Arminianism”, we see that Owen related a story that Thomas wrote about. As his wording is quite similar in both volumes, I will just cite from Volume 10, Chapter 11 below.It is true, indeed, that some of the ancient fathers, before the rising of the Pelagian heresy, had so put on Christ, as Lipsius put it, that they had not fully put off Plato. They unadvisedly released some speeches seeming to grant that various men before the incarnation, who were living “according to the dictates of right reason,” might be saved without faith in Christ. This is well-shown by the learned Casaubon in his first Exercitation on Baronius. But let this be accounted part of that stubble which shall burn at the last day, with which the writings of all men who are not divinely inspired may be stained. It has also since (and what has not?) been drawn into dispute among the wrangling schoolmen. And yet (which is rarely seen) their verdict in this particular almost unanimously affirms the truth of it. Aquinas tells us a story of the corpse of a heathen that was to be taken up in the time of the Empress Irene and her son Constantine; he had a golden plate on his breast, in which was this inscription: “Christ is born of a virgin, and I believe in him. O sun, you shall see me again in the days of Irene and Constantine.” But the question is not whether a Gentile believing in Christ may be saved, or whether God revealed himself and his Son extraordinarily to some of them. For shall we straiten the breast and shorten the arm of the Almighty, as though he might not do what he will with his own? The question is whether a man may come to heaven by the conduct of nature, without the knowledge of Christ,? This is the assertion which we condemn as a wicked, Pelagian, Socinian heresy. We think it was well said by Bernard, “That many laboring to make Plato a Christian, prove themselves to be heathens.”

Recently, Carl Trueman has stated the following: “I had a breakthrough on John Owen when I realized how often he cited Thomas Aquinas in his marginal notes in his texts. Struck me as odd.”With this in mind, I would like to begin looking through just how extensive this usage really is, since this is a topic that tends to be brought up often.As a bit of a preliminary, I have been utilizing the epub version of the books of Owen available at monergism.org along with comparing these with the Banner of Truth volumes (which yields 36 total books). This way, you can feel free to look for yourself and compare my results without cost. Secondly, I have attempted to compile my list using the Banner of Truth volume numbers (which were not part of the listing at monergism.org) as closely as I could match the book with the contents of the Banner of Truth editions. Finally, regarding how I determined whether Thomas was mentioned, I performed several searches such as searching for “Aquinas”, “Thomas”, and even “Angelic Doctor” (as Owen referred to him in only two works) and reviewing the context.Before I get to the content of the post below, I wish to provide a list of the 20 books out of the 36 works which do not have any mention of Thomas Aquinas (not even in editorial footnotes). And to give you an idea of how long this blog series may be, from the other 16 books there are only 36 mentions of Thomas Aquinas (5 of which will be covered in this post). Finally, I would note that this does not count Owen’s “Biblical Theology” in the list. In that book, Aquinas is mentioned often and with sharp disagreement. I will have a post covering some of that book as well.Books With No Mention of Thomas AquinasChurch OfficersThe Excellency of ChristAn Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol. 6 – 8:1 – 10:39The Lord’s Supper Fully ConsideredOwen’s Works, Volume 01 – The Glory of ChristOwen’s Works, Volume 04, Part 1 – The Work Of The Holy Spirit In PrayerOwen’s Works, Volume 04, Part 2 – The Work of the Holy Spirit in RegenerationOwen’s Works, Volume 05, Part 2 – Evidences of FaithOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 1 – Mortification of SinOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 2 – Of TemptationOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 3 – The Remainders of Indwelling Sin in BelieversOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 4 – The Forgiveness of SinOwen’s Works, Volume 07, Part 1 – Apostasy from the GospelOwen’s Works, Volume 07, Part 2 – The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually MindedOwen’s Works, Volume 09 – Sermons to the ChurchOwen’s Works, Volume 12 – A Treatise of the Dominion of Sin and GraceOwen’s Works, Volume 13, Part 2 – Duties of Christian FellowshipOwen’s Works, Volume 15, Part 2 – Evangelical Love, Church Peace, and UnityOwen’s Works, Volume 16, Part 1 – The True Nature of a Gospel ChurchWalking Humbly With GodIn this first part, I want to look at some of the mentions of Thomas Aquinas (outside of the 7 volumes on Hebrews) where John Owen was including Thomas in a list of others who subscribed to a certain viewpoint on various doctrines. Let us take a brief look at this type of reference to Thomas.In “Owen’s Works, Volume 02, Part 3 – A Brief Declaration and Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity” we find Owen saying that Aquinas was among those schoolmen who many Lutheran authors (with whom Owen agreed) were stating had an improper view of the satisfaction of Christ as it relates to pardon of sin. Owen even said that the belief of Aquinas opened a way for the Socinian error on the same matter:To the Reader: The Lutherans who have managed these controversies, as Tarnovius, Meisnerus, Calovius, Stegmannus, Martinius, Franzius, with all others of their way, have constantly maintained the same great fundamental principle of this doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ; and it hath well and solidly been of late asserted among ourselves on the same foundation. And as many of these 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 of this principle of God’s vindictive justice indispensably requiring the punishment of sin, doth not only weaken the cause of the truth, but indeed leave it indefensible. However, I suppose men ought to be wary how they censure the authors mentioned, as such who expose the cause they undertook to defend unto contempt; for greater, more able, and learned defenders, this truth hath not as yet found, nor doth stand in need of.In “Owen’s Works, Volume 05, Part 1 – The Doctrine of Justification by Faith” we find Thomas also listed among others who held to a viewpoint with which Owen disagreed. It is of great note here is that Owen accuses Thomas of being so beholden to Aristotelian philosophy that they followed him even on their doctrine of justification. He said that Thomas ought to be no guide for us on the doctrine of justification.“General considerations: 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. For any to use them now in the same way, and to the same purpose, is esteemed rude, undisciplinary, and even ridiculous; but on what grounds? 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. The propriety of such expressions belongs and is confined unto natural science; but spiritual truths are to be taught, “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” God is wiser than man; and the Holy Ghost knows better what are the most expedient ways for the illumination of our minds with that knowledge of evangelical truths which it is our duty to have and attain, than the wisest of us all. 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 wherewithal.Next, we find in “Owen’s Works, Volume 11 – The Doctrine of the Saint’s Perseverance Explained and Confirmed” that Owen had some lengthy discussions in his Preface about beliefs that Thomas Bradwardin and Thomas Aquinas held to. It was only in this work and in Volume 14, on “True and False Religion” that Owen referred to Thomas as the “Angelical Doctor” – as the context shows, he was not using this as a title with approval. Owen states that Bradwardin and many following him had tried to get multiple Popes to issue some sentence against the Pelagianism which was creeping into the Roman Church. Owen would summarize it by stating that “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.” Basically, even though there were some “deviations” (such as implicit faith and the efficacy of the sacraments – i.e. baptism regenerated a person and made that person an actual believer, though possibly not one of the elect), there were some things that the current Pope, Innocent X, should have been able to use from those schoolmen which could be used to combat rising Pelagianism in the Church of Rome. The following 3 sections of quotations are all from the Preface and are all close to each other in the same discussion, but they are not consecutive.Preface to the Reader: With this earnestness, above three hundred years ago, did this profoundly learned man [Bradwardin] press the popes to a determination of these controversies against the Pelagians and their successors in his schools. The same suit hath ever since been continued by very many learned men (in every age) of the communion of the church of Rome, crying out for the papal definitive sentence against the Pelagian errors crept into their church; especially hath this outcry with supplication been renewed by the Dominican friars, ever since the Jesuits have so cunningly gilded over that Pelagian poison, and set it out as the best and most wholesome food for “”holy mother”” and her children. Yea, with such earnestness hath this been in the last age pursued by agents in the court of Rome, that (a congregation de auxiliis being purposely appointed) it was generally supposed one while that they would have prevailed in their suit, and have obtained a definitive sentence on their side against their adversaries. But through the just vengeance of God upon a pack of bloody, persecuting idolaters, giving them up more and more to the belief of lies, contrary almost to the expectation of all men, this very year, 1653, Pope Innocent X., who now wears the triple crown, conjured by the subtlety and dreadful interest of the Jesuits in all nations that as yet wonder after him, by a solemn bull, or papal consistorian determination, in the case of Jansenius, bishop of Ypres, hath turned the scales upon his first suppliants, and cast the cause on the Pelagian side. But of that whole business elsewhere.I shall not perplex the reader with the horrid names of Trombet, 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, may quickly be made evident by some few instances clearing his judgment herein.And this assertion of the Angelical Doctor is notably confirmed by Didacus Alvarez in his vindication of it from the exception of Medina, that we make use of habits when we will, and if men will make use of their habitual grace, they may persevere without relation to any after grace of God. Saith he, “Respondetur, habitibus quidem nos uti cum volumus, sed ut velimus illis uti, prærequiritur motio Dei efficax, præmovens liberum arbitrium, ut utatur habitu ad operandum, et operetur bonum, præsertim quando habitus sunt supernaturales; quia cum pertineant ad superiorem ordinem, habent specialem rationem, propter quam potentia mere naturalis non utitur eisdem habitibus, nisi speciali Dei auxilio moveatur,” Alvar. De Aux. lib. x. disput. 100. Though received graces are reckoned by him as supernatural habits, yet such as we act not by, nor with, but from new supplies from God.Having laid down this principle, Thomas proceeds to manifest that there is a special grace of perseverance bestowed by God on some, and that on whomsoever it is bestowed, they certainly and infallibly persevere to the end, pp. quest. 109, a. 10, c.; and Contra Gent. lib. iii. he proves this assertion from p. 6, 1 Pet. 5:10; Ps. 16.But, to spare the reader, I shall give you this man’s judgment, together with one of his followers, who hath had the happiness to clear his master’s mind above any that have undertaken the maintenance of his doctrine in that part now controverted in the church of Rome; and therein I shall manifest (what I formerly proposed) what beamings and irradiations of this truth do yet glide through that gross darkness which is spread upon the face of the Romish synagogue;—referring what I have farther to add on this head to the account which, God assisting, I shall ere long give of the present Jansenian controversies, in my considerations on Mr Biddle’s catechisms, a task by authority lately imposed on me.The second principle this learned schoolman insists on is, that this gift of perseverance is peculiar to the elect, or predestinate: Disput. 104, 1, Con. “”Donum perseverantiæ est proprium prædestinatorum, ut nulli alteri conveniat.”” And what he intends by “”prædestinati,”” he informs you according to the judgment of Austin and Thomas: “”Nomine prædestinationis ad gloriam, solum cam prædestinationem intelligunt (Augustinus et Thomas) qua electi ordinantur efficaciter, et transmittuntur ad vitam æternam; cujus effectus sunt vocatio, justificatio, et perseverantia in gratia usque ad finem.”” Not that (or such a) conditional predestination as is pendent in the air, and expectant of men’s good final deportment; but that which is the eternal, free fountain of all that grace whereof in time by Jesus Christ we are made partakers.And in the pursuit of this proposition, he farther proves at large that the perseverance given to the saints in Christ is not a supplement of helps and advantages, whereby they may preserve it if they will, but such as causes them on whom it is bestowed certainly and actually so to do; and that, in its efficacy and operation, it cannot depend on any free co-operation of our wills, all the good acts tending to our perseverance being fruits of that grace which is bestowed on us, according to the absolute unchangeable decree of the will of God.This, 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 Romanists, 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.The above citations where Aquinas was listed among others by John Owen are all of the ones of that type outside of those in some of his volumes on Hebrews. As you can see above, there were three works of this type. In two of them, Owen was clearly opposed to Aquinas. And in the third example, Owen thought that Bradwardin and Aquinas could be useful only insofar as being able to help combat Pelagianism in the Roman Church.

Recently, Carl Trueman has stated the following: “I had a breakthrough on John Owen when I realized how often he cited Thomas Aquinas in his marginal notes in his texts. Struck me as odd.”With this in mind, I would like to begin looking through just how extensive this usage really is, since this is a topic that tends to be brought up often.As a bit of a preliminary, I have been utilizing the epub version of the 35 books of Owen available at monergism.org. This way, you can feel free to look for yourself and compare my results without cost. Secondly, I have attempted to compile my list using the Banner of Truth volume numbers (which were not part of the listing at monergism.org) as closely as I could match the book with the contents of the Banner of Truth editions. Finally, regarding how I determined whether Thomas was mentioned, I performed several searches such as searching for “Aquinas”, “Thomas”, and even “Angelic Doctor” (as Owen referred to him in only one work) and reviewing the context.Before I get to the content of the post below, I wish to provide a list of the 19 books out of the 35 works which do not have any mention of Thomas Aquinas (not even in editorial footnotes). And to give you an idea of how long this blog series may be, from the other 16 books there are only 26 mentions of Thomas Aquinas (5 of which will be covered in this post). Finally, I would note that this does not count Owen’s “Biblical Theology” in the list. In that book, Aquinas is mentioned often and with sharp disagreement. I will have a post covering some of that book as well.Books With No Mention of Thomas AquinasChurch OfficersThe Excellency of ChristAn Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol. 6 – 8:1 – 10:39The Lord’s Supper Fully ConsideredOwen’s Works, Volume 01 – The Glory of ChristOwen’s Works, Volume 04, Part 1 – The Work Of The Holy Spirit In PrayerOwen’s Works, Volume 04, Part 2 – The Work of the Holy Spirit in RegenerationOwen’s Works, Volume 05, Part 2 – Evidences of FaithOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 1 – Mortification of SinOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 2 – Of TemptationOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 3 – The Remainders of Indwelling Sin in BelieversOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 4 – The Forgiveness of SinOwen’s Works, Volume 07, Part 1 – Apostasy from the GospelOwen’s Works, Volume 07, Part 2 – The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually MindedOwen’s Works, Volume 12 – A Treatise of the Dominion of Sin and GraceOwen’s Works, Volume 13, Part 2 – Duties of Christian FellowshipOwen’s Works, Volume 15, Part 2 – Evangelical Love, Church Peace, and UnityOwen’s Works, Volume 16, Part 1 – The True Nature of a Gospel ChurchWalking Humbly With GodIn this first part, I want to look at some of the mentions of Thomas Aquinas (outside of the 7 volumes on Hebrews) where John Owen was including Thomas in a list of others who subscribed to a certain viewpoint on various doctrines. Let us take a brief look at this type of reference to Thomas.In “A Brief Declaration and Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity” we find Owen saying that Aquinas was among those schoolmen who many Lutheran authors (with whom Owen agreed) were stating had an improper view of the satisfaction of Christ as it relates to pardon of sin. Owen even said that the belief of Aquinas opened a way for the Socinian error on the same matter:To the Reader: The Lutherans who have managed these controversies, as Tarnovius, Meisnerus, Calovius, Stegmannus, Martinius, Franzius, with all others of their way, have constantly maintained the same great fundamental principle of this doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ; and it hath well and solidly been of late asserted among ourselves on the same foundation. And as many of these 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 of this principle of God’s vindictive justice indispensably requiring the punishment of sin, doth not only weaken the cause of the truth, but indeed leave it indefensible. However, I suppose men ought to be wary how they censure the authors mentioned, as such who expose the cause they undertook to defend unto contempt; for greater, more able, and learned defenders, this truth hath not as yet found, nor doth stand in need of.In “Owen’s Works, Volume 05, Part 1 – The Doctrine of Justification by Faith” we find Thomas also listed among others who held to a viewpoint with which Owen disagreed. It is of great note here is that Owen accuses Thomas of being so beholden to Aristotelian philosophy that they followed him even on their doctrine of justification. He said that Thomas ought to be no guide for us on the doctrine of justification.“General considerations: 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. For any to use them now in the same way, and to the same purpose, is esteemed rude, undisciplinary, and even ridiculous; but on what grounds? 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. The propriety of such expressions belongs and is confined unto natural science; but spiritual truths are to be taught, “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” God is wiser than man; and the Holy Ghost knows better what are the most expedient ways for the illumination of our minds with that knowledge of evangelical truths which it is our duty to have and attain, than the wisest of us all. 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 wherewithal.Next, we find in “Owen’s Works, Volume 11 – The Doctrine of the Saint’s Perseverance Explained and Confirmed” that Owen had some lengthy discussions in his Preface about beliefs that Thomas Bradwardin and Thomas Aquinas held to. It was only in this work that Owen referred to Thomas as the “Angelical Doctor” – as the context shows, he was not using this as a title with approval. Owen states that Bradwardin and many following him had tried to get multiple Popes to issue some sentence against the Pelagianism which was creeping into the Roman Church. Owen would summarize it by stating that “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.” Basically, even though there were some “deviations” (such as implicit faith and the efficacy of the sacraments – i.e. baptism regenerated a person and made that person an actual believer, though possibly not one of the elect), there were some things that the current Pope, Innocent X, should have been able to use from those schoolmen which could be used to combat rising Pelagianism in the Church of Rome. The following 3 sections of quotations are all from the Preface and are all close to each other in the same discussion, but they are not consecutive.Preface to the Reader: With this earnestness, above three hundred years ago, did this profoundly learned man [Bradwardin] press the popes to a determination of these controversies against the Pelagians and their successors in his schools. The same suit hath ever since been continued by very many learned men (in every age) of the communion of the church of Rome, crying out for the papal definitive sentence against the Pelagian errors crept into their church; especially hath this outcry with supplication been renewed by the Dominican friars, ever since the Jesuits have so cunningly gilded over that Pelagian poison, and set it out as the best and most wholesome food for “”holy mother”” and her children. Yea, with such earnestness hath this been in the last age pursued by agents in the court of Rome, that (a congregation de auxiliis being purposely appointed) it was generally supposed one while that they would have prevailed in their suit, and have obtained a definitive sentence on their side against their adversaries. But through the just vengeance of God upon a pack of bloody, persecuting idolaters, giving them up more and more to the belief of lies, contrary almost to the expectation of all men, this very year, 1653, Pope Innocent X., who now wears the triple crown, conjured by the subtlety and dreadful interest of the Jesuits in all nations that as yet wonder after him, by a solemn bull, or papal consistorian determination, in the case of Jansenius, bishop of Ypres, hath turned the scales upon his first suppliants, and cast the cause on the Pelagian side. But of that whole business elsewhere.I shall not perplex the reader with the horrid names of Trombet, 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, may quickly be made evident by some few instances clearing his judgment herein.And this assertion of the Angelical Doctor is notably confirmed by Didacus Alvarez in his vindication of it from the exception of Medina, that we make use of habits when we will, and if men will make use of their habitual grace, they may persevere without relation to any after grace of God. Saith he, “Respondetur, habitibus quidem nos uti cum volumus, sed ut velimus illis uti, prærequiritur motio Dei efficax, præmovens liberum arbitrium, ut utatur habitu ad operandum, et operetur bonum, præsertim quando habitus sunt supernaturales; quia cum pertineant ad superiorem ordinem, habent specialem rationem, propter quam potentia mere naturalis non utitur eisdem habitibus, nisi speciali Dei auxilio moveatur,” Alvar. De Aux. lib. x. disput. 100. Though received graces are reckoned by him as supernatural habits, yet such as we act not by, nor with, but from new supplies from God.Having laid down this principle, Thomas proceeds to manifest that there is a special grace of perseverance bestowed by God on some, and that on whomsoever it is bestowed, they certainly and infallibly persevere to the end, pp. quest. 109, a. 10, c.; and Contra Gent. lib. iii. he proves this assertion from p. 6, 1 Pet. 5:10; Ps. 16.But, to spare the reader, I shall give you this man’s judgment, together with one of his followers, who hath had the happiness to clear his master’s mind above any that have undertaken the maintenance of his doctrine in that part now controverted in the church of Rome; and therein I shall manifest (what I formerly proposed) what beamings and irradiations of this truth do yet glide through that gross darkness which is spread upon the face of the Romish synagogue;—referring what I have farther to add on this head to the account which, God assisting, I shall ere long give of the present Jansenian controversies, in my considerations on Mr Biddle’s catechisms, a task by authority lately imposed on me.The second principle this learned schoolman insists on is, that this gift of perseverance is peculiar to the elect, or predestinate: Disput. 104, 1, Con. “”Donum perseverantiæ est proprium prædestinatorum, ut nulli alteri conveniat.”” And what he intends by “”prædestinati,”” he informs you according to the judgment of Austin and Thomas: “”Nomine prædestinationis ad gloriam, solum cam prædestinationem intelligunt (Augustinus et Thomas) qua electi ordinantur efficaciter, et transmittuntur ad vitam æternam; cujus effectus sunt vocatio, justificatio, et perseverantia in gratia usque ad finem.”” Not that (or such a) conditional predestination as is pendent in the air, and expectant of men’s good final deportment; but that which is the eternal, free fountain of all that grace whereof in time by Jesus Christ we are made partakers.And in the pursuit of this proposition, he farther proves at large that the perseverance given to the saints in Christ is not a supplement of helps and advantages, whereby they may preserve it if they will, but such as causes them on whom it is bestowed certainly and actually so to do; and that, in its efficacy and operation, it cannot depend on any free co-operation of our wills, all the good acts tending to our perseverance being fruits of that grace which is bestowed on us, according to the absolute unchangeable decree of the will of God.This, 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 Romanists, 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.The above citations where Aquinas was listed among others by John Owen are all of the ones of that type outside of those in some of his volumes on Hebrews. As you can see above, there were three works of this type. In two of them, Owen was clearly opposed to Aquinas. And in the third example, Owen thought that Bradwardin and Aquinas could be useful only insofar as being able to help combat Pelagianism in the Roman Church.

Dr. Jeffrey Johnson has written another excellent book dealing with the issue of the utilization of Greek Philosophy as the lens through which a Christian must look in order to have a “Classical” understanding of God. Dr. Johnson’s concern is for the believer to not feel that he must place undue emphasis on certain Greek Metaphysical and Philosophical notions. As the title states, Dr. Johnson is introducing what he calls “Biblical Classical Theism” as it is contrasted with what he refers to as “Philosophical Classical Theism.”In Part One, “The God of Natural Revelation”, Dr. Johnson relates to us the ways that God has revealed Himself in Nature. “Natural revelation is the efficacious communication of God in all His creative works whereby He clearly, instantaneously, continuously, and freely reveals Himself to all humanity.” God has told us specific things in an effective way in his Creation. Moving into Part Two, “Pagan Philosophy”, Dr. Johnson discusses how philosophy (i.e. Natural Theology) cannot ultimately give us the answers to HOW God can be a personal God who is also transcendent over His creation. Part Three is about “The God of Christian Philosophy” and outlines various ways that Christians have sought to reconcile Philosophy with both Natural and Special Revelation. We see chapters on Christian Platonism, Christian Rationalism, and Christian Existentialism. These lead into the discussion of “Philosophical Classical Theism.” There are certainly some contradictions involved in attempting to reconcile Philosophy and Revelation. Two of the primary issues are that Natural Theology cannot account for creation ex nihilo or that God can actually have “free will”.In Part Four, Dr. Johnson comes to a discussion of “Special Revelation” and its necessary and primary place in man’s understanding of the being of God. Pagan Philosophy simply cannot account for certain truths in Scripture. Some of these were mentioned above. Also, the Trinity is a doctrine understood from Special Revelation. The doctrine of the Trinity is a wrench in the Philosophical notion of an unmoved mover – we can see Biblically that there are descriptions of ad intra relations among the Persons of the Godhead. Dr. Johnson stated the following in referring to others in the past who have spoken of an intra-Trinitarian love:“The Westminster Divine, Daniel Burgess (1645-1713), stated: ‘The infinite glory of the divine persons, shines in their relations one to the other… their blessedness consist in their loving, and being loved of one another.’” and “Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680) claimed: ‘If the divine nature had not afforded in having in it three persons really distinct, knowing, rejoicing in, glorying of, and speaking unto each other, there had not been a perfection of blessedness.’”The final chapters (19 and 20) on “The Relational God of Scripture” and “The Sufficiency of Scripture” are must-read chapters in this current discussion. I will end this review with something Dr. Johnson stated in Chapter 19:“There is only one God, and that is the God of the Bible. It is He who made us (Gen. 1:27). It is He who speaks to us (Gen. 1:28). It is He who commands us (Gen. 1:29). It is He who entered a covenant with us (Gen. 2:15-17). It is the One who exiled us, sinners, from His presence (Gen. 3:24) who sent His only Son to redeem us from our sins and bring us back into His presence (John 3:16). How does the Bible define God? To ask this question is to ask how God defines Himself, for the Bible is God’s Word. If we want to know God, this is all that matters. The so-called wise men of this world will say what they will about the nature of God, but the only thing that matters is what God says about Himself.”