The Oxford Handbook Of The Reception Of Aquinas Matthew Levering Marcus Plested

The Oxford Handbook Of The Reception Of Aquinas
Matthew Levering Marcus Plested download
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-
reception-of-aquinas-matthew-levering-marcus-plested-56348076
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
The Oxford Handbook Of The Reception Of Aquinas Levering Matthew
Plested
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-reception-of-
aquinas-levering-matthew-plested-58594442
The Oxford Handbook Of The Reception History Of The Bible 1st Edition
Michael Lieb
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-reception-
history-of-the-bible-1st-edition-michael-lieb-34784712
The Oxford Handbook Of The Hollywood Musical Dominic Broomfieldmchugh
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-hollywood-
musical-dominic-broomfieldmchugh-44875334
The Oxford Handbook Of The Bible In Orthodox Christianity Eugen J
Pentiuc
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-bible-in-
orthodox-christianity-eugen-j-pentiuc-44991396

The Oxford Handbook Of The Archaeology Of Roman Germany Simon James
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-archaeology-
of-roman-germany-simon-james-45369512
The Oxford Handbook Of The Jewish Diaspora Hasia R Diner
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-jewish-
diaspora-hasia-r-diner-46488370
The Oxford Handbook Of The Economics Of Religion Rachel M Mccleary
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-economics-of-
religion-rachel-m-mccleary-46561938
The Oxford Handbook Of The International Law Of Global Security Robin
Gei Editor
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-
international-law-of-global-security-robin-gei-editor-46822758
The Oxford Handbook Of The History Of Ethics Roger Crisp
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-history-of-
ethics-roger-crisp-47937134

The Oxford Handbook of
THE RECEPTION
OF AQUINAS

The Oxford Handbook of
THE
RECEPTION
OF AQUINAS
Edited by
MATTHEW LEVERING
and
MARCUS PLESTED
1

1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Oxford University Press 2021
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
First Edition published in 2021
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2020940646
ISBN 978–0–19–879802–6
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, cr0 4yy
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

Contents
List of Contributors ix
Preface: Contextualizing Our Handbook xv
Matthew Levering and Marcus Plested
Acknowledgements xxi
1. Saint Thomas and His Sources 1
Jean-Pierre Torrell, OP
PART I MEDIEVAL RECEPTIONS
2. Thirteenth-Century Engagements with Thomas Aquinas 23
Corey L. Barnes
3. Τhomas Aquinas’ Reception in Fourteenth-Century Byzantium 38
Ioannis Polemis
4. Duns Scotus and William of Ockham 53
Richard Cross
5. Fourteenth-Century Western Reception of Aquinas in
Meister Eckhart, Hervaeus Natalis, and Durandus of St-Pourçain68
Isabel Iribarren
6. Fifteenth-Century Eastern Reception of Aquinas 81
Pantelis Golitsis
7. The Western Reception of Aquinas in the Fifteenth Century 93
Efrem Jindráček, OP
PART II REFORMATION AND
COUNTER-REFORMATION RECEPTIONS
8. Sixteenth-Century Reception of Aquinas by Luther
and Lutheran Reformers 105
David Luy

9. Sixteenth-Century Reformed Reception of Aquinas 121
David S. Sytsma
10. Sixteenth-Century Reception of Aquinas by Cajetan 144
Cajetan Cuddy, OP
11. Sixteenth-Century Reception of Aquinas by the Council
of Trent and Its Main Authors 159
Romanus Cessario, OP
12. Aquinas and the Emergence of Moral Theology during
the Spanish Renaissance 173
David M. Lantigua
13. Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Reception of
Aquinas in the East 191
Klaus-Peter Todt
PART III BAROQUE RECEPTIONS
14. The Reception of Thomas Aquinas in Seventeenth-Century
Reformed Orthodoxy and Anglicanism 207
Carl R. Trueman
15. Seventeenth-Century Lutheran Reception of Aquinas 222
Benjamin T. G. Mayes
16. The Catholic Reception of Aquinas in the De auxiliis Controversy255
Matthew T. Gaetano
17. Seventeenth-Century Catholic Reception Outside the De auxiliis
Controversy 280
Charles Robertson
PART IV MODERN RECEPTIONS
18. Eighteenth-Century Catholic Reception of Aquinas 295
Reginald M. Lynch, OP
19. Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Greek Reception of Aquinas313
Vassa Kontouma
20. Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Russian
Reception of Aquinas 329
Kirill Karpov
vi contents

21. Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Reformed, Anglican,
and Lutheran Reception of Aquinas 343
Steven J. Duby
22. Nineteenth-Century Catholic Reception of Aquinas 359
Thomas Marschler
PART V EARLY TWENTIETH-CENTURY
RECEPTIONS
23. The Reception of Thomas Aquinas by Neo-Scholastic
Philosophers in the First Half of the Twentieth Century 377
Bernard N. Schumacher
24. The Reception of Aquinas in Early Twentieth-Century
Catholic Neo-Scholastic and Historical Theologians 392
Roger W. Nutt
25. The Reception of Aquinas in Twentieth-Century
Transcendental Thomism 408
Stephen M. Fields, SJ
26. The Reception of Aquinas in Nouvelle Théologie 424
Adam G. Cooper
27. Twentieth-Century Orthodox Reception of Aquinas 442
Marcus Plested
28. The Reception of Aquinas in Kuyper’s Encyclopaedie der
heilige Godgeleerdheid 452
James Eglinton
29. Karl Barth’s Reception of Thomas Aquinas 468
Kenneth Oakes
PART VI LATE TWENTIETH-CENTURY
RECEPTIONS
30. The Reception of Thomas Aquinas in Moral Theology
and Moral Philosophy in the Late Twentieth Century 485
Christopher Kaczor
31. The Reception of Aquinas in Postliberal, Grammatical,
and Historical Theology 501
Anna Bonta Moreland
contents vii

32. Late Twentieth-Century Reception of Aquinas in
Analytical Philosophy 515
John Haldane
PART VII CONTEMPORARY RECEPTIONS
OF AQUINAS: PHILOSOPHY
33. The Reception of Aquinas in the Philosophy of Nature and Science539
Michael J. Dodds, OP
34. The Reception of Aquinas’ Ethics 554
Angela Knobel
35. Aquinas’ Reception in Contemporary Metaphysics 565
Gyula Klima
36. The Distinctive Unity of the Human Being in Aquinas 581
Therese Scarpelli Cory
37. The Contemporary Reception of Aquinas on the Natural
Knowledge of God 596
David VanDrunen
38. The Contemporary Reception of St Thomas on Law and Politics612
Michael Pakaluk
PART VIII CONTEMPORARY
RECEPTIONS OF AQUINAS: THEOLOGY
39. God the Trinity 629
Gilles Emery, OP
40. Creation, Fall, and Providence 643
Rudi A. te Velde
41. Aquinas on Nature, Grace, and the Moral Life 658
Daria Spezzano
42. Jesus Christ 673
Simon Francis Gaine, OP
43. Receiving Aquinas’ Sacramental Theology Today 689
Bernhard Blankenhorn, OP
44. Reception of Thomas Aquinas in the Area of Eschatology 705
Paul O’Callaghan
viii contents
Index 717

List of Contributors
Corey L. Barnes is Robert S. Danforth Associate Professor of Religion in the Medieval
Mediterranean World at Oberlin College. His research focuses on medieval scholastic
thought concentrating on discussions of causality, providence, analogical predication,
and Christology. He is the author of Christ’s Two Wills in Scholastic Thought (Pontifical
Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2012).
Bernhard Blankenhorn, OP is aggregate Professor of Theology at the Pontifical University
of St Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum) in Rome. He has published The Mystery of Union
with God: Dionysian Mysticism in Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas (Catholic
University of America Press, 2015).
Romanus Cessario, OP holds a chair of theology at Ave Maria University. He is an
ordinary fellow of the Pontifical Academy of Saint Thomas Aquinas. He is the author of
many books and articles including (with Cajetan Cuddy, OP) Thomas and the Thomists:
The Achievement of Thomas Aquinas and His Interpreters (Fortress Press, 2017).
Adam G. Cooper is Associate Professor of Theology and History at Catholic Theological
College, Melbourne. He has published books and articles on patristics, deification, and
the theology of the body.
Therese Scarpelli Cory is John and Jean Oesterle Associate Professor of Thomistic Studies
at the University of Notre Dame and an ordinary member of the Pontifical Academy of
Saint Thomas Aquinas. She specializes in medieval theories of mind and personhood. She
is the author of Aquinas on Human Self-Knowledge (Cambridge University Press, 2013).
Richard Cross is John A. O’Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre
Dame. He specializes in medieval philosophy and theology, with a particular focus on
Duns Scotus. He also works on philosophy and theology in the Patristic and Reformation
periods, and on the history and philosophy of disability. He is the author of The Metaphysics
of the Incarnation: Thomas Aquinas to Duns Scotus (Oxford University Press, 2002), Duns
Scotus’s Theory of Cognition (Oxford University Press, 2014), and Communicatio
Idiomatum: Reformation Christological Debates (Oxford University Press, 2019).
Cajetan Cuddy, OP is Assistant Professor of Theology at the Dominican House of
Studies in Washington, DC. He is the co-author (with Romanus Cessario, OP) of
Thomas and the Thomists: The Achievement of Thomas Aquinas and His Interpreters;
Fortress Press, 2017).
Michael J. Dodds, OP is Professor of Philosophy and Theology at the Dominican
School of Philosophy and Theology, Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley. His

publications include The Unchanging God of Love: Thomas Aquinas and Contemporary
Theology on Divine Immutability (Catholic University of America Press, 2008) and
Unlocking Divine Action: Contemporary Science and Thomas Aquinas (Catholic
University of America Press, 2012).
Steven J. Duby is Associate Professor of Theology at Grand Canyon University and a
Research Fellow at Phoenix Seminary. He is the author of Divine Simplicity: A Dogmatic
Account (Bloomsbury, 2016) and God in Himself: Scripture, Metaphysics and the Task of
Christian Theology (IVP Academic, 2019).
James Eglinton is Meldrum Senior Lecturer in Reformed Theology at the University
of Edinburgh. He is the author of Bavinck: A Critical Biography (Baker Academic,
2020), Trinity and Organism: Towards a New Reading of Herman Bavinck’s Organic
Motif (Bloomsbury, 2012), co-editor of Neo-Calvinism and the French Revolution
(Bloomsbury, 2014), and editor and translator of Herman Bavinck on Preaching and
Preachers (Hendrickson, 2017).
Gilles Emery, OP is Professor of Dogmatic Theology at the University of Fribourg. He
is chief editor of the French edition of the journal Nova et Vetera. His publications
include The Trinitarian Theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Oxford University Press,
2007); The Trinity: An Introduction to Catholic Doctrine on the Triune God (Catholic
University of America Press, 2011); and Présence de Dieu et union à Dieu (Parole et
Silence, 2017). He is the co-editor of The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity (Oxford
University Press, 2011), and Aristotle in Aquinas’s Theology (Oxford University Press,
2015), both with Matthew Levering.
Stephen M. Fields, SJ is the Hackett Family Professor in the Department of Theology
and Religious Studies of Georgetown University. He has authored Analogies of
Transcendence: An Essay on Nature, Grace and Modernity (Catholic University of
America Press, 2016) and Being As Symbol: On the Origins and Development of Karl
Rahner’s Metaphysics (Georgetown University Press, 2000).
Matthew T. Gaetano is Associate Professor of History at Hillsdale College. His research
focuses on late medieval and early modern scholasticism, particularly interactions with
Renaissance humanism, the Protestant Reformation, and the early Enlightenment. His
recent publications have addressed the reception of Nicholas Cusanus’ doctrine of God
and creation, Thomist interactions with the Reformed tradition, Francisco Suárez’s
political thought, Dominican professors of theology at the University of Padua, and
defences of Aristotelianism in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Italian Thomism
and Scotism.
Simon Francis Gaine, OP is Pinckaers Professor of Theological Anthropology and
Ethics in the Thomistic Institute at the Pontifical University of St Thomas, Rome, and a
Fellow of Blackfriars Hall, Oxford. He is the author of Will There Be Free Will in Heaven?
Freedom, Impeccability and Beatitude (T&T Clark, 2003) and Did the Saviour See the
Father? Christ, Salvation and the Vision of God (Bloomsbury, 2015).
x list of contributors

Pantelis Golitsis is Assistant Professor of Ancient and Medieval Philosophy at the
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. His main research interests lie in the reception of
Aristotle in late antiquity and Byzantium. His publications include Les Commentaires
de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon à la Physique d’Aristote (De Gruyter, 2008; Prix
Zographos de l’Association pour l’encouragement des études grecques en France, 2008).
John Haldane is the J. Newton Rayzor Senior Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at
Baylor University, Professor of Moral Philosophy Emeritus at the University of St
Andrews, and Chair of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, London. He has published
widely in several areas of philosophy, and his books include Faithful Reason (Routledge,
2006), Reasonable Faith (Routledge, 2004), and Practical Philosophy: Ethics, Society and
Culture (Imprint Academic, 2009).
Isabel Iribarren is Professor of Medieval Church History and Philosophy at Strasbourg
University. She is the author of Durandus of Saint-Pourçain: A Dominican Theologian in
the Shadow of Aquinas (Oxford University Press, 2005).
Efrem Jindráček, OP is Extraordinary Professor of Philosophy at the Pontifical University
of St Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum) in Rome and Research Associate at the Institute of
Philosophy of the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague. He is the author of Paolo Barbò
da Soncino. La vita ed il pensiero di un tomista rinascimentale (Angelicum University
Press, 2017).
Christopher Kaczor is Professor of Philosophy at Loyola Marymount University. His
publications include Proportionalism and the Natural Law Tradition (Catholic
University of America Press, 2002), Thomas Aquinas on Faith, Hope, and Love (Sapientia
Press, 2008), Thomas Aquinas on the Cardinal Virtues (Sapientia Press, 2009), and
Disputes in Bioethics (University of Notre Dame Press, 2020).
Kirill Karpov is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Philosophy, Russian
Academy of Sciences. He is the author of numerous studies in English and Russian on
medieval and modern theology and philosophy.
Gyula Klima is Professor of Philosophy at Fordham University, Doctor of the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, founding director of the Society for Medieval Logic
and Metaphysics, and editor of its Proceedings. His publications include John Buridan
(Oxford University Press, 2008), Intentionality, Cognition and Mental Representation in
Medieval Philosophy (Fordham University Press, 2015), and Questions on the Soul by
John Buridan and Others: A Companion to John Buridan’s Philosophy of Mind (Springer,
2017).
Angela Knobel is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the Catholic University of
America, where she has taught since 2004. Her work focuses primarily on Aquinas’
theory of infused virtue, virtue ethics, and applied ethics. She is the co-editor of
Character: New Directions from Philosophy, Psychology, and Theology (Oxford University
Press, 2015).
list of contributors xi

Vassa Kontouma is Director of Studies at the École pratique des hautes études, Paris.
She is also president of the French Institute for Byzantine Studies and director of the
Byzantine Library of the Institut Catholique de Paris. Her publications deal with post-
Byzantine Greek theology, but also John of Damascus, the father of systematic theology.
She co-edited the work La théologie byzantine et sa tradition II (Brepols, 2002). She also
published John of Damascus: New Studies on his Life and Works (Ashgate, 2015).
David M. Lantigua is an Assistant Professor of Moral Theology and Christian Ethics
at the University of Notre Dame. He is a faculty fellow of the Kellogg Institute for
International Studies and the Institute for Latino Studies. He is co-editor and co-
translator with Lawrence Clayton of Bartolomé de las Casas and the Defense of
Amerindian Rights (University of Alabama Press, 2020), and author of Infidels and
Empires in a New World Order (Cambridge University Press, 2020).
Matthew Levering holds the James N. and Mary D. Perry Jr. Chair of Theology at
Mundelein Seminary, where he directs the Center for Scriptural Exegesis, Philosophy,
and Doctrine. He is the author or editor of numerous books, including most recently
Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (Oxford University Press, 2019), Aquinas’s Eschatological
Ethics and the Virtue of Temperance (Notre Dame University Press, 2019), and Reading
Job with St. Thomas Aquinas (Catholic University of America, 2020). He co-edits two
scholarly journals, Nova et Vetera and International Journal of Systematic Theology.
David Luy is Associate Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity
Evangelical Divinity School and a co-director of the Chicago Theological Initiative. His
research focuses on the historical development and modern appropriation of
Reformation theology. He is the author of Dominus Mortis: Martin Luther on the
Incorruptibility of God in Christ (Fortress, 2014).
Reginald M. Lynch, OP is Assistant Professor of Theology at the Dominican House of
Studies in Washington, DC. He is the author of The Cleansing of the Heart: The
Sacraments as Instrumental Causes in the Thomistic Tradition (Catholic University of
America Press, 2017), and a number of other publications dealing with the history of
the Thomistic tradition in the late medieval and early modern periods.
Thomas Marschler is Professor of Dogmatic Theology in the Faculty of Catholic
Theology at the University of Augsburg. His many authored and edited books include
Die spekulative Trinitätslehre des Francisco Suárez S.J. in ihrem philosophisch-theologischen
Kontext (Aschendorff, 2007) and Praelati et praedicatores (Aschendorff, 2015).
Benjamin T. G. Mayes is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Concordia
Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana. He serves as co-general editor of Luther’s
Works: American Edition and general editor of Johann Gerhard’s Theological
Commonplaces (Concordia).
Anna Bonta Moreland is Associate Professor in the Department of Humanities at
Villanova University. Her special interests include the thought of Thomas Aquinas,
xii list of contributors

religious pluralism, and comparative theology, especially with Islam. She has published
Known by Nature: Thomas Aquinas on Natural Knowledge of God (Crossroad, 2010).
Roger W. Nutt is Vice President for Academic Affairs at Ave Maria University, where
he also serves as Associate Professor of Theology, co-director of the Aquinas Center for
Theological Renewal, and editor-in-chief of Sapientia Press. He is the author of General
Principles of Sacramental Theology (Catholic University of America Press, 2017) and
Thomas Aquinas: De Unione Verbi Incarnati (Peeters, 2015).
Kenneth Oakes is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of
Notre Dame. He is the author of Karl Barth on Theology and Philosophy (Oxford
University Press, 2012) and Reading Karl Barth: A Companion to Karl Barth’s Epistle to
the Romans (Wipf and Stock, 2011).
Paul O’Callaghan has taught at the Faculty of Theology of the Pontifical University of
the Holy Cross since 1990, currently serving as Director of the Department of Dogmatic
Theology (2012–). He is a member of the Council of the Pontifical Academy of Theology.
His publications include Children of God in the World (Catholic University of America
Press, 2016), Christ Our Hope (Catholic University of America Press, 2011), and God
and Mediation: A Retrospective Appraisal of Luther the Reformer (Fortress, 2017).
Michael Pakaluk is Ordinary Professor of Ethics and Social Philosophy and Acting
Dean in the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University of America. The author
of many books and articles in ethics and the history of philosophy, he is the author of
The Memoirs of St. Peter (Regnery Gateway, 2019). He was appointed ordinarius in the
Pontifical Academy of St Thomas in 2011.
Marcus Plested is Professor of Greek Patristic and Byzantine Theology and Henri de
Lubac Chair at Marquette University. He has taught, lectured, and published widely in
patristic, Byzantine, and modern Orthodox theology. He is the author of The Macarian
Legacy: The Place of Macarius-Symeon in the Eastern Christian Tradition (Oxford University
Press, 2004) and Orthodox Readings of Aquinas (Oxford University Press, 2012).
Ioannis Polemis is Professor of Byzantine Literature at the Athens University. His
publications include Theophanes of Nicaea: His Life and Works (VÖAW, 1996), and
critical editions of several texts of middle and late Byzantine literature.
Charles Robertson earned his PhD in Philosophy through the Center for Thomistic
Studies at the University of St. Thomas, TX. The author of articles on John Capreolus
and on bioethics, he currently serves as adjunct professor at Newman Theological
College and works for the Greater Saskatoon Catholic Schools.
Bernard N. Schumacher teaches philosophy at the University of Fribourg, where he is
the coordinator of the Institut interdisciplinaire d’éthique et de droits de l’homme. He
is the author of A Philosophy of Hope: Josef Pieper and the Contemporary Debate on
Hope (Fordham University Press, 2003), Death and Mortality in Contemporary
Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, 2011), and has edited among other works A
list of contributors xiii

Cosmopolitan Hermit: Modernity and Tradition in the Philosophy of Josef Pieper (Catholic
University of America Press, 2009).
Daria Spezzano is Associate Professor of Theology at Providence College in
Providence. She is the author of The Glory of God’s Grace: Deification According to St.
Thomas Aquinas (Sapientia Press, 2015).
David S. Sytsma is Associate Professor at Tokyo Christian University. He is the author
of Richard Baxter and the Mechanical Philosophers (Oxford University Press, 2017),
editor of Matthew Hale, Of the Law of Nature (CLP Academic, 2015), and co-editor of
Beyond Dordt and De Auxiliis: The Dynamics of Protestant and Catholic Soteriology in
the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Brill, 2019).
Klaus-Peter Todt has taught as Privat-Dozent in the Faculty of History, Section of
Byzantine Studies at the University of Mainz since 1999. His publications include
articles on Islam and Muslims in Byzantine historiography and on Gennadius II
Scholarius.
Jean-Pierre Torrell, OP is Professor Emeritus of the Faculty of Theology of the
University of Fribourg. He has published numerous books and studies on St Thomas
and his thought. His publications include revised and expanded editions of his two
most renowned books: Initiation à S. Thomas d’Aquin, new revised edition (Cerf, 2015)
and S. Thomas d’Aquin, maître spirituel, new revised edition (Cerf, 2017).
Carl R. Trueman is Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies at Grove City College in
Pennsylvania. He is the author of numerous books, among them Histories and Fallacies:
Problems Faced in the Writing of History (Crossway, 2010), The Creedal Imperative
(Crossway, 2012), and Grace Alone (Zondervan, 2017).
David VanDrunen is the Robert B. Strimple Professor of Systematic Theology and
Christian Ethics at Westminster Seminary California. He is the author or editor of
eleven books, including Aquinas Among the Protestants (Wiley-Blackwell, 2017).
Rudi A. te Velde is Lecturer in Philosophy and Professor in the philosophy of Thomas
Aquinas in relation to contemporary thought at the School of Catholic Theology of
Tilburg University. His publications include Aquinas on God (Ashgate, 2006).
xiv list of contributors

Preface:
Contextualizing Our Handbook
Matthew Levering and Marcus Plested
The Oxford Handbook of the Reception of Aquinas could not have been done 25 or even
15 years ago, not only because of lack of scholars with the expertise to do it, but also
because of lack of a sufficient audience or interest. In this Preface, we examine how this
change came about. We first very briefly discuss the rise in appreciation for reception
history, and second we set forth some aspects of the growth of Thomistic studies over
the past twenty-five years. A Handbook devoted to Aquinas’ reception should explain,
however briefly, how the contemporary reception of Aquinas has enabled our Handbook
to come to be. That is the modest purpose of this Preface.
Today, of course, interest in the ‘reception’ of influential texts and authors has
become commonplace. In part due to the influence of Alasdair MacIntyre’s work on
tradition-constituted inquiry (MacIntyre 1981; 1988; 1990) as well as the earlier work of
Hans-Georg Gadamer on tradition and rationality, scholars have become increasingly
aware that one cannot properly read texts abstracted from their prior reception.
A masterful example of this new interest in reception is the three massive volumes of
The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine (Pollmann 2013), which
employs an encyclopedic format to expose the rich veins of the reception of Augustine,
with significant attention to Augustine’s own texts as well. Interest in reception likewise
characterizes a number of recent biblical commentaries, such as the volumes of the
Blackwell Bible Commentaries series (see Kovacs and Rowland 2004). The eagerly-
anticipated Oxford Handbook to the Reception of Christian Theology (eds. Sarah
Coakley and Richard Cross) also speaks of the growing recognition of the importance
of this theme.
Our Handbook very deliberately incorporates Orthodox and Protestant reception of
Aquinas alongside Catholic reception. But the audience for the present volume has been
expanded significantly by the contemporary surge of interest in Aquinas’ theology among
Catholic theologians across the theological subspecialties. This is especially true in
English-speaking countries, but it has also manifested itself in Europe, Asia, and else-
where. In Germany, we think of the work of the late Otto Hermann Pesch, Thomas
Marschler, Helmut Hoping, Lydia Maidl, Jan-Heiner Tück, and others; in the Netherlands,
Harm Goris, Henk Schoot, and Anton ten Klooster, among others. In France and
Switzerland, notable students of Aquinas include Jean-Pierre Torrell, Gilles Emery, the late

xvi preface: contextualizing our handbook
Servais Pinckaers, Benoît-Dominique de la Soujeole, and Serge-Thomas Bonino—and the
list could be much expanded. British and Irish Thomists, such as Simon Gaine, Paul
Murray, Nicholas Austin, Kevin O’Reilly, and Fergus Kerr, are increasing in number. In the
United States and Canada, the number of significant works published by Catholic
Thomists in the past 25 years reveals a major resurgence of interest. Indeed, to enumerate
all the many American theologians involved in this movement would hardly be possible
within the confines of this brief preface.
The abovementioned scholars reflect for the most part a theological surge of interest in
Aquinas. Philosophically, Aquinas never ceased to be of interest. Thus, it is less persuasive
to speak of a philosophical ‘resurgence’ of interest in Aquinas, at least in the United States,
where his work never ceased to interest Catholic philosophers. In the United States and
Canada, philosophers such as Norris Clarke, Benedict Ashley, John Wippel, Lawrence
Dewan, and Ralph McInerny—along with their many students—have kept Thomist
philosophy current. The Scottish philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre’s discovery of Aquinas’
importance for moral theory had a large (and ecumenical) impact. The links between
Aquinas and contemporary analytic philosophy were already notable on the British scene
in the work of Elizabeth Anscombe, Peter Geach, and Anthony Kenny (among others). In
recent years the number of Catholic and non-Catholic philosophers working out these
connections has burgeoned, with notable figures including Norman Kretzmann, Eleonore
Stump, and most recently Edward Feser, who is retrieving neo-scholastic philosophy in
dialogue with analytic philosophy. Phenomenological interest in Aquinas has continued
to grow in the United States and Europe thanks to such figures as Robert Sokolowski and,
in his own fashion, Jean-Luc Marion. In Germany, Ferdinand Ulrich has continued the
Continental tradition of creative metaphysical development of Aquinas while Robert
Spaemann has constructively engaged with Aquinas’ moral theory. The Dutch philosopher
Leo Elders and his Belgian student Jörgen Vijgen have underlined the Aristotelian
dimension of Aquinas. The Dutch philosopher Rudi te Velde and the Irish philosopher
Fran O’Rourke, among others, have focused attention upon the Platonic (participatory)
and Dionysian influences in Aquinas’ philosophical achievements.
Under the leadership of the American theologian Thomas Joseph White, an important
and impactful centre for philosophical and theological research and outreach, the
Thomistic Institute, has been established at the Dominican House of Studies in
Washington, DC. White has moved to found a similar Thomistic Institute at the
Angelicum in Rome. Other especially important centres for Thomistic philosophy and
theology include the ‘Barcelona school’ of Thomism, the Thomas Instituut te Utrecht,
the Aquinas Institute at Blackfriars (Oxford), the Aquinas Center for Theological
Renewal at Ave Maria University, the philosophy department of the Catholic University
of America, the philosophical Center for Thomistic Studies at the University of St.
Thomas in Houston, and the doctoral programme in theology at the University of
Fribourg. At the University of Notre Dame, Jean Porter and Joseph Wawrykow have
directed the dissertations of a number of now influential Thomist moral and historical
theologians. Significant research in Aquinas’ philosophy and theology now takes place
in Latin and South America (especially Chile and Argentina), Africa (especially
Nigeria), Asia (especially the Philippines), and Australia and New Zealand.

preface: contextualizing our handbook xvii
In the 1990s, when we were doctoral students, there were many Thomist philosophers
but relatively few Thomist theologians. Outside the field of moral theology, where
Thomistic virtue ethics had been revitalized by MacIntyre and Stanley Hauerwas, their
number could be counted on one hand—or two hands if one moved beyond the
English-speaking world. Even 25 years ago, mining Aquinas’ theology for contemporary
dogmatic purposes was seen in most theological faculties as a questionable and retro-
grade thing to do, one in need of defence and explanation. Looking back, however, it is
clear that things had already begun to shift, due to the work of David Burrell, Thomas
Weinandy, and many others—perhaps above all the Lutheran George Lindbeck and the
Episcopalian Victor Preller who persuaded a generation of very talented doctoral stu-
dents at Yale that Aquinas should be a central interlocutor. At several British universities
including Oxford and Cambridge a renewed interest in Aquinas was also in the air.
At much the same time, the Revue thomiste was being reinvigorated by a young gen-
eration of French-speaking Dominicans. By the 1990s it was publishing some of the
most significant theological work of the day. In the United States, The Thomist had been
similarly reinvigorated by J. A. DiNoia (Lindbeck’s student). As editor of New Blackfriars,
Fergus Kerr ensured that this journal, too, contributed much to renewal of interest in
Aquinas. A number of Ralph McInerny’s doctoral students, stimulated by regular con-
ferences at the Maritain Institute of the University of Notre Dame, had begun to make
significant contributions on theological topics, perhaps most notably Thomas Hibbs.
Outside the Catholic world, the renewal of interest in Aquinas’ theology began as a
Lutheran and Episcopalian/Anglican project spearheaded in the 1990s and 2000s by
Yale-school theologians and by their postliberal confrères, among them Stanley
Hauerwas, Bruce Marshall, Reinhard Hütter, Eugene Rogers, A.N. Williams, Kathryn
Tanner, and John Milbank (Marshall and Hütter, of course, are now significant Catholic
Thomist theologians). In more recent years, Methodist and Reformed scholars have
joined in. We think of studies such as Edgardo Colón-Emeric’s Wesley, Aquinas, and
Christian Perfection: An Ecumenical Dialogue (2009); Kenneth Loyer’s God’s Love
Through the Spirit: The Holy Spirit in Thomas Aquinas and John Wesley (2014); Charles
Raith II’s Aquinas and Calvin on Romans (2014); Tyler Wittman’s God and Creation in
the Theology of Thomas Aquinas and Karl Barth (2018); and the volume edited by
Manfred Svensson and David VanDrunen, Aquinas among the Protestants (2017).
Following renewed interest in Aquinas’ own theology came interest in his reception.
Among Protestants, the foundations for this were laid by the historian Richard Muller
and, in his later work, the theologian John Webster. Muller’s multi-volume history of
Reformed scholasticism cleared away a number of faulty perceptions (Muller 2003).
Webster began as a Barthian but grew increasingly interested in the Reformed scholas-
tics and in Aquinas; his circle of influence—also informed by Ivor Davidson—includes
Michael Allen, Scott Swain, Steven Duby, and Christopher Holmes. These scholars show
serious knowledge of and appreciation for both Aquinas and the Reformed scholastics.
Their work emphasizes that Thomistic scholasticism does not mean unbiblical rational-
ism, but rather enters deeply into the import of the Scriptures.
On the Catholic side, Romanus Cessario has had a significant impact in stimulating
interest in the reception of Aquinas (see Cessario 2005; Cessario and Cuddy 2017).

xviii preface: contextualizing our handbook
Additionally, graduate students began to realize that scholarship on Aquinas could benefit
from deeper attention to his earlier commentators. We think, for instance, of John Meinert’s
The Love of God Poured Out (2018); R. J. Matava’s Divine Causality and Human Free Choice
(2016); and Reginald Lynch’s The Cleansing of the Heart (2017). The work of Réginald
Garrigou-Lagrange, which not too long ago was verboten due to his political errors, has
been sympathetically retrieved by Richard Peddicord (2005) and Aidan Nichols (2008),
and can now once again be mined for insights, with new translations of his work appearing
regularly. Charles Morerod (1994), Joshua Hochschild (2010), and Michael O’Connor
(2017) have, for their part, sympathetically retrieved the work of Cajetan.
Until recently, it seemed highly unlikely that similar developments would take place
in the Orthodox world. But the work of John Demetracopoulos and others involved in
the Thomas de Aquino Byzantinus project together with Marcus Plested’s Orthodox
Readings of Aquinas (2012)—along with a growing recognition that much later patristic
theology has a distinctly ‘scholastic’ tenor, especially once one arrives at the Christological
controversies of the fifth century and the work of St Maximus the Confessor and
St John of Damascus—suggest that things are shifting. Byzantium (unlike much mod-
ern Orthodox theology) was not inveterately opposed to Latin scholasticism. Indeed, it
was St Gregory Palamas’ opponent, Barlaam the Calabrian, who was fiercely opposed
to scholasticism in general and Aquinas in particular, whereas Palamas himself stood in
a long tradition of Byzantine scholasticism and shows no animosity towards the theology
and methodology of the Latin West.
Today, however, it is rare to find an Orthodox theologian drawing significantly upon
Aquinas for constructive rather than historical purposes. The most notable exception is
David Bentley Hart, but his employment of Aquinas has not been widely embraced
within Orthodox circles. Moreover, while appreciating Aquinas as a philosopher, Hart
has steered relatively clear of Aquinas as a theologian; and he has been sharply critical of
the Thomistic commentatorial tradition, especially its Dominican exponents. Orthodox
theologians generally prefer to remain anchored in Scripture and the Church Fathers up
to Palamas, while few modern Orthodox theologians have much time at all for medieval
Latin scholasticism. But there is no doubt that Aquinas has been a significant presence
in the Orthodox past and, mutatis mutandis, may well be so again.
During the period in which the Catholic Church insisted upon adherence to Thomas
Aquinas’ thought as a marker of Catholic orthodoxy—beginning with Pope Leo XIII’s
Aeterni Patris (1878) and ending with the Second Vatican Council (1962–5)—Protestants
and Orthodox theologians understandably reacted by distancing themselves from
Aquinas as well as from his commentators (including his Protestant and Orthodox
ones), who were deemed rationalists, unbiblical, and unspiritual. In this period,
Catholics adopted a defensive policy against the inroads of theological liberalism, which
had hugely impacted Protestant theology in nineteenth- and early-twentieth theology,
and which also threatened Catholic theology. This defensive policy included a suspicion
of ecumenism as a Trojan horse for liberalism. Given that leading Catholic Thomists of
the time period showed little positive interest in Protestantism or Orthodoxy, it is
unsurprising that a strong reaction was provoked in those traditions. Yet by the 1920s
Catholic theologians themselves were seeking to expand Catholic theology in ecumenical

preface: contextualizing our handbook xix
directions, and they sought to benefit from historical retrievals of the Church Fathers
and from historical-critical biblical scholarship (see Kirwan 2018). These theologians
gradually became the majority, and by the time of the Second Vatican Council this
movement—labelled the nouvelle théologie—had taken over. Thomism essentially dis-
appeared as a vital force within Catholic theology for a generation.
Although this disappearance left the Catholic Church weaker in a number of ways, it
opened the door to a Catholic Thomism that would be much more interested in and recep-
tive to the contributions of Protestants and Orthodox. Given the depth of Aquinas’ own
use of Scripture and the Fathers, as well as Aquinas’ profound writing on the spiritual life,
Aquinas could be and was reread in a manner now fully open to Protestant and Orthodox
emphases. The emergence of this ecumenical Thomism has now led to an ecumenical
interest in the reception of Aquinas among Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. As
noted above, especially significant here is the contribution of Reformed scholars who are
retrieving the Thomistic achievements of the period of Reformed Orthodoxy.
This is the context in which the present Oxford Handbook has taken shape. After an
introductory chapter on the sources of Aquinas, written by Jean-Pierre Torrell, we devote
six chapters to the late medieval receptions of Aquinas among Catholics and Orthodox.
We then treat sixteenth-century Western receptions of Aquinas (Protestant and Catholic)
in five chapters, followed by a chapter on sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Orthodox
reception. After four chapters on seventeenth-century Protestant and Catholic recep-
tions, we survey eighteenth- and nineteenth-century receptions (Protestant, Orthodox,
and Catholic) in five chapters. The twentieth century receives ten chapters, given the
diversity of theological movements in the past century and the need to cover philosophy
extensively as well. Finally, we devote twelve chapters to contemporary systematic
approaches to Aquinas, covering the main philosophical (six chapters) and theological
(six chapters) themes for which he is best known. Our suggestion to the authors of these
chapters was that they should highlight elements that should be present in any reception
of Aquinas, in whatever era. But we gave these authors ample leeway to engage the topics
of their chapters in a contemporary fashion appropriate to their own expertise.
Our hope is that this Handbook will serve as a helpful primer for everyone who
wishes to study Aquinas’ thought and/or the history of theology and philosophy since
Aquinas’ day. In the present context, of which this Handbook is a fruit, Aquinas’
philosophy and theology are returning to some degree of prominence both within and
beyond the Catholic tradition. But even those who do not count Aquinas among their
primary interlocutors will find that the present Handbook stands as a valuable touch-
stone regarding the Christian theology of the past seven centuries. Such is Thomas’
stature that there are few theological developments in that period on which the recep-
tion of Thomas does not have some bearing or make some contribution to, whether by
way of approbation or reprobation.
Suggested Reading
MacIntyre (1990); Lynch (2017); Cessario and Cuddy (2017); Plested (2012); Muller (2003).

xx preface: contextualizing our handbook
Bibliography
Cessario, R. (2005), A Short History of Thomism (Washington, DC: Catholic University of
America Press).
Cessario, R., and Cuddy, C. (2017), Thomas and the Thomists: The Achievement of Thomas
Aquinas and His Interpreters (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press).
Colon-Emeric, E. (2009), Wesley, Aquinas, and Christian Perfection: An Ecumenical Dialogue
(Waco, TX: Baylor University Press).
Hochschild, J. P. (2010), The Semantics of Analogy: Rereading Cajetan’s De Nominum Analogia
(Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press).
Kirwan, J. (2018), An Avant-Garde Theological Generation: The Nouvelle Théologie and the
French Crisis of Modernity (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Kovacs, J., and Rowland, C. (2004), Revelation (Oxford: Blackwell).
Loyer, K. (2014), God’s Love Through the Spirit: The Holy Spirit in Thomas Aquinas and John
Wesley (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press).
Lynch, R. M. (2017), The Cleansing of the Heart: The Sacraments as Instrumental Causes in the
Thomistic Tradition (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press).
MacIntyre, A. (1981), After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theology (Notre Dame, IN: University of
Notre Dame Press).
MacIntyre, A. (1988), Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre
Dame Press).
MacIntyre, A. (1990), Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopedia, Genealogy, and
Tradition (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame).
Matava, R. (2016), Divine Causality and Human Free Choice: Domingo Báñez, Physical
Premotion and the Controversy De Auxiliis Revisited (Boston, MA: Brill).
Meinert, J. (2018), The Love of God Poured Out: Grace and the Gifts of the Holy Spirit in St.
Thomas Aquinas (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Academic Press).
Muller, R. A. (2003), Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of
Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 2nd edn, 4 vols (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic).
Nichols, A. (2008), Reason with Piety: Garrigou-Lagrange in the Service of Catholic Thought
(Ave Maria, FL: Sapientia Press).
O’Connor, M. (2017), Cajetan’s Biblical Commentaries: Motive and Method (Boston, MA:
Brill).
Peddicord, R. (2005), The Sacred Monster of Thomism: An Introduction to the Life and Legacy
of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press).
Plested, M. (2012), Orthodox Readings of Aquinas (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Pollmann, K. (ed.) (2013), The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine, 3 vols
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Raith II, C. (2014), Aquinas and Calvin on Romans: God’s Justification and Our Participation
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Svensson, M., and VanDrunen, D. (2017), Aquinas among the Protestants (Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell).
Wittman, T. R. (2018), God and Creation in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas and Karl Barth
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Acknowledgements
A Handbook such as this is only as good as its cast of contributors. We are profoundly
grateful to all of the authors for their stellar labours. We also thank the translators of the
several articles originally written in foreign languages and all American authors for con-
senting to have their texts ‘corrected’ to British English. We thank the staff at Oxford
University Press (especially Tom Perridge) and their partners, in particular the indefat
igable and unflappable Sarah Barrett, the copy editor, as well as the equally skilled
project manager Jayaprakash Periyanayagam. Several research assistants worked on the
project, including Caitlyn Trader, David Augustine, and Joshua Miller (who also ably
prepared the index). Much, as always, is owed to our wives, Joy and Mariamni, and to
our children. The Handbook as a whole is dedicated to our parents: Ralph and Patty
(d. 24 August 2019) Levering and Christopher and Nicola Plested.
Matthew Levering and Marcus Plested
15 July 2020
Feast of Saint Swithun

chapter 1
Saint Thomas and His
Sources
Jean-Pierre Torrell, OP
Translated by David L. Augustine
According to the indications furnished in the index to the Summa theologiae and the
Summa contra gentiles, published by the Leonine Commission (Leonine
Commission 1948: 177–226), the list of ancient authors quoted by Thomas Aquinas—
whether Greek or Latin, pagans or Christians, Arabs or Jews—totals 164 names. To this
it is necessary to add the citations of Scripture, those of unidentified authors, heretics,
the collective references to diverse schools or sects (platonici, peripatetici, stoici, donatis
tae . . .), names he only cites occasionally, liturgical citations, and the lives of saints. The
complete list of works that Thomas could have read in their entirety has not yet been
drawn up; however, it is certain that, despite the extent of his knowledge, he did not read
all of them for the simple reason that he did not have all these books readily at hand.
Most often he had to settle for what he found in the Gloss or in the existing florilegia or
those he compiled for the Catena aurea.
It would be futile to provide an overview of this enormous body of material, or even
only of a few of these sources. It would be far wiser to focus on discovering how Thomas
engages his sources. The word ‘sources’ does not have the same neutral sense for him
that it has for us. Accordingly, his attitude toward his ‘sources’ is different from our atti-
tude toward ours. Thomas explains his position on this subject in a few programmatic
texts, allowing us to prioritize these sources according to the importance he accords
them and to specify the manner in which they are appreciated. When Thomas asks if
there is a place for human reason in the exercise of sacra doctrina, he responds in the
affirmative, but warns against possible confusions that might arise:
Sacra doctrina uses authorities founded on reason, only as extrinsic arguments and
having nothing more than a probable value; while it uses the authorities of the
canonical Scriptures in full ownership and for a diriment impediment (proprie ex

2 Jean-Pierre Torrell, OP
necessitate argumentando). As for the authorities of the other doctors of the Church,
it uses them in full ownership but merely as probable. (ST I q. 1 a. 8 ad 2)
This short text permits two observations. The first thing to note is that the term ‘authori-
ties’ (auctoritatibus) is used three times. The use of sources according to Thomas, as to
his contemporaries, takes the form of a recourse to ‘authorities’—not solely to promin
ent authors, but more precisely to citations that summarize the thought of these
authors. Thus, when he speaks of the auctoritas scripturae or of the auctoritas Augustini
or of the auctoritas Gregorii, Thomas is in the first place thinking of a citation that is
much more than a simple reference; rather, it is an authoritative position that must be
taken into account.
The second observation is that there are criteria that make it possible to correctly
prioritize the relative importance of these diverse sources. In the first place, there are the
authorities taken from sacred Scripture: the word of God collected in the Bible confers
on its authors an authority that is in principle absolute. This is self-evident and justifies
the use of the argument from authority, for if this argument is the weakest of all in
human reason, it is, on the contrary, the most efficacious if it is based on divine revela-
tion. In the second place, there is the authority of the Fathers of the Church when they
comment on what has been revealed: their authority is certainly great in the domain of
faith, but in other matters they can be mistaken. Finally, there are the authorities of
human reason represented by the philosophers. Without giving them the same weight,
Thomas holds these figures in high regard: when they speak the truth, they bear witness
to the grandeur of the human spirit. Reason of itself is not contrary to faith and, as grace
does not destroy nature, it is legitimate to have recourse to the philosophers: they are
able to contribute to the understanding of revelation. These are the three main categor
ies of sources that Thomas employs.
Sacred Scripture
Scripture is the only source that has an absolute value, since it is the organ of revelation
and the place where we find divine truth expressed in human terms. That which depends
on God’s free will (e.g. the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word) surpasses what is
proper to nature; things of this kind can be known only insofar as they are transmitted to
us by Scripture (ST III q. 1 a. 3). For Thomas, ‘Holy Scripture is the rule of faith [regula
fidei], to which no addition or subtraction can lawfully be made’ (ST II–II q. 1 a. 9 obj. 1;
In Sent. III d. 25 q. 1 a. 1 qc. 3 arg. 2; In Ioan. 21, 24). The credal summaries of faith likewise
carry this weight, but this is due to the fact that they are almost exclusively composed of
phrases drawn from sacred Scripture. Scripture has been given to us as an excellent rule
of faith (regulam veritatis), so we must neither increase it by our additions, nor diminish
it by our omissions, nor pervert it with bad interpretations (ST II–II q. 1 a. 9 obj. 1 ad 1).

Saint Thomas and His Sources 3
When we carefully keep the holy words, it is they who keep us and strengthen us in
obedience: ‘It is necessary not only to keep the truths that have been transmitted to us in
the sacred Scriptures, but also those taught us by the holy Doctors, who have preserved
Sacred Scripture for us intact’ (In de divinis nominibus, cap. 2, lect. 1, no. 125). These ‘holy
Doctors’ exercise the same office as Christ himself did on the night of his Resurrection:
But it was from the authority of the Sacred Scriptures that He proved to them [the
disciples on the road to Emmaus] the truth of His Resurrection, which authority is
the basis of faith [fundamentum fidei], when He said: ‘All things must needs be ful
filled which are written in the Law, and in the prophets [. . .] concerning Me’ (ST III q.
55 a. 5). [This reference to Scripture is so strong that Thomas even goes so far as to
say:] And we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as
they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.
(De veritate q. 14 a. 10 ad 11)
The authority of Scripture, however, must not be understood univocally. The task of the
master who teaches is not restricted to a servile repetition of words:
If he wishes to instruct his hearers and to lead them to understand the truth in
question [. . .], the teacher must rely on reasons which lead to the root of this
truth and lead them to know how it is that what is affirmed is true [quomodo
sit verum]. Otherwise, were the master to determine the question solely by
means of authorities, he would certainly convince his interlocutor that it is so,
but his interlocutor would take away from this neither knowledge nor under-
standing and would go away with an empty head.
(Quodlibet IV q. 9 a. 3[18]; Torrell 2000: 150–54)
This hypothesis would be the very negation of the goal pursued by the teacher. Now, we
know that Thomas’s principal activity was to explain Scripture in accordance with his
title as Magister in Sacra Pagina (Torrell 2015: 87–93; Chenu 1954: 213–23). Numerous
accounts show us the manner in which Thomas, as both exegete and interpreter, behaves
towards his principal source. In the first place, he brings to light the plurality of the
senses of Scripture:
The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by
words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every
other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the
things signified by the words have themselves a signification.
(ST I q. 1 a. 10; In Sent. I, Prol. a. 5; De potentia q. 4 a. 1; Quodlibet III
q. 14 a. 1[30]; VII q. 6 aa. 1–3[14–16]; In ad Galatas cap. 4, lect. 7; Torrell 2000:
154–7; Dahan 2009a: 61–79; 2009b: 199–224; 2015: 45–70; Aillet 1993)
This observation grounds a corollary point: if the Bible has multiple senses, it is not a
book like any other. The intention of the principal author can go beyond the conscious

4 Jean-Pierre Torrell, OP
intention of the human author who serves as former’s instrument. From this a funda-
mental distinction follows:
Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first
sense, the historical or literal. The second signification whereby things signified by
words have themselves in turn another signification is called the spiritual sense,
which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. (ST I q. 1 a. 10)
With this fundamental distinction in place, we can then articulate the divisions of the
spiritual sense: 1. Insofar as the realities of the Old Law signify those of the New, we are
dealing with the allegorical sense (ST I q. 1 a. 10; Quodlibet VII q. 6, a. 2[15]); 2. Insofar as
the realities of the New Law performed by the Head (Christ) are signs of what the Body
(the Church) must accomplish, we have the moral sense (Quodlibet VII q. 6 a. 2[15] ad 5);
3. Insofar as the realities of the new law themselves signify the realities of future glory, we
are dealing with the anagogical sense (Quodlibet VII q. 6 a. 2[15] ad 5). Thomas can then
answer the question asked in ST I q 1 a. 10 in the affirmative: since God is the author of
this book, nothing prevents the same passage from having several literal senses. Thomas
gives the literal sense a much wider scope than we would generally be inclined to give it
today:
The parabolical sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified
properly and figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal
sense. When Scripture speaks of God’s arm, the literal sense is not that God has such
a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power.
Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.
(ST q. 1 a. 10 ad 3)
The parabolical or metaphorical sense contained within the literal sense is therefore not
to be confused with the allegorical sense, which consists of the three spiritual senses just
mentioned (Expositio super Iob, cap. 1; Chardonnens 1997: 21–34). It is therefore an
approximation to speak of four senses of Scripture. There are in fact only two—the lit-
eral sense and the spiritual sense—with the latter being subdivided in three different
ways. The literal sense is so expansive that Thomas rarely needs to make what Dahan
calls the ‘hermeneutical leap’ in order to pass over to the spiritual sense (Dahan 2002:
xxxiii–xxxv; 2009b: 249–82; Venard 2015: 199–228).
Thomas’s scriptural oeuvre has long been neglected in favour of his systematic works.
Chenu once spoke of this neglect as a ‘grave problem’, but things have greatly changed
since then (Roszak and Vijgen 2015; Levering and Dauphinais 2012; Levering 2014;
Weinandy, Keating, and Yocum 2006; Dauphinais and Levering 2005; Blankenhorn
2012). There were reasons for this difficulty, however, and these works continue to dis-
concert readers today. The structure of university biblical courses required that the
sacred text be followed verse by verse, with each section of the Bible parcelled out into
several lessons, and these lessons themselves only touching on a few verses grouped

Saint Thomas and His Sources 5
according to the meaning that the commentator reads in the text. Each of these lessons
is in turn governed by three strict rules that are supposed to give a better understanding
of the text: 1. ‘The divisio [which] plays a major role [ . . . and] helps to fit the biblical text
into the mold of logical categories’; 2. The expositio or explication of the text, the role of
which is to draw out the intelligibility of the text in question; 3. The quaestio, the name of
which is clear enough, which sometimes results from an internal or external contradic-
tion and often takes place within the expositio in order to enable a more profound grasp
of the lesson (Dahan 2002: xxiv–xxxiii; Rossi 1994).
This demanding mode of teaching leads into the very depths of the biblical text. This
can be seen if one reads the commentaries on the two epistles to the Corinthians. Several
signs bear witness to the extreme carefulness of Thomas’s reading. He is certainly atten-
tive to ideas and to theological instruction, but also to words, grammar, and style, to the
difference of translations from Hebrew to Greek or from Greek to Latin. Any of his
scriptural commentaries shows that references to an alia littera (secundum aliam lit
teram; aliter) belong by right to the Thomistic exegetical genre. We could draw up long
lists of textual criticism, or of other interpretations, or of references to the language or
Hebraic or Greek customs (Torrell 2005: 167). Thomas knows how to give the letter all
the attention it deserves. Scholars specify which Latin text Thomas used and his occa-
sional recourse to corrections, but they emphasize just as strongly ‘the scrupulous care
given to the study of the proper meaning of words’, his attention to grammar and style,
and to the sense of history manifested in his concern to identify the historical details
(Dahan 2002: xv–xviii; 2005: iv–xiv).
Another sign of Thomas’s respect for the biblical text goes beyond a purely scientific
approach. Thomas’s exegesis is a ‘confessing’ exegesis—that is to say, it is the exegesis of a
believer for whom ‘the Bible is explained by the Bible, the Word of God’ (Dahan 2005:
xv–xxv). Thomas is neither the first nor the only exegete to approach the text in this way,
but his scriptural citations are particularly numerous, for example those that he uses to
illumine Paul. These citations pursue a triple objective: illustration, explication, and
deepening. The illlustrative citation ‘prolongs and completes an annotation of a Pauline
text’; these are the least numerous, but they are not simply decorative. The explicative
citations illumine a verse by means of other similar verses drawn from other books of
the Bible. The citations that deepen the text are the most numerous; pertaining to the
doctrinal order, they most often proceed by way of verbal concordances according to a
process found in the ‘collations’ of Super Isaiam. Specially furnished, the ‘sed contra’ are
the privileged means for this deepening: doctrinal difficulties that arose from two seem-
ingly contradictory verses are resolved with the help of small dossiers supporting each
of the two verses. Thomas emphasizes the difficulty of the question, shows its complex
character, and then gives his own solution.
The ‘confessing’ style of Thomas the exegete can be recognized in the fact that he reads
the Bible in the Church. The primacy he acknowledges in the scriptural argument has
nothing to do with a defence of the Lutheran sola Scriptura before the name
(Decker 1962: 191–221; Patfoort 1990). The evidence of this is that he inscribes himself in
a long tradition of commentators who have followed one another since the beginning;

6 Jean-Pierre Torrell, OP
Thomas willingly admits his debt to his forebears and often appeals to them. We cannot
enumerate them all, but the names of Augustine, Gregory, Ambrose, Jerome, Hilary,
Chrysostom, Pseudo-Chrysostom, Origen, Pseudo-Dionysius, followed by ‘medieval’
authors like Boethius, Cassiodorus, and Isidore of Seville, recur frequently. That said,
the Gloss in its diverse forms and Peter Lombard are the fundamental sources that trans-
mit a number of other citations. Thomas’s constant references to the Fathers of the
Church does not prevent him from having recourse to pagan authors. Among these,
Aristotle even prevails over all the Fathers, the only exception being Augustine, who
comes in first (Dahan 2002: xviii–xxiii; Vijgen 2015: 287–346).
The Super Isaiam offers a significantly different example of Thomas’s reading of the
Bible. We find there the customary divisions and habitual procedures of medieval exe-
gesis, but this first writing of Thomas is distinguished by two characteristics. On the
one hand, it is a beautiful case of the ‘cursory’ reading reserved to biblical bachelors:
despite his interest, the commentary on Isaiah is considerably shorter than those that
will follow when Thomas becomes Magister in Sacra Pagina. On the other hand, even if
the literal sense maintains its primacy, Thomas appeals to the spiritual sense in the
Super Isaiam quite often. The commentary is peppered with 127 observations, drawn
up in a hasty manner, in which the author directs the reader’s attention to a particular
point. Signalled by Nota or Notandum—sometimes in the margin, sometimes inserted
into the text itself—these excursus serve to illumine a word or a verse through numer-
ous other biblical passages. Called collationes, these brief stops, which are also found in
the Super Ieremiam, are intended as preparation for personal meditation or for preach-
ing. This method, also used by other contemporary authors, has the benefit of revealing
the soul of the young Dominican religious (Thomas), who did not divorce intellectual
study from his life of prayer. As compared to two other sources that we shall examine,
Thomas’s relationship to Scripture is not impersonal; it is a living reality that can still
nourish the reader of today (Bouthillier 1993; 1998; Torrell 2000; Wawrykow 2006;
Keating 2006).
The Fathers of the Church
After Scripture, Thomas’s second great source consists of the doctors who have
expounded upon Scripture. The distinction Thomas institutes from the first between the
importance of Scripture and that of the ‘other doctors’, whose authority is only probable,
rests on an incontestable foundation:
For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote
the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other
doctors. Hence Augustine says: Only those books of Scripture which are called canon
ical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any
way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their

Saint Thomas and His Sources 7
works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever
may have been their holiness and learning. (ST I q. 1 a. 8 ad 2; Augustine, Epistle 82.1)
It is customary to speak of the ‘Fathers of the Church’ in order to identify those doctors
charged with explaining Scripture; Thomas was more circumspect. He is happy to speak
of the sancti patres, but he does not mean by that patres fidei, since Christ alone can bear
this title: ‘The others we can call “doctors” or “expositors” of the faith, but not “fathers”.’
The title of patres being reserved to the fathers of councils, the Nicene Creed is called the
symbolum Patrum (Expositio symboli aa. 2 and 3). Rather than ‘Fathers’, Thomas speaks
more willingly of sancti; the importance he accords them stems from the fact that they
conserved Scripture intact (illibatam) and thereafter were able to deploy correctly what
is contained in the articles of faith (In Sent. III d. 25 q. 2 a. 2, qc. 1 ad 5). Nevertheless, we
cannot accord the Fathers the same weight as the Gospel. Thomas is always mindful to
stress that ‘the Sacred Scriptures are explained in the light of the same Spirit that inspired
them’, but he adds:
As for those things that do not belong to the faith, the doctors [expositores] have said
many things that come from their own background and, in these matters, they can
err. Their teaching does not have the same authority [necessitas] as we are not
obliged to believe them. We are only obliged to believe the canonical Scripture of
the Old and New Testament. (Quodlibet XII q. 16 a. 27 ad 1; Dahan 2007: 109–27)
In order to determine how the authority of the Fathers of the Church is to be treated,
Thomas provides some methodological recommendations of great weight in the Contra
errores graecorum (= CEG). Written at the request of Pope Urban IV, this book examines
a select number of texts contained in a certain Liber de fide Trinitatis of Greek Orthodox
provenance (Leonine edn, vol. 40, pp. A69–A105; Torrell 2015: 169–70). Thomas exam-
ines 112 texts drawn from 27 fathers on the following four points: the Filioque; the Roman
primacy; azymes; Purgatory. He does not hesitate to say that he found in the Liber de fide
Trinitatis ‘very many statements useful for expounding our faith’ (Bertrand 2013: 755–9).
To interpret them correctly, he calls to mind the rules that make for a good
interpretation:
There are, in my opinion, two reasons why some of the statements of the ancient
Greek Fathers strike our contemporaries as dubious. First, because once errors
regarding the faith arose, the holy Doctors of the Church became more circumspect
in the way they expounded points of faith, so as to exclude these errors. It is clear, for
example, that the Doctors who lived before the error of Arius did not speak so
expressly about the unity of the divine essence as the Doctors who came afterwards.
(CEG Prologue; Torrell 2005: 400–404)
This first example, taken from the context of the Arian crisis, is particularly pertinent
when it comes to Christ and the Trinity. We cannot adequately assess the orthodoxy of
the authors who came before Nicaea or Chalcedon solely in light of the later councils.

8 Jean-Pierre Torrell, OP
Nor will we accurately read Augustine’s writings on grace if we do not know that, in the
books which he published after the Pelagian heresy, he expressed himself more pru-
dently on the subject of free will that he had before (CEG Prologue). Thomas imple-
ments the same principle of interpretation with respect to what Hilary of Poitiers said
about the bodily suffering of Christ. He stresses that Hilary wrote at a time when
Christological reflection was still in its infancy: devoting all of his care to protecting the
divinity of Christ against the Arians, Hilary sometimes spoke as if Christ’s humanity did
not have its whole reality (ST III q. 15 a. 5 ad 1; Torrell 2008b: 1030–33). To take into
account other similar cases, Thomas states a general rule that he himself constantly
practiced:
Hence, if there are found some points in statements of the ancient Fathers not
expressed with the caution moderns find appropriate to observe, their statements
are not to be unduly faulted or rejected; on the other hand neither are they to be
overextended, but reverently interpreted. (CEG Prologue)
This respectful interpretation is the famous reverential exposition (exponere reverenter).
This formula is found in a more or less similar form in numerous places. Again referring
to certain opinions that can only be received with caution, Thomas says in another pas-
sage: ‘Such a way of speaking is not to be taken too literally, but it should be piously
expounded [pie exponenda]’ (ST I q. 34 a. 4; see too q. 93 a. 5 ad 1). Or again: ‘These
phrases are not to be taken too literally, but are to be loyally explained [pie sunt exponen
dae], where they are used by holy doctors’ (ST III q. 4 a. 3 ad 1; Berceville 2007: 141). We
sometimes mock this way of speaking, but are wrong to do so. The appeal to the
historical context demonstrates well that this is not just some procedure for making the
authors say almost anything; in Thomas, this is a true hermeneutic (Chenu 1954: 106–31;
Congar 1973; Geenen 1975; Principe 1976; Jordan 1987; Torrell 1988).
Poor translations and the difference in meaning among certain seemingly similar
words is another possible reason that can inhibit a sound understanding of the texts.
Thus the word ‘hypostasis’ and the word ‘person’ do not mean the same thing in Greek
and in Latin. Thomas therefore states a second rule:
It is, therefore, the task of the good translator, when translating material dealing
with the Catholic faith, to preserve the meaning, but to adapt the mode of expres-
sion so that it is in harmony with the idiom of the language into which he is translat-
ing. For obviously, when anything spoken in a literary fashion in Latin is explained
in common parlance, the explanation will be inept if it is simply word for word. All
the more so, when anything expressed in one language is translated merely word for
word into another, it will be no surprise if perplexity concerning the meaning of the
original sometimes occurs. (CEG Prologue)
A third rule consists in an appeal to the context of an author’s thought. In cases where
a passage is difficult, it would be unwise to remain at the level of its raw literalness; it
is necessary to find out the author’s intention (intentio auctoris). The intentio is a very

Saint Thomas and His Sources 9
rich term to which scholars have devoted extended treatments (Gauthier 1984: 225–
6). For our purposes, it suffices to know that the intentio is simply what the author
wished to say. Sometimes the purpose is corrective, as when Aristotle’s intentio is set
against the interpretation given by Averroes (SCG II, 61); it is also a way of exculpat-
ing an author by showing that what he means is less reprehensible than what his
words suggest if taken literally (ST III q. 50 a. 4); again, it is a way to respond to an
objection in an article in the Summa where the solution appeals to the intentio
Augustini (ST I q. 79 a. 7 ad 1). This procedure shows up more than 100 times in
Thomas: intentio Augustini (19 times), intentio Aristotelis (51 times), intentio Dionysii
(10 times), etc. (Torrell 2005: 403–5).
The reading of these texts allows for two observations. In the first place, among the
authors assembled in the Index thomisticus, this vocabulary is specific to Thomas:
nobody else employs the expression intentio Augustini or Dionysii; the exception is the
phrase intentio Aristotelis, which is employed three times (by contrast to Thomas’s 51
times) by the commentators on the De caelo et mundo and the Politics. In the next place,
the search for the intentio auctoris is closely bound up with the search for the truth.
Based on a text of Augustine, an objector thought he was authorized to resort to an
uncreated agent intellect. Thomas exculpates Augustine from this error attributed to
him, but he does not stop there: ‘But yet in order to examine more searchingly the mean-
ing of Augustine and what the truth is on this point, it must be noted that certain ancient
philosophers [thought differently].’ Thomas goes on to give an overview of the options
of philosophical thought in this area: in particular, those of Plato and Aristotle. At the
end of this overview, Thomas gives his own response, itself situated as an extension of
this long philosophical quest (De spiritualibus creaturis, a. 10 ad 8). His recourse to the
intentio auctoris has nothing to do with an easy way out; to understand what an author
wished to say, we must advert to the truth of the quest on which the author in question
had embarked and which he sought to express with a greater or lesser degree of success,
given his intellectual heritage. This is precisely why Thomas considered himself author-
ized to interpret or to extend Augustine’s thought (Sent. Metaph. I, lect. 12; Responsio de
43 articulis, prol.).
Thomas’s reverence for the Fathers does not stop him from distancing himself from
them as needed; this is the case, for example, with Cyril of Alexandria, when he omits
Cyril’s ninth anathema on the relation of Christ and the Spirit (ST III q. 7 a. 5). Thomas
knew what Cyril meant, but rather than going into a lengthy clarification, he preferred
to remain silent. He is silent, then, out of ‘reverence’; his interpretation is ‘self-distancing’
(Bertrand 2013: 763–5). Thomas’s deportment toward Chrysostom is even better known
and just as reserved.
Further, Chrysostom [Hom. xlv in Matth.] expounding the text [Matt. 12:47]: Behold
thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee, says: It is clear that they
did this from mere vain glory. Again, on John 2:3: They have no wine, the same
Chrysostom says that she wished to do them a favour, and raise herself in their
esteem, by means of her Son: and perchance she succumbed to human frailty, just as

10 Jean-Pierre Torrell, OP
did His brethren when they said: ‘Manifest Thyself to the world.’ And a little further
on he says: For as yet she did not believe in Him as she ought. Now it is quite clear
that all this was sinful. Therefore the Blessed Virgin was not preserved from all sin.
(ST III q. 27 a. 4 obj. 3)
Thomas does not allow such insinuations. A first time, in his own Commentary on
Matthew (ch. XII, lect. 4), he concedes that Chrysostom is partly right with regard to
Jesus’ brethren, but disputes that these sentiments could have been those of Mary and
affirms that she was without sin. Four years later, he is more categorical: ‘Chrysostom
goes too far [Chrysostomus excessit]’ (ST III q. 27 a. 4 ad 3). This is a strong statement,
but it shows that the authority of the Fathers is not unconditional for Thomas
(Torrell 2015: 183–4).
We cannot go into every case where we see Thomas engaged in the act of criticizing
his sources, but we should mention two other examples that are quite clear. We of course
know the leading role Pseudo-Dionysius plays in the transmission of the Neoplatonic
elements of Thomas’s doctrine (Torrell 2015: 215–19), but he is also capable of profoundly
modifying Dionysius’ thought while retaining his words. Without saying so explicitly,
Thomas corrects the natural interpretation of the adage Bonum est diffusivum sui: the
good does not diffuse itself in the manner of a necessary emanation, but rather by a vol-
untary communication of an intelligent and free agent. The good qua good does not act
in the manner of an efficient cause, but as a final cause that draws others toward it by the
attraction it elicits: bonum dicitur diffusivum per modum finis (In Sent. I d. 34 q. 2 ad 4;
Nicolas 1955; O’Rourke 1992: 213–74; Blankenhorn 2002; Andia 2013).
Boethius does not enjoy the same authority as Dionysius, but Thomas owes much to
him as well. Nevertheless, far from receiving everything Boethius says about alterity as a
principle of plurality in his Trinitarian doctrine, Thomas criticizes it exactingly and uses
it as a new point of departure, implementing the notion of alietas to express himself
more precisely than had Boethius (Super Boetium de Trinitate, Expositio capituli primi q.
4 a. 1–4; Bertrand 2003: 684–92).
The three rules mentioned above dictate Thomas’s general attitude vis-à-vis his
sources; we find them analogically in relation not only to the Fathers but also to ancient
philosophers and other authors, Arabs or Jews, and even to medieval theologians. These
rules are of capital importance, since they apply to dozens of authors (Elders 2015). But
there are two complementary things that we must keep in mind. On the one hand,
Thomas’s sources are not limited to these eminent personalities; it is also necessary to
mention all of the authors, more or less well known, that he has gathered together in his
Catena aurea (some 57 Greek and 22 Latin authors). This latter work, still awaiting a
critical edition, represents a special case among Aquinas’s works. It testifies first of all to
Thomas’s concern constantly to expand his documentation, and at the same time it veri-
fies the quality of his work:
‘(Thomas) explained himself regarding the method he followed, the abbreviations
and omissions he made; and one can verify his rigour and honesty by way of specific

Saint Thomas and His Sources 11
examples: he abridges, but does not alter; the citations are literal and, therefore,
substantial fidelity to the original is preserved.’ It is also known that Thomas used
this collection as a mine for his own work and that it played a decisive role in the
practice of his theology thereafter.
(Torrell 2008a: 158; 2015: 181-187; van Banning 1998: cxcvi–ccvii;
Dondaine 1952; 1963; Gy 1996)
On the other hand, we must stress Thomas’s remarkable familiarity with the history of
councils; this is important because, with the councils, the authority is displaced from
this or that Father to that of the Church as a whole, and so assumes a greater authority
(Torrell 2015: 185; Emery 1995). It has been established that Thomas Aquinas makes ref-
erence to 27 different councils (from Nicea I to Lateran IV), in 241 passages, spread
across 26 works; 184 passages concern the first six ecumenical councils; among these, 93
contain literal citations of the authentic acts, while others come from different sources.
Among the different conclusions of the utmost interest to which this research leads, we
should note that:
the reading of the ancient councils is a constant in Thomas Aquinas’s theological
enterprise [. . . one that] is characterized by a growing intensification. [We find in the
Tertia Pars alone] 75 different references, two-thirds of which are drawn from the
ancient councils, pertaining to Christology. [. . .] Thomas seems to have been the
only great theologian of the 13th century who used—as such and with a certain
insistence—the dogmatic conclusions and the patristic records of the first five ecu-
menical councils. (Morard 2005: 351–2)
After the Fathers and the councils, we must quickly draw attention to one last type of
source, namely, medieval theologians. Rarely named, most often evoked by a simple
quidam, these authors obviously do not carry the same weight as the more ancient
authors; they are fellow teachers, sometimes belonging to the same generation as
Thomas; it is enough to mention the quarrels that will arise from Thomas’s own writings
for us to understand the level of authority that medieval theologians granted to each
other (Torrell 2015: 377–403). The dicta of theologians are not authentica, but simply
magistralia, and Thomas does not hesitate to say so: ‘This gloss is magisterial and of little
value’ (In ad 1 Tim 5:9). The best known case is that of De spiritu et anima; this little
anonymous writing, widely used in the thirteenth century, was sometimes attributed to
St Augustine, but Thomas, rightly suspecting that it was of Cistercian origin, denied its
authenticity with an increasing firmness: ‘That book is not Augustine’s’; ‘The book De
spiritu et Anima is apocryphal [. . .] and there are in it many things falsely or inaccurately
stated’ (De spiritualibus creaturis a. 3 ad 6; a. 11 ad 2; Quaestiones De anima 9 ad 11); or
again: ‘That book has no authority, and so what is there written can be despised with the
same facility as it was said’ (ST I q. 77 a. 8 ad 1). These judgements are sometimes formu-
lated in a more detailed manner, but they apply universally; even Peter Lombard does
not escape. Thomas discusses at length Peter Lombard’s thesis on the uncreated charac-
ter of charity and establishes the contrary indisputably (In Sent. I d. 17 q. 1 a. 1;

12 Jean-Pierre Torrell, OP
Torrell 2017: 240–46). Thomas is severe in his assessments, but he also knows how to be
fair and appraise the weight of rational argumentation. When speaking of Hugh of St
Victor, he can thus write: ‘Although the words of Hugh of S. Victor are those of a master,
and have not the force of an authority, yet it may be said [. . .]’ (ST II–II, q. 5 a. 1 ad 1).
These few examples will suffice for our purposes; they show that Thomas’s respect for
his sources is accompanied by a certain liberty. Everything not directly touching on the
revealed source is subject to no other judgement than that of the truth. We will find this
same attitude of respectful reception and alert criticism applied to the philosophers,
even if the Christian faith sometimes requires one to deviate from them.
Thomas and His Philosophical Sources
According to Thomas, it is legitimate to make use of the ‘authorities’ of philosophers in
sacra doctrina, but as ‘extrinsic and probable arguments’ (ST I q. 1 a. 8 ad 2). This caution
does not stop him from approaching these eminent witnesses of natural reason with
evident methodological sympathy.
Let us take as our point of departure a fact that is too often neglected but is nevertheless
obvious: Thomas’s interest in the thought of philosophers is particularly apparent in the
status quaestionis that precede the examination of the great problems that he had to treat.
Thus, as regards the eternity of the world (De caelo et mundo I, lect. 22), he is careful first
to take stock of the opinions of the ancient philosophers on this question. He begins with
the theological poets Orpheus and Hesiod, continues with Plato, Democritus, and
Socrates, then Empedocles and Heraclitus, returns to Aristotle and Plato, and then con-
tinues with Simplicius (a Neoplatonist) and Alexander of Aphrodisias (an Aristotelian).
Aristotle had himself initiated this discussion, but Thomas is not afraid to pursue this
discussion further in later thinkers (De potentia q. 3 a. 17).
All the great questions—philosophical or theological—in Thomas’s works are thus
engaged by calling to mind the major positions of others as real and living options (ST
III q. 2 a. 3; q. 18 a. 1; q 19 a. 1; ST III q. 2 a. 6; cf. Torrell 2008b: 969–83, 1062–7). The most
striking example of a discussion thus informed by the achievements of the history of
philosophy on a specific subject is found in the De Substantiis separatis, in which this
survey takes up 17 chapters (30 pages of the Leonine edition). The investigation runs
from the Presocratics to the Manicheans, going through Plato and various Platonists,
Aristotle and the Jewish thinker Ibn Gabirol (Avicebron), not to mention Christian
thinkers like Origen (De substantiis separatis 119; De spiritualibus creaturis a. 5). The spe-
cialists regard this book as ‘one of the most typical of Thomas’s writings: attentive to
everything that the philosophical tradition can offer it’, remarkable in particular for the
‘information it exploits’ and exhibiting ‘a research [. . .] in full maturity, in full possession
of its method’ (Gilson 1986: 217). The example of the commentary on De anima on the
nature of the soul and its relation to movement is no less eloquent: Aristotle had briefly
mentioned some opinions of the philosophers who preceded him; Thomas takes them

Saint Thomas and His Sources 13
up again, but his commentary covers two whole lectiones (In De anima I 3–4 (403 b
24-404 b 30; Leonine edn, vol. 45(1), pp. 13–21)). R.-A. Gauthier, who edited these texts,
devoted more than 80 pages to this book’s sources, and shows that ‘St. Thomas had at his
disposal an abundance of material to comment on the De anima and he greatly bene-
fited from the work of his predecessors’; in addition, on certain points, Thomas gives his
readers ‘information that is surprising in terms of its precision and accuracy’
(Gauthier 1984: 201*–282*).
Thomas’s interest is not limited to Greek authors; he also had a long engagement with
the Arab-language philosophers. We can count 405 explicit mentions of Avicenna, 503
citations of Averroes, 205 citations of Arab or Jewish authors other than Avicenna and
Averroes (including Maimonides) (Vansteenkiste 1953; 1957; 1960). Maimonides is
familiar to Thomas for his reflections on providence and prophecy (De veritate qq. 5 and
12; Torrell 2006; 2011; Imbach 1995). This is all the more remarkable as some of the trans-
lations had been done quite recently.
With regard to the manner in which Thomas reads these authors, we can take as an
example how he conceives of the ultimate end of man. He spoke about it quite often, but
never so explicitly as in an early work (In Sent. IV d. 49 q. 2 a. 1, resp.; SCG III 51;
Torrell 1997b). Philosophers and theologians, he observes, diverge on this point.
Philosophers place beatitude in the vision of separated substances, whereas theologians
place it in the vision of God himself; nevertheless, the philosophers’ solutions can help
us to better understand the truth. Thomas then recalls the position of Al-Farabi and
other unnamed authors; he continues with Avempace (Ibn Bâjja), then Avicenna,
Alexander of Aphrodisias, and Averroes, before finally proposing his own solution. The
stakes in this discussion are huge (Brenet 2006: 321–35), but what matters for our pur-
poses is Thomas’s method: Thomas knows how to interrogate earlier authors; he does
not retain everything, but is able to make use of their reflections for his own solution
with a clear awareness of the progressive character of philosophical reflection: ‘The
ancient philosophers gradually, and as it were step by step [paulatim, et quasi pedentim],
advanced to the knowledge of truth’ (ST I q. 44 a. 2; cf. Super Iob, Prol.; Dahan 2003).
Led by his presupposition of goodwill towards the philosophers, Thomas takes from
them everything that is not incompatible with the Catholic faith, according to some
even going so far as to attribute a theory of divine providence to Aristotle (Vijgen 2007).
In point of fact, the case of Aristotle is emblematic. The time is long since past when
Thomas was regarded as a faithful interpreter of the thought of the Greek master.
Historians have become increasingly critical. We, of course, recognize that Thomas’s
commentaries are not without value, and yet he has inflected Aristotle’s teaching on a
number of decisive points. We see this, for example, in his commentary on the Ethics,
which is guided by the Christian idea of beatitude found in the vision of the one God, or
in how his commentary on the ‘Metaphysics is oriented toward a metaphysics of being,
which would have been entirely foreign to Aristotle’. The creationism and monotheism
of Thomas are no less foreign to Aristotle. We have known for a long time that ‘Thomas
baptized Aristotle’. According to other authors, his idea of political science was ‘a verit
able negation of Aristotelianism’. ‘Even those who today want to defend Thomas’s

14 Jean-Pierre Torrell, OP
substantial fidelity to Aristotle must admit that it takes place by means of a “deepening
and surpassing of Aristotle’s text” ’ (Torrell 2015: 303–7).
Beyond these generalities which would tend to disqualify Aristotle in the eyes of his
Thomist readers, it is necessary, however, to recognize his importance even in Thomas’s
most resolutely theological treatises. Aristotle is obviously not a source for the treatise
on the Trinity, but Gilles Emery (Emery 2015: 1–28) has been able to show that he is
nevertheless omnipresent therein by way of his method, his metaphysics of being and
acting, his natural philosophy, his epistemology, and his logic. He has thereby contributed
extensively to the originality of Thomas’s Trinitarian theology. Serge-Thomas Bonino
(Bonino 2015: 29–47) similarly judges that Aristotle’s major contribution to Thomas and
other medieval authors is due to the fact that his philosophy is, so to speak, a koiné—that
is, it provides a common language and frame of reference. There is a good example of
this with regard to Christology. Corey Barnes (Barnes 2015: 186–204) has identified
several points of significant influence: the argument from fittingness; the principle of
maxime tale in connection with grace and the resurrection; the axiom actiones sunt sup
positorum; and the notion of instrumentality vis-à-vis the humanity of Christ. These
contributions greatly assisted Thomas in his task of unfolding and safeguarding the
integrity of Christ’s human nature in conformity with the Chalcedonian dogma.
It would take too long to review all the points where Thomas moves away from
Aristotle while at the same time using him as he sees fit (Emery and Levering 2015;
Vijgen 2015). One of the most notable is the significant development to which Thomas
subjected the Aristotelian notion of scientia in his theory of the subalternation of
theology to the science of God and the blessed (Torrell and Bouthillier 1996: 148–50;
Torrell 1997b: 173–6). Unlike the Fathers of the Church whom he avoids contradicting
too openly, Thomas at times brutally dismisses Aristotle. Thus, he refuses to follow the
latter’s psychological theory according to which two extreme passions cannot coexist at
the same time in the same subject. If we remind Thomas of Aristotle’s position, given
that he maintains that the boundless joy of the beatific vision and the height of derelic-
tion were able to coexist in Christ in the moment of his Passion, he curtly replies that
this does not apply in Christ’s case (ST III q. 46 a. 8 ad 2; Torrell 1994: 401). Submission to
the reality of faith prevails over Aristotle’s authority. In the same way, the teaching about
the subsistence of the Eucharistic accidents sine subjecto leads to a redefinition of acci-
dent that, in Thomas’s hands, differs significantly from Aristotle’s conception (ST III
q. 77 a. 1 ad 4; Torrell 1994: 401; Imbach 1996: 309–31).
This liberty in borrowings, as well as refusing or modifying where necessary, could
easily be found in the case of other philosophers, as we have already encountered it in
the case of the Fathers of the Church. Thomas takes hold of the good wherever he finds
it. Like Socrates, he dialogues with his interlocutors, and he excels at taking advantage of
their disagreements before proposing his own solution. Whether they are dead or alive
changes nothing in this process. His approach is the same and his conclusion similar:
the pursuit of truth goes on. Is this eclecticism on Thomas’s part, as some have indeed
claimed? If we were to harbour the impression that these are diverse borrowings more or
less artificially assembled, the accusation might be justified; but in fact Thomas does not

Saint Thomas and His Sources 15
leave what he borrows intact. As Gilson said so well (1986: 459): ‘If we concede that a
philosophy should not be defined by the elements it borrows, but by the spirit that ani-
mates it, we will see in this doctrine neither Plotinianism, nor Aristotelianism, but above
all Christianity.’ Thomas’s borrowings are not petty larceny. Rather, they are a kind of
homage he renders to the authors who came before him.
Indeed, Thomas is guided in this quest by a deep conviction that he received from a
long tradition going back to Ambrosiaster (fourth century) and which he often recalls:
‘Quicquid enim verum a quocumque dicitur, a sancto dicitur spiritu: Every truth, no mat-
ter by whom it is spoken, comes from the Holy Spirit.’ The universality of the presence
and operation of the Spirit in this context corresponds exactly to the universality of the
active presence of the Word to all things. Whatever may be the darkness of this world
into which the Word has brought light by his Incarnation, Thomas elsewhere explains,
we cannot say that any ‘man is in such darkness as to be completely devoid of divine
light, because whatever truth is known by anyone is due to a participation in that light
which shines in the darkness; for every truth, no matter by whom it is spoken, comes
from the Holy Spirit’ (In Ioan. 1, 5; Bonino 2006).1
It is in light of this conviction that we can understand the spirit that animates Thomas’s
approach when he turns to the non-Christian authors who came before him. When he
encounters a truth spoken by one of them, he knows where it comes from and adopts it
without hesitating. This attitude expresses the awareness of one who belongs to a com-
munity of truth seekers where disinterested mutual assistance is a fundamental law:
He shows how men assist each other to know the truth; for one man assists another
to consider the truth in two ways—directly and indirectly. One is assisted directly by
those who have discovered the truth; because, as has been pointed out, when each
of our predecessors have discovered something about the truth, which is gathered
together into one whole, he also introduces his followers to a more extensive know
ledge of truth. One is assisted indirectly insofar as those who have preceded us and
who were wrong about the truth have bequeathed to their successors the occasion
for exercising their mental powers, so that by diligent discussion the truth might be
seen more clearly. (Sent. Metaph. II, lect. 1)2
Thus, when Thomas rejects certain positions of his predecessors or when he modifies
them and expresses reservations about them, this must always be seen against the back-
ground of his gratitude to them. Aristotle has paved the way, and Thomas borrows from
him without hesitation and further amplifies the praise of his master in philosophy:
Now it is only fitting that we should be grateful to those who have helped us attain
so great a good as knowledge of the truth [. . .] not merely to those whom we think
have found the truth and whose views we agree by following them, but also to those
1 Translator’s note: Citation from Thomas’s commentary on John is from Thomas Aquinas,
Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, pt 1 (Albany, NY: Magi Books, 1980), 61.
2 Translator’s note: All citations from Sententia libri Metaphysicae are taken from dhspriory.org.

16 Jean-Pierre Torrell, OP
who, in the search for truth, have made only superficial statements, even though we
do not follow their views; for these men too have given us something because they
have shown us instances of actual attempts to discover the truth. [Aristotle gives the
example of the invention of music via successive discoveries and passes from there
to the philosophers who have enunciated the general truths about the truth of
things.] The same thing must be said of those philosophers who made statements of
universal scope about the truth of things; for we accept from certain of our prede-
cessors whatever views about the truth of things we think are true and disregard the
rest. Again, those from whom we accept certain views had predecessors from whom
they in turn accepted certain views and who were the source of their information.
(Sent. Metaph. II, lect. 1)
We must respect both parties, namely, those whose opinion we follow, and those
whose opinion we reject. For both have diligently sought the truth and have aided
us in this matter. Yet we must ‘be persuaded by the more certain’, i.e., we must follow
the opinion of those who have attained the truth with greater certitude.
(Sent. Metaph. XII, lect. 9)
This praise of the philosophical tradition may serve as the conclusion of this study on
Thomas’s attitude toward his sources. It conveys a clear awareness of the seeker’s
involvement in a long temporal chain without which he could not enjoy the intellec-
tual capital he has inherited. The concern to base one’s arguments on the authorities of
the past does not express a safe approach, nor an intemperate vice for documentation,
but rather the deeply rooted and reasoned conviction of the historicity of human
thought. Thomas’s relation to his sources is an aspect of his personality that has been
misunderstood for too long. The extraordinary vitality of current research shows the
fecundity of this approach. Thomas is justly famous for his great philosophical
insights and his speculative genius, but the manner with which he has inserted all this
in history is no less remarkable.
Suggested Reading
Emery and Levering (2015); Torrell (2005; 2015; 2017); Bertrand (2013); Elders (2015); Dauphinais
et al. (2019).
Bibliography
Aillet, M. (1993), Lire la Bible avec saint Thomas. Le passage de la littera à la res dans la Somme
théologique (Fribourg: Éditions universitaires).
Andia, Y. de (2013), ‘Bonum diffusivum sui selon Denys l’Aréopagite, Thomas d’Aquin et
Bonaventure’, in N. Bériou et al. (eds), Les réceptions des Pères de l’Église au Moyen Âge. Le
devenir de la tradition ecclésiale (Münster: Aschendorff), 769–85.
Barnes, C. L. (2015), ‘Aristotle in the Summa Theologiae’s Christology’, in G. Emery and M. Levering
(eds), Aristotle in Aquinas’s Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 186–204.
Berceville, G. (2007), ‘L’autorité des Pères selon Thomas d’Aquin’, Revue des sciences philos
ophiques et théologiques 91: 129–44.

Saint Thomas and His Sources 17
Bériou, N., Berndt, R., Fédou, M., Oliva, A., and Vauchez, A. (eds) (2013), Les réceptions des
Pères de l’Église au Moyen Âge. Le devenir de la tradition ecclésiale (Münster: Aschendorff).
Bertrand, D.-T. (2003), ‘Sur le fondement de la différence dans le De Trinitate. Thomas d’Aquin
interprète de Boèce’, in Alain Galonnier (ed.), Boèce ou la chaîne de savoirs (Louvain-Paris:
Peeters), 679–96.
Bertrand, D.-T. (2013), ‘La familiarité de Thomas d’Aquin avec les Pères. Évaluation littéraire,
historique et théologique’, in N. Bériou et al. (eds), Les réceptions des Pères de l’Église au
Moyen Âge. Le devenir de la tradition ecclésiale (Münster: Aschendorff), 755–68.
Blankenhorn, B. (2002), ‘The Good as Self-Diffusive in Thomas Aquinas’, Angelicum 79: 803–37.
Blankenhorn, B. (2012), ‘Aquinas on Paul’s Flesh/Spirit Anthropology’, in M. Levering and
M. Dauphinais (eds), Reading Romans with St. Thomas Aquinas (Washington, DC: Catholic
University of America Press), 1–38.
Bouthillier, D. (1993), ‘Le Christ en son mystère dans les collationes du Super Isaiam de saint
Thomas d’Aquin’, in C.-J. Pinto de Oliveira (ed.), Ordo sapientiae et amoris. Hommage au
professeur Jean-Pierre Torrell (Fribourg: Éditions universitaires), 37–64.
Bouthillier, D. (1998), ‘Splendor gloriae Patris. Deux collations du Super Isaiam de S. Thomas
d’Aquin’, in Kent Emery, Jr. and Joseph Wawrykow (eds), Christ Among the Medieval
Dominicans (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press), 139–56.
Bonino, S.-T. (2006), ‘“Toute vérité quel que soit celui qui la dit, vient de l’Esprit-Saint”. Autour
d’une citation de l’Ambrosiaster dans le corpus thomasien’, Revue thomiste 106: 101–47.
Bonino, S.-T. (2015), ‘Aristotelianism and Angelology According to Aquinas’, in G. Emery and
M. Levering (eds), Aristotle in Aquinas’s Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 29–47.
Brenet, J.-B. (2006), ‘Vision béatifique et séparation de l’intellect au début du XIV
e
siècle’,
Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 53: 309–42.
Chardonnens, D. (1997), L’homme sous le regard de la Providence (Paris: Vrin).
Chenu, M.-D. (1954), Introduction à l’étude de saint Thomas d’Aquin (Paris: Vrin).
Congar, Y. (1973), ‘Valeur et portée œcuméniques de quelques principes herméneutiques de
saint Thomas d’Aquin’, Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 57: 611–26.
Dahan, G. (1992), ‘Saint Thomas d’Aquin et la métaphore. Rhétorique et herméneutique’,
Medioevo 18: 85–117.
Dahan, G. (2002), ‘Introduction. Thomas d’Aquin commentateur de la première épître aux
Corinthiens’, in Thomas Aquinas, Commentaire de la première épître aux Corinthiens, trans.
Jean-Éric Stroobant de Saint-Eloy (Paris: Cerf), i–xxxvii.
Dahan, G. (2003), ‘Ex imperfecto ad perfectum. Le progrès de la pensée humaine chez les
théologiens du XIIIe siècle’, in Emmanuèle Baumgartner and Laurence Harf-Lancner (eds),
Progrès, réaction, décadence dans l’Occident médiéval (Geneva: Droz), 171–84.
Dahan, G. (2005), ‘Exégèse et théologie dans le commentaire de Thomas d’Aquin sur la
seconde épître aux Corinthiens’, in Thomas Aquinas, Commentaire de la deuxième épître
aux Corinthiens, trans. Jean-Éric Stroobant de Saint-Éloy (Paris: Cerf), i–xlvii.
Dahan, G. (2007), ‘Les Pères dans l’exégèse médiévale de la Bible’, Revue des sciences philos
ophiques et théologiques 91: 109–27.
Dahan, G. (2009a), Interpréter la Bible au Moyen Âge. Cinq écrits du XIII
e
siècle sur l’exégèse de
la Bible traduits en français (Paris: Parole et Silence).
Dahan, G. (2009b), Lire la Bible au Moyen Âge. Essais d’herméneutique médiévale (Geneva:
Droz).
Dahan, G. (2015), ‘Thomas Aquinas: Exegesis and Hermeneutics’, in P. Roszak and J. Vijgen
(eds), Reading Sacred Scripture with Thomas Aquinas: Hermeneutic Tools, Theological
Questions and New Perspectives (Turnhout: Brepols), 45–70.

18 Jean-Pierre Torrell, OP
Dauphinais, M., and Levering, M. (eds) (2005), Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas:
Theological Exegesis and Speculative Theology (Washington, DC: Catholic University of
America Press).
Dauphinais, M., Hofer, A., and Nutt, R. (eds.) (2019), Thomas Aquinas and the Greek Fathers
(Ave Maria, FL: Sapientia Press).
Decker, B. (1962), ‘Schriftprinzip und Ergänzungstradition in der Theologie des hl. Thomas
von Aquin’, in Schrift und Tradition (Essen: Driewer), 191–221.
Dondaine, H.-F. (1952), ‘Les scolastiques citent-ils les Pères de première main?’, Revue des sci
ences philosophiques et théologiques 36: 231–43.
Dondaine, H.- F. (1963), ‘Note sur la documentation patristique de saint Thomas à Paris avant
1270’, Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 47: 403–6.
Elders, L. J. (2015), Thomas d’Aquin et ses prédécesseurs. La présence des grands philosophes et
Pères de l’Église dans les œuvres de Thomas d’Aquin (Paris: IPC).
Emery, G. (1995), ‘Le photinisme et ses précurseurs chez saint Thomas. Cérinthe, les Ébionites,
Paul de Samosate et Photin’, Revue thomiste 95: 371–98.
Emery, G. (2015), ‘Central Aristotelian Themes in Aquinas’s Trinitarian Theology’, in G. Emery
and M. Levering (eds), Aristotle in Aquinas’s Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press),
1–28.
Emery, G., and Levering, M. (eds) (2015), Aristotle in Aquinas’s Theology (Oxford: Oxford
University Press).
Gauthier, R. A. (1984), ‘Préface’, Sententia libri De anima, Leonine Commission, vol. 45(1)
(Rome).
Geenen, C. G. (1975), ‘Le fonti patristiche come “autorità” nella teologia di San Tommaso’,
Sacra Doctrina 77: 7–17.
Gilson, É. (1986), Le Thomisme (Paris: Vrin).
Gy, P.-M. (1996), ‘La documentation sacramentaire de Thomas d’Aquin. Quelle connaissance
saint Thomas a-t-il de la tradition ancienne et patristique?’, Revue des sciences philosophiques
et théologiques 80: 425–31.
Imbach, R. (1995), ‘Alcune precisazioni sulla presenza di Maimonide in Tommaso d’Aquino’,
Studi n.s. 2 (Roma: Angelicum), 48–64.
Imbach, R. (1996), ‘Le traité de l’eucharistie de Thomas d’Aquin et les averroïstes’, in Quodlibeta,
ed. Francis Cheneval et al. (Fribourg: Éditions universitaires).
Jordan, M. D. (1987), ‘Theological Exegesis and Aquinas’s Treatise “Against the Greeks”’,
Church History 56: 445–56.
Keating, D. A. (2006), ‘Aquinas on 1 and 2 Corinthians: The Sacraments and their Ministers’,
in T. G. Weinandy, D. A. Keating, and J. P. Yocum (eds), Aquinas on Scripture: An Introduction
to his Biblical Commentary (London: T&T Clark), 127–48.
Leonine Commission (1948), Auctores et opera citata a S. Thoma in Summa theologiae et in
Summa Contra Gentiles, Extractum ex Tomo XVI editionis manualis leoninae, Indices, vol.
16 (Rome), 177–226.
Levering, M. (2014), Paul in the Summa Theologiae (Washington, DC: Catholic University of
America Press).
Levering, M., and Dauphinais, M. (eds) (2012), Reading Romans with St. Thomas Aquinas
(Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press).
Morard, M. (2005), ‘Thomas d’Aquin lecteur des conciles. Entre légende et réalité’, Archivum
franciscanum historicum 98: 211–365.
Nicolas, M.-J. (1955), ‘Bonum diffusivum sui’, Revue thomiste 55: 363–76.

Saint Thomas and His Sources 19
O’Rourke, F. (1992), Pseudo-Dionysius and the Metaphysics of Aquinas (Leiden: Brill).
Patfoort, A. (1990), ‘Autour de Scriptura sola chez saint Thomas d’Aquin’, in Kécharitoménè.
Mélanges René Laurentin (Paris: Desclée), 513–19.
Principe, W. H. (1976), ‘Thomas Aquinas’ Principles for Interpretation of Patristic Texts’,
Studies in Medieval Culture 8–9: 111–21.
Rossi, M. M. (1994), ‘La divisio textus nei commenti scritturistici di S. Tommaso d’Aquino. Un
procedimento solo esegetico?’, Angelicum 71: 537–48.
Roszak, P., and Vijgen, J. (eds) (2015), Reading Sacred Scripture with Thomas Aquinas:
Hermeneutic Tools, Theological Questions and New Perspectives (Turnhout: Brepols).
Torrell, J.-P. (1988), ‘Autorités théologiques et liberté du théologien. L’exemple de saint Thomas
d’Aquin’, Les Échos de Saint-Maurice, Suisse (VS), n.s. 18: 7–24.
Torrell, J.-P. (1994), ‘S. Thomas d’Aquin et la science du Christ. Une relecture des questions
9–12 de la Tertia Pars de la Somme de théologie’, in Serge-Thomas Bonino (ed.), Saint
Thomas au XX
e
siècle (Paris: Saint-Paul), 394–409.
Torrell, J.-P. (1997a), ‘Le savoir théologique chez les premiers thomistes’, Revue thomiste 97:
9–30.
Torrell, J.-P. (1997b), ‘La vision de Dieu “per essentiam” selon saint Thomas d’Aquin’, Micrologus
5: 43–68.
Torrell, J.-P. (2000), ‘Le savoir théologique chez saint Thomas’, in Recherches thomasiennes
(Paris: Vrin), 121–57.
Torrell, J.-P. (2003), Saint Thomas Aquinas, vol. 2: Spiritual Master (Washington, DC: Catholic
University of America Press).
Torrell, J.-P. (2005), Saint Thomas Aquinas, vol. 1: The Person and his Work, rev. edn
(Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press).
Torrell, J.-P. (2006), Thomas Aquinas, Questions disputées sur la vérité. Question XII, La
Prophétie (De prophetia), trans. Serge-Thomas Bonino, introduction and annotations by
Jean-Pierre Torrell (Paris: Vrin).
Torrell, J.-P. (2008a), ‘Saint Thomas et l’histoire. État de la question et pistes de recherches’, in
Nouvelles recherches thomasiennes (Paris: Vrin), 131–75.
Torrell, J.-P. (2008b), Encyclopédie: Jésus le Christ chez saint Thomas d’Aquin. Texte de la Tertia
pars traduit et commenté (Paris: Cerf).
Torrell, J.-P. (2011), Thomas Aquinas, Questions disputées sur la Vérité. Question V, La
Providence (De providentia), Question VI, La Prédestination (De praedestinatione), intro.
and commentary by J.-P. Torrell (Paris: Vrin).
Torrell, J.-P. (2015), Initiation à saint Thomas d’Aquin. Sa personne et son œuvre, nouvelle édi-
tion profondément remaniée (Paris: Cerf).
Torrell, J.-P. (2017), Saint Thomas d’Aquin, maître spirituel, nouvelle édition profondément
remaniée (Paris: Cerf).
Torrell, J.-P., and Bouthillier, D. (1996), ‘Quand saint Thomas méditait sur le prophète Isaïe’,
Revue thomiste 96: 179–208.
Van Banning, J. (1988), Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum. Praefatio (Turnhout: Brepols).
Vansteenkiste, G. C. (1953), ‘Avicenna-Citaten bij S. Thomas’, Tijdschrift voor Philosophie 15:
457–507.
Vansteenkiste, G. C. (1957), ‘San Tommaso d’Aquino ed Averroè’, Rivista degli studi orientali 32:
585–623.
Vansteenkiste, G. C. (1960), ‘Autori arabi e giudei nell’opera di San Tommaso’, Angelicum 37:
336–401.

20 Jean-Pierre Torrell, OP
Venard, O.-T. (2015), ‘Metaphor in Aquinas: Between Necessitas and Delectatio’, in P. Roszak
and J. Vijgen (eds), Reading Sacred Scripture with Thomas Aquinas: Hermeneutic Tools,
Theological Questions and New Perspectives (Turnhout: Brepols), 199–228.
Vijgen, J. (2007), ‘Did St. Thomas Attribute a Doctrine of Divine Providence to Aristotle?’,
Doctor Angelicus 7: 53–76.
Vijgen, J. (2015), ‘Aristotle in Aquinas’s Biblical Commentaries’, in P. Roszak and J. Vijgen
(eds), Reading Sacred Scripture with Thomas Aquinas: Hermeneutic Tools, Theological
Questions and New Perspectives (Turnhout: Brepols), 287–346.
Wawrykow, J. (2006), ‘Aquinas on Isaiah’, in T. G. Weinandy, D. A. Keating, and J. P. Yocum
(eds), Aquinas on Scripture: An Introduction to his Biblical Commentary (London: T&T
Clark), 44–71.
Weinandy, T. G., Keating, D. A., and Yocum, J. P. (eds) (2006), Aquinas on Scripture: An
Introduction to his Biblical Commentary (London: T&T Clark).

Part I
MEDIEVAL
RECEPTIONS

chapter 2
Thirteenth-Century
Engagements with
Thomas Aquinas
Corey L. Barnes
On 7 March 1277 the bishop of Paris, Stephen Tempier, condemned 219 propositions,
building upon and extending his 1270 condemnation of 13 propositions (Piché 1999;
Hissette 1977). The condemned propositions concern philosophical and theological
views derived from or related to interpretations of Aristotle and Averroes probably
amongst members of the arts faculty at Paris, though efforts to identify these positions
in the extant writings of arts masters have yielded few close correlations. Some contem-
poraries of the condemnations believed Thomas Aquinas to be implicated, even if only
indirectly. The condemnations at Oxford, promulgated by Richard Kilwardby and
renewed by John Peckham, and the examination process instituted against Giles of
Rome are taken as evidence of Thomas’s implication insofar as both targeted Thomistic
theses such as the unicity of substantial form (Callus 1946; Roensch 1964;
Wielockx 1985; 1999; Thijssen 1997; Wippel 1997). Wielockx argues that the process
against Giles targeted intellectual trends in the theology faculty, and that Tempier was
preparing a separate process against Aquinas (Wielockx 1985; 1999). Thijssen and
Wippel deny that Tempier was preparing a separate process against Aquinas and dispute
that Tempier initiated the process against Giles (Thijssen 1997; Wippel 1997). Regardless
of whether Thomas was actually, implicitly, or vicariously implicated, the general tenor
of theological reflection shifted in the wake of Tempier’s condemnations away from the
mode favoured and elaborated by Thomas. As Stephen Marrone argues, the anomaly
was not in the changing conditions that yielded or framed the 1270 and 1277 condemna-
tions ‘but rather the curious inclination towards a reputed Aristotelian purism from the
1240s to the 1270s’ (Marrone 2001: 280). The 1277 condemnations were not the sole or
even necessarily the primary cause of this shift, but they deserve mention as a marker of
larger patterns of development, patterns that must be born in mind as we investigate
thirteenth-century engagements with Aquinas.

24 Corey L. Barnes
Thomas Aquinas’ eventual importance for the Dominican Order, for scholastic
thought, and for the Catholic intellectual tradition might lead one to suspect his recep-
tion began from his earliest of days writing and teaching. Certainly, his philosophical
and theological acumen was noted and appreciated in his lifetime within and beyond
the Dominican Order, but that is not to say his particular ideas exercised an authorita-
tive influence (Torrell 1996). Aside from several Dominican theology students treating
Aquinas as a received authority in the Correctoria controversy, finding clear examples of
philosophical and theological reception of Aquinas in the late thirteenth century proves
a difficult labour.
Accordingly, the emphasis here will be on engagements with rather than receptions of
Aquinas, and for two reasons. First, engagement covers everything from repetitions to
respectful reworking to strident disagreements. The very imprecision of engagement
counts here as a virtue. Second, reception risks anachronism when applied to major
thirteenth-century figures writing and thinking in conversation with or in response to
Aquinas or positions closely associated with him. One can approach late thirteenth-cen-
tury theology and philosophy as a series of overlapping and interrelated conversations
in which Thomas Aquinas served as a founding participant. Some thinkers formulated
their own positions in direct conversation with Thomas’s ideas and arguments; others
did so less, and mainly indirectly. Even when foundational conversation partners fall
silent, their presence continues to influence the conversation and argumentation. This,
at least, will be the basic contention here and a ground for considering diverse sorts of
engagement, not all of which were explicit or even intentional.
Within this general framing, the present investigation will treat briefly broad con-
tours of the Correctoria controversy and attend to engagements with Aquinas in Giles of
Rome, Siger of Brabant, Godfrey of Fontaines, and Henry of Ghent. Topics central to
Thomas’s theology and philosophy that generated controversy during and after his life
will be the focus. These topics include questions surrounding the possibility of an eter-
nal world, the unicity of substantial form, and the real distinction between esse and
essentia. Focusing on these topics entertains two dangers. One is to assume—often
against evidence—that any affirmation or criticism of either topic reflects intentional
engagement with Thomas. Such is not always the case. Nevertheless, even when Aquinas
himself does not serve as the direct source of later considerations, his thought often
lurks at one remove and would be employed directly by other thinkers promoting
adherence to Thomas’s teachings. The second danger implies that engagement with
Aquinas can be reduced to these topics. Apart from controversial stances and positions,
he reframed several theological and philosophical topics in what became standard ways
for both supporters and detractors.
The condemnations of 1277 have been described through a dichotomy of Aristotelianism
and Augustinianism. The Aristotelianism at play is further characterized as radically
Averroistic (Renan 1866). Problems abound with this dichotomy, and more recent schol-
arship has shunned this approach in favour of alternative means for specifying the roots or
parties of the debate. Radical or heterodox Aristotelianism in the arts faculty at Paris did
exist and was targeted by the condemnations, but it would be a misstep to label this

Thirteenth-Century Engagements 25
Averroism (van Steenberghen 1966). Aside from affirmation of monopsychism, Siger of
Brabant—often taken as the chief representative of this radical Averroism—was less an
adherent of Averroes than of Aristotle. Van Steenberghen presents Siger’s philosophy as a
compromise between Aristotelian natural philosophy and Neoplatonic metaphysics influ-
enced by Proclus and Avicenna (van Steenberghen 1970; 1977). Furthermore, all parties in
this contest regarded Augustine as a theological authority par excellence, even if they dis
agreed with individual positions or subjected the bishop of Hippo’s writings to reverential
interpretations. The point here is simply to note that one party cannot sufficiently be
treated as Augustinian over and against the other. Roensch reminds readers that the term
‘Augustinianism’ was only coined in 1889, and that the ‘so-called Augustinianism or neo-
Augustinianism of the mid-thirteenth century, therefore, may be defined as a broadly con-
fused complex of heterogenous theses often erroneously accepted on the authority of St.
Augustine, when actually derived from neo-Platonic, Jewish and Arabic sources, but gen-
erally considered to be in accord with Catholic belief’ (Roensch 1964: 172; Piché 1999). At
issue was less the authority of Aristotle or Augustine and more the general question of
progressive versus conservative tendencies amongst the faculties of arts and of theology.
The progressive tendencies certainly included judicious attention to and use of newly
available philosophical and theological sources, but also affirmed a more circumspect
approach to the limits of human reason and knowledge. The conservative tendencies dis-
play marked discomfort with aspects of Aristotelian philosophy and vastly preferred
Neoplatonic philosophical dispositions, while also resisting introduction of new sources
and authorities. These ‘Augustinians’ defended an optimistic interpretation of human rea-
son and its ability to deduce or demonstrate theological truths.
Thomas Aquinas embodied central aspects of the progressive approach in his atten-
tion to the works of Aristotle and Aristotelian interpreters—including Avicenna and
Averroes—and in his conception of the limits of metaphysics. Scholars discussing
Thomas’s use of new sources typically limit the scope to philosophical sources, though
this limitation ignores his recovery and use of patristic and conciliar sources otherwise
unused by scholastic thinkers (Morard 2005). Even ardent defenders of Aquinas largely
or wholly ignored or declined to cite these authorities, suggesting perhaps that engaging
sources squarely within the Christian tradition but lying outside the standard set of
authorities deployed in scholastic argumentation was too progressive in the atmosphere
of late thirteenth-century theology at Paris.
The Correctoria Controversy
and the Conversation Partners
Before turning to the topics for consideration, a brief introduction to central figures
will provide useful context. William de la Mare codified rivalry between Franciscans
and Dominicans with the 1279 publication of his Correctorium fratris Thomae (The

26 Corey L. Barnes
Correction of Brother Thomas) (Jordan 1982). The Correctorium tackles a range of
topics gleaned from Thomas’s writings that William finds suspect. One topic regularly
singled out by the Correctorium concerns unicity of substantial form. The
Correctorium elicited a number of defensive responses from Dominicans who had not
yet incepted as masters and were still in the process of theological formation ‘correct-
ing’ William’s corrections, which the Dominicans reframed as corruptions, renaming
William’s text the Corruptorium fratris Thomae (The Corruption of Brother Thomas)
(Jordan 1982).
Siger of Brabant (c.1240–84) served as master in the faculty of arts and, together with
Boethius of Dacia, is often regarded as chief proponent of the radical philosophical
approaches condemned in 1270 and 1277. Recent assessments counter negative judge-
ments of Siger as a radical Averroist, and note Siger’s interactions with and uses of
Thomas’s thought. As van Steenberghen argues, ‘in the perspectives of philosophy,
Siger’s system is profoundly and deliberately traditional’ (van Steenberghen 1977: 227).
For present purposes, of greatest interest is Siger’s perspective on the proper limits of
philosophical reflection and, more specifically, the border between or overlap of phil
osophy and theology (van Steenberghen 1977).
Giles of Rome (1243–1316) offers a particularly interesting case insofar as he seems to
have studied under Aquinas during Thomas’s second Parisian regency (1269–72) or, at
‘the very least he probably frequently heard Aquinas lecture and dispute during this
time, since his own early scholarly works are strongly marked by his, frequently crit
ical, engagement with the Dominican master’s teachings’ (Briggs 2016: 9). In the wake
of the 1277 condemnations, a separate process targeted Giles in relation to his own
articulation of Thomistic theses, such as unicity of substantial form. This scrutiny pre-
vented him from incepting as master until 1285, but ultimately did not hamper his ele-
vated stature within the Augustinian hermits or at the University of Paris
(Wielockx 1985). Giles advocated many of the same contentious positions as Thomas,
but often with greater qualification and based upon alternative fundamental concep-
tions and arguments.
Henry of Ghent (1217–93), one of the most brilliant thinkers of the thirteenth century
and a pivotal figure in the transition from thirteenth- to fourteenth-century theological
and philosophical approaches, engaged Thomas Aquinas and several of his central the-
ses throughout his career (Wilson 1999). Henry was present when the list of 219 proposi-
tions were gathered for condemnation in 1277 and—since he declined to condemn
without qualification the unicity of substantial form, among other propositions—was
himself subject to scrutiny (Wielockx 2011). On a more general note, Henry simultan
eously opposed the radical or heterodox Aristotelianism at least suspected amongst the
arts faculty at Paris and the orthodox Aristotelianism of Thomas Aquinas ‘who philo-
sophically founded the cognition of God on the analogia entis of Aristotelian metaphys-
ics, and rejected the cosmological analogy of the Platonic-Augustinian worldview’
(Hödl 2011: 107). For all his engagements with specific arguments from Thomas, Henry’s
true or more meaningful engagement can be seen at the most fundamental or general
level.

Thirteenth-Century Engagements 27
Godfrey of Fontaines (c.1250–1306/9) was another brilliant secular master of theology
at Paris who wrote in direct conversation with and in response to Giles of Rome and
Henry of Ghent, though he also engaged Aquinas directly and indirectly (Wippel 1981).
Godfrey’s famous student notebook contains various works by Thomas, including an
important copy of the De aeternitate mundi, as well as texts by Siger of Brabant, Giles of
Rome, and Henry of Ghent. Together with Henry, Godfrey opposed the mendicant
orders with respect to privileges granted by papal bull in 1281, but this opposition did
not foster a polemic with larger theological and philosophical views espoused by men-
dicants such as Thomas.
Eternity of the World
Though he had previously addressed the basic question in several works (II Sent. 1.1.5;
SCG II.38; De pot. 3.14; Quodl. III.14.2; XII.6.1; ST I.46.2), Thomas Aquinas explicitly
entered the ongoing Parisian debates regarding the world’s eternity with his De aeterni-
tate mundi (c.1271) (Dales 1990). Similar debates would also rage at Oxford (Brown 1991;
Long 1998). As do other writings from his second Parisian regency, De aeternitate mundi
confronts aspects of radical or heterodox Aristotelianism seemingly prevalent amongst
members of the arts faculty while striving for a balance between the demands of philo-
sophical exploration and the requirements of theological and doctrinal commitments.
Thomas begins the treatise acknowledging that the Catholic faith holds the world to
have begun, but he nonetheless raises the philosophical question of whether something
could exist eternally in dependence on God as cause: ‘The whole question amounts to
this, whether to be created by God according to one’s whole substance and to have no
temporal beginning are mutually repugnant or not’ (De aeternitate mundi, 106). A series
of arguments intends to demonstrate the possibility of an eternally created world; just as
importantly, Thomas holds that denying such a possibility without clearly demonstrat-
ing the logical impossibility or mutual exclusion of the concepts involved disparages
divine omnipotence (De aeternitate mundi, 105–6; Dales 1990).
Central texts in the Correctoria controversy addressed this general question and the
underlying assumptions thereof. William argues in Correctorium a.6 against Thomas’s
contention (ST I.46.2) that the world’s beginning stands as a matter of faith outside the
realm of rationally demonstrable scientific knowledge. William concedes that the
world’s beginning cannot be decisively demonstrated propter quid but can be demon-
strated through impossibilities following upon assumption of the world’s eternity
(Correctorium, a.6). Correctorium, a.7 cites ST I.46.2, where Thomas argues that in
actions that are simultaneous, as opposed to successive, the cause need not temporally
precede the effect. Construing creation as a simultaneous action allows for the possibil-
ity of an eternal creation. William argues that this is not only false but also ‘very close to
the error of those who posit that the world is eternal’ (Correctorium, a.7, Glorieux: 41).
William’s judgement can be read either as a failure to grasp the subtleties of Thomas’s

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

"I am thinking of home," replied Ching Chong, sadly, "and
fearing I shall never see that dearest spot again."
"Thank God, the bodies of all true Chinamen are carried back to
repose in death in the bosom of their mother-land."
"Do you mean to insult me, minion," cried the giant, while his
face grew livid with rage, and he would have killed Ching Chong with
one blow of his heavy club, but the boy sprang lightly out of his way.
"Foiled again," he muttered, between his teeth. "Come here,
boy," he added, "I will not hurt you, silly fool."
"I was only joking, just to see you jump out of the way;" and he
gave a loud laugh that made the mountains echo.
The rod in his bosom urging him on, Ching Chong drew
cautiously near the giant.
"Sit down, and tell me of your wanderings," said the monster,
with a rough voice, into which he tried to throw the semblance of
kindness.
Ching Chong told him all, only omitting the merchant's story and
his secret of the wand.
"Never mind, boy," said the giant, "you shall win the prize, and
go back to China a rich man. See, the morning sun is rising. Now we
will enter the cavern, and you shall have as much gold and precious
stones as you can carry away."
Ching Chong felt a momentary thrill of joy in his heart, which
was saddened by the memory of the merchant's last words, "beware
of the giant."
"I have wandered in this cold, stranger land for three long years,
and found nothing until now.
"Wealth is within my grasp; if I do not seize it, I may never have
another chance! To be poor forever! No! no! I will take the risk."
Then he spoke aloud, in a resolute voice, "Lead on, I will follow."

The giant gave the great stone a push with his foot, and rolled it
away as though it had been a pebble.
As they entered he struck a torch, then, before proceeding,
rolled back the stone and closed up the opening.
When Ching Chong saw himself shut into the cave with the
giant, he trembled with fear, for he saw there was no way of escape.
He felt now, he had only to follow where the monster at will might
lead him.
They went through a long, narrow passage, then down many
steps, until at last they entered a hall, which was lighted by a large
lamp, suspended from the dome of the cavern.
Ching Chong was almost blinded by the reflection of the
luminous crystals that, with curious prismatic effect, flooded the hall
with a hundred glowing tints.
Great masses of gold lay scattered about, and huge seams ran
through the rugged sides of the cavern.
"Is this rich enough for you?" said the giant, laughingly.
"Help yourself, lad, you remember I told you you should have all
you could carry away."
The delighted Ching Chong began to gather up the gold and
precious stones into his sack, and when he had secured all he could
carry, throwing the sack over his shoulder, he thanked the giant, and
begged him to let him go out of the cave.
"Go on!" replied the giant, with a mocking laugh. "You're
welcome to the treasure, but I'm thinking you'll find it hard work to
move that stone from the mouth of the cave."
Then Ching Chong threw down the treasure at his feet, crying,
with tears in his eyes, "Take back your riches, and let me go out into
the sunshine! the beautiful sunshine! Oh! good giant, take back your
gold, and give me my poverty, and my liberty!"

"What a pretty actor! go on! go on!" said the delighted giant,
and when Ching Chong threw himself on his knees before him,
wringing his hands in silent despair, he laughed till the mountain
cavern rung.
"Do you think I will let you go? You are my slave now! and the
sunshine! the beautiful sunshine! you shall never see again."
Ching Chong saw there was no help for him then.
He spurned the bag of gold and precious stones, pushing it with
his foot, as he followed the giant into the inner cave.
The giant ordered him to build a fire, and prepare supper, and,
after the master was served, he was permitted to eat and go to
sleep upon the rough but warm skin of a grizzly bear.
Weeks passed by! Still he was a prisoner in the cavern, serving
the grim old giant, who was very capricious, and hard to please.
One evening he came home in great good humor, and, while he
ate his supper, he talked and laughed with Ching Chong very
pleasantly.
He told how that day he had given a quantity of gold to some
miners.
"Great luck it will bring them," he added.
"Already they are quarreling over it," and a malicious grin
disfigured his monstrous face.
"'Tis such fools as you, boy, who make things lively. Ha! ha! You
may have all the gold you can carry away!
"Why don't you move the stone? Ah! boy, if you had the famous
divining-rod, you would only have to touch the rock, and it would
obey your wish, but you might as well hope to wake up in your
beloved China, as to obtain it."
How strangely the words of the giant thrilled the heart of Ching
Chong, and, pressing his hand against his bosom, the famous

divining-rod awakened the hopes that in his heart lay sleeping.
In the excess of his emotion he was obliged to hide his face
from the giant, lest he should see his secret written there.
That night after the loud snoring of the giant announced that he
was sleeping soundly, Ching Chong rose carefully, and lighting the
torch, crept softly out of the large cave, and through the narrow
passage that led to the entrance.
He took nothing with him. "The treasure of the giant is cursed,"
he said.
When he came to the rock he took the divining-rod from his
bosom, and, pressing it lightly against the rock, said: "Giant rock
remove quickly at the spell of the divining-rod."
Quick as thought the rock moved from its place, and the silver
moonlight poured in at the entrance of the cave, and lighted up the
face of Ching Chong, beaming with the bliss of recovered liberty.
Once more he touched the rock, saying: "Move back giant rock
at the spell of the the divining-rod, and remain forever so firmly
fixed that even the giant's powerful hand cannot remove you."
The great stone rolled back, striking the ledge with such force
that the whole mountain shook, and the mighty echo was
reverberated from all the neighboring heights.
This great commotion aroused the sleeping giant, and he called
loudly for Ching Chong, and, when he received no answer, he was
very much enraged, and searched the whole cavern in every nook
and corner. At last he rushed to the entrance, and pushed his broad
shoulder against the rock, but he could not move it one inch from its
place; then he became so furious that his voice sounded like the roar
of a wild beast, but with all his efforts he could not move the rock.
Ching Chong sat without in the calm moonlight, now and then
calling to the giant to come on, and that he was welcome to all the
treasure he could bring with him.

After a time the giant became so exhausted that he ceased his
efforts to move the rock, and begged Ching Chong to touch it again
with his magic wand, and let him out, promising him all the
treasures of the cave; but the boy only replied: "Your turn has come
now, keep your treasure, you are welcome to it, and to your
underground castle."
"Good-by, kind master, good-by! Come out when you can, and
you may have all the treasure you can carry."
With this Ching Chong started for his old cabin, but for miles the
deep howlings of the giant were wafted to his ears.
He reached the cabin at sunrise, just five weeks after he left it.
When he entered he found his old companions just eating
breakfast. They were greatly surprised to see him, for they supposed
he had been killed by the grizzly bears with which that district
abounded.
They gave him a hearty greeting, and he sat down to breakfast,
telling them only the last of his marvelous adventures, omitting the
secret of the divining-rod entirely.
When he had finished, he asked them what luck they had had.
Nothing very good, they replied. Some placer diggings of a little
promise, but their fortunes were not yet made.
Ching Chong went out with them, and entered again upon the
hard life of prospecting. Many months passed on in the same old
way, and again Ching Chong began to feel very much disheartened.
Four years and a half had gone, and still he was poor, no nearer the
realization of his dreams than ever.
The intense longing for home was ever gnawing in his heart. He
thought sadly of the old merchant who awaited his return, and
sighed often as he dreamed of the beautiful Ah Zore.
Again he resolved to follow the guiding of the divining-rod,
hoping for greater success than in his former expedition.

Again he started at nightfall, without saying any thing to his
companions.
He had provided himself with a sack of food, which he carried,
with his pick and shovel, upon his shoulders.
He was young, healthy, and accustomed to the hardships of a
mountain life.
For hours he walked on as the divining-rod guided him, until
near morning, when, overcome with fatigue, he threw himself upon
the ground among the thick sage brush, and soon fell asleep.
A thousand golden imaginings mingled with his dreams, and,
when he awoke with the sunshine pouring its flood of warmth and
light upon him, he rose full of bright hopes, ate his scanty breakfast,
and started upon his way with a happy heart.
Thus he wandered on for several days, carefully examining every
ledge of rocks that he passed over.
His stock of food was nearly exhausted. The divining-rod and his
hopeful nature urged him on, but his dread of a lonely death in the
mountains warned him to return.
One night he struck a fire in a lonely place, and sat down to eat
his supper, just as the twilight gave place to the stars of night.
He was getting quite disheartened. "I must start for the camp in
the morning," he said to himself, "'Tis no use of trying any longer."
He fell into a sad train of musing, from which he was aroused by
the soft tinkling of a silver bell, and looking up he saw before him
the dwarf Chinaman.
He wore the round hat, blue blouse, big pants, and pointed
shoes of the Celestials, and his words fell upon Ching Chong's ear in
the language of his native tongue. His face was wrinkled and sad-
looking, yet there was a kindliness in its expression, and Ching
Chong's heart warmed as he pleasantly asked, "Why so sorrowful to-
night, my boy?"

Then Ching Chong told his story.
When he had finished the dwarf said: "Be thankful that you did
not attempt to carry away any of the treasure."
"If you had taken but one ounce of gold the wand would have
lost its power in your hand, and you would have been the slave of
the giant as long as you lived, and after death your bones would
have whitened the floor of the mountain cavern, instead of reposing
in the dear native land."
"Your industry and perseverance shall now be rewarded. Lie
down and sleep to-night upon this soft turf. In the morning rise and
follow the direction of the divining-rod, and where it points
downward strike your pick."
"Now good-night, my boy. In the days of your prosperity,
sometimes think kindly of the poor dwarf of the mountains."
Before Ching Chong could reply, he found himself alone, and
though he looked round carefully, he could not discover where, or
how the dwarf had disappeared. So he lay down, and was soon
sleeping soundly.
In the morning he rose early, and following the direction of his
wand, stopped where it pointed downward, and striking a blow with
his pick, turned up a beautiful pure nugget of gold.
He marked the spot, and collecting a few specimens, returned to
the camp.
Again his companions surrounded him to hear his story.
No one but the poor, toiling miner can understand the
excitement and delight of the weary prospectors, as they listened to
him, and examined his specimens.
"Now, boys," said Ching Chong, "you have been the sharers of
my bad luck, and you shall share my good fortune."
"There is gold enough for all."

Then the happy miners all shook hands with Ching Chong,
saying a hearty "God bless you, boy," while the tears glistened in
their eyes, as they thought of the dear ones in distant lands.
That night they all dreamed golden dreams, full of love and
happiness.
In the morning they all went together to the newly discovered
treasure, which proved to be a large tract of the richest placer-
diggings ever known.
In six months they were all rich men, and left the mountains for
their different homes, blessing forever Ching Chong Chinaman.
About that time a good ship sailed for China, and on the deck
sat the happy Ching Chong, and all his great wealth was on board.
After a prosperous voyage, he reached his dear, native land, and
was able to give his friend the merchant, an account of himself, so
satisfactory that he rewarded him with the hand of his daughter, the
beautiful Ah Zore, and in all Hong Kong there could not be found a
happier man than Ching Chong Chinaman.

ZALETTA.
Once upon a time there lived in a little cane hut on the borders
of a hacienda, a poor old Mexican woman and her grandchild.
The parents of the little one were both dead, and the old woman
maintained herself and the child by spinning, sewing, and washing
for the rich Spaniards, to whom all the fine houses and cultivated
lands of the country belonged.
The mother of the child had been a beautiful señorita of good
family. She foolishly loved and married the poor but light-hearted
Mexican, who would have given his life for her, but could not shield
her from the misfortunes which poverty and sickness brought upon
them.
After the birth of her little daughter, she died, and very soon the
father was lost in a fearful storm at sea; so the child was left alone
in the world, with none to care for her but the silver-haired
grandmother, and no home but the little cane hut.
For some years every thing went pleasantly with the child; she
had never known luxury, her necessities were supplied, she returned
the fond devotion of the old grandmother, with the ardor of her
Southern nature; and, all day long, her innocent voice, full of childish
happiness, woke cheerful echoes around the little hut.
One night, when she was about ten years old, the old woman
fell sick. She felt the dim shadows creeping over her spirit, and her
strength growing less; and calling the child to her side, she said,
feebly: "I have nothing but a well-worn distaff and the poor hut to
give you. The Holy Virgin pity and protect you; you have been a
good child to your old grandmother." Then she kissed her, and
blessing her, bade her good-night, adding: "Never forget to say your
prayers before you go to sleep. God bless you, my poor, poor child."

The grandmother turned her face to the wall, and folded her thin
hands as if in prayer, and Zaletta crept softly into bed beside her,
feeling very sad; but soon her innocent heart was happy, roaming
through the pleasant land of dreams. In the morning, Zaletta slept
till the sun rose above the hills, and cast its glowing warmth down
into the shaded valleys, then woke full of life and joyousness.
There lay the grandmother just as she had last seen her the
night before. "She sleeps long this morning, the dear old
grandmother," said she to herself, as she moved round quietly,
preparing the scanty breakfast.
When it was all ready, she became impatient, and laid her little
warm hand upon the old woman's arm. Cold, very cold, the poor
child found her, and motionless. She would never move again.
Zaletta called her, sobbing and weeping, but there was no reply.
The heart so ready to sympathize with all her childish sorrows was
at rest. The old grandmother had died, praying for the little lonely
child, who had been dearer than all the world to her.
The next day the people from the hacienda came and buried the
old woman. After the last sod was cast upon the grave, the
innkeeper's wife took the child by the hand, saying: "Poor little thing,
she can not stay here alone, I will take her home with me;" and she
smoothed the tangled hair of the helpless orphan with her hand, and
in her harder heart she thought, "By and by this girl may be made of
great service to me, and even now I'll see that she earns all that she
eats and wears."
She was very careful to take to the inn with her, all the poor little
hut contained. "'Tis but little," she said, "but I'll take it for the child."
All the neighbors said it was kind in the innkeeper's wife, and the
rich señor, to whom the whole hacienda belonged, gave her a
shining gold-piece, saying: "'Tis for your charity."
The cold-hearted woman went home, leading by the hand a little
weeping child, very desolate and sorrowful.

The innkeeper was naturally a kind man, but he had become too
indolent and corpulent to resist the strong will of his termagant wife.
"When he saw the sad-eyed little one that she had brought home,
he brushed away a tear with his big brown hand, and determined to
save the unfortunate from all trouble, as much as he could; but
when he thought of his wife's cruel disposition, he earnestly wished
her in other hands.
"Poor little thing! poor little thing!" he said, pityingly, and calling
his own little boy and girl to him, he placed her trembling hands in
theirs, adding: "Here is a sister for you, be kind to her, my children."
The daughter drew her hand away, and curled her lip in scorn.
She was like her mother, proud and cold in her nature, and, looking
at the coarse clothes of the child, she said: "Ah, no, papa, she is
only fit for a servant. Sister, indeed!" and she shook the skirts of her
pretty muslin dress, and ran away.
The boy felt the manhood dawning in his heart, as he saw the
tears glistening in the pretty dark eyes of the silent child, and the
little red lips quivered with suppressed emotion.
"She shall be my sister, papa," said he, softly, as he took her by
the hand, and led her out in the clear sunshine. Children understand
each other best, thought the old man, as he sat watching them,
while they walked up and down the garden together, talking
pleasantly.
Soon the mother's sharp eye detected them, and with a harsh
voice she bade the little girl haste to the kitchen, and see if she
could not help the cook prepare the supper.
Then she called the young Guilerme to her, saying: "I hope to
make a rich señor of you, my son, though your father is only an
innkeeper. We are making money, and every year increases our
gains. There is good blood in my veins, and I am determined to raise
my children above my present condition. For this I save every thing.
Every thing! For we must have money; but remember, my son, I
would not have you notice that miserable girl I have brought here

for a servant; by and by she may do for your sister's maid; now she
is the kitchen scullion."
Thus began the days of servitude and sorrow for the young
Zaletta.
The inn was a spacious adobe house, with an open court in the
center, and surrounded on all sides by a broad piazza. The kitchen
and store-rooms were upon one side, while the receiving and
sleeping rooms were on the other sides of the square.
The hacienda was in the southern part of California, where
though the warmth of the days produces many kinds of tropical
fruits, the evenings are often quite chilly, and the excessive heat of
the noon-day renders all very susceptible to cold. In the large
receiving-room (with the bar at one side), on such nights, a cheerful
fire always burned, and there all the guests of the house assembled,
and talked over the news of the day. Sometimes 'twas of the
discovery of a rich gold mine, but often 'twas of a fearful robbery in
the wood.
After all the work was done in the kitchen, Zaletta would steal
silently into the receiving-room, listening to the conversation, and
warming her chilled feet and hands before going to her miserable
bed in the out-house.
This did not please the señora. It did not look respectable to
have the miserable child about, she would say; but in this the
innkeeper was resolute. "The little one should warm herself before
going to bed." So Zaletta came in at evenings, but very quietly.
Guilerme was always kind to her; indeed never a day passed but
something nice found its way to the hiding-place in the out-house,
so that the child was never hungry.
He brought her the ripest bananas, and the sweetest oranges,
and when she would look up to him, with her soft eyes dewy with
love and thanks, he would kiss her brown cheek, and say: "Never
mind, little one, you shall be señora one of these days." Then they

would laugh and be happy, till the mother's sharp voice would ring
through the house, calling the unfortunate to some new task.
The sister was changeful in her treatment to Zaletta. Sometimes
she would call her pleasantly to come and play with her, but very
soon she would become angry and strike her, calling her "only a
pitiful servant." Then the mother would whip Zaletta for making her
little mistress angry. The father and Guilerme always took her part,
making the mother more displeased than ever.
One day, when Guilerme was about fourteen years old, and the
girls were twelve, the mother called the boy to her, telling him in two
weeks a vessel would sail from the nearest sea-port for the Atlantic
States, and that, he must be ready to take passage in her, for she
had determined to send him to New York to school. "Your father is
now rich," she said, "and you must be educated like other rich men's
sons."
Poor little Zaletta! What a blow it was to her. Her best friend
going away so far over the waters. When he told her the morning
before he sailed what his mother had said, her pretty dark eyes filled
with tears, and she sobbed bitterly.
"Listen to me," said the boy, soothingly; "I have something to
tell you, and must be quick, or mamma will call me before I can
finish. You know I am going away to be educated like a gentleman,
and shall want a lady for my wife; so you must study hard to
become one, for I am determined to marry you as soon as I come
back. I have taught you to read, and you will find all my books in the
hiding-place, where I have left them for you, and you must study
hard and see how beautiful you can grow while I am gone, for I
shall make you the greatest lady in the hacienda;" and he took the
little eager face between his hands and kissed it with much
affection. Just then the mother called, "Guilerme! Guilerme!" so he
kissed her again, and said, "remember, my little wife," and was off in
a moment.

That night Zaletta wept herself to sleep, and many succeeding
nights; but she did not forget to study very hard, and though she
labored under great difficulties, her progress was wonderful. She
was working for the approval of the only one that loved her since
the dear silver-haired grandmother died. After Guilerme went away
the señora took Zaletta into the house as maid for her young
daughter, who every day was growing more proud and selfish.
For some years the innkeeper had been greatly prospered. The
family had used economy in all things until they had amassed
considerable wealth.
"Now," said the señora, "the children are growing up, and we
must not spare the money—they must have position." She engaged
a governess to teach her daughter, and a master to give her lessons
on the harp and guitar.
Zaletta always sat in the room with the young señorita, and
listened eagerly to every word the teachers uttered, though her
hands were busy with her needle.
Every day she grew in knowledge and beauty. Her dark eyes
were soft as a fawn's, and her pure olive cheek glowed with a clear
rose-tint, while her form and features were cast in beauty's most
exquisite mold. Both mother and daughter were often cruelly unkind
to her, more especially when they saw that her beauty, and innocent
sweetness of manner, attracted more attention than all the young
señorita's fine clothes and accomplishments. The señorita was pretty
and full of airs and graces, but Zaletta, in her coarse dress, was far
more lovely. Every day increased the envy of the mother and
daughter, and new and harder tasks were invented for the weary
little hands to perform.
One sultry afternoon all three sat upon the piazza of the inner
court. A ship had arrived from New York, with letters from Guilerme,
and a large box, filled with beautiful fabrics for dresses, shawls, and
ornaments, for the mother and daughter; but Zaletta received
nothing, not even a word of kind remembrance.

All the long night before she had wept. Guilerme, the gentleman,
had forgotten the poor maid; but she, alas! remembered him too
well.
The mother and daughter sat looking over their treasures with
great delight, and for the time she was unnoticed. Stitching away
upon a beautiful organdie muslin, at last overcome by fatigue, loss
of sleep, and the excessive heat, she fell asleep, and in her dreams
she called out in a piteous tone, "Guilerme! Guilerme!" and the tears
ran down her pale cheeks.
"What is she saying?" said the mother. She rose and looked at
her, and again she called, "Guilerme! Guilerme!"
"Hear her, mamma," exclaimed the enraged daughter, "I'll give
her a lesson for her impertinence," and she raised her hand to strike
the sleeping girl.
"Stop, daughter," said the mother, softly, with a malicious smile,
"we can do better. The foolish Guilerme has sent her a letter and
presents of books. The letter I have burned. The books you can do
as you like with, but I have a present for la señorita, she will not
like, perhaps."
She shook the young girl roughly by the arm, saying, "What,
sleeping over your work. Wake, and hear what Guilerme says. He
sends you this!"
The señora held out to the young girl a coarse apron, such as
the lower servants wore. "He hopes his sister will train you to be a
good servant for you must know he is in love with a rich and
beautiful señorita, and though they are both young now, it is
thought best for them to be married before his return, which will be
in about two years."
"Mamma, what is the matter with her? How pale she looks!"
cried the affrighted daughter, as Zaletta with closed eyes sank
fainting upon the floor.

"She has fainted, the miserable beggar. To try to creep into my
family, and to think that foolish boy should talk of love to her. I'll fix
them both," and in her anger the señora and her daughter left
Zaletta lying cold and pale upon the floor.
Evening came on, with the calm, silver light of the stars, before
Zaletta recovered. At first she could not remember what had
happened, and then it all rushed upon her, a mighty flood of sorrow.
"Guilerme has forgotten me! I remember now: this apron for the
servant of his bride. Ah! Guilerme! Guilerme!" Wrapping the apron
about her neck, she rushed out into the night. "I cannot stay in this
house another night. It will kill me!" she said, and she hurried on as
though she could fly from her great sorrow.
At last she came to a deep wood, and, after wandering about till
her wearied limbs refused to carry her any further, she saw a light
glimmering through the trees, and pressing on she came to a little
cottage.
Looking in at the window she saw an old woman at her distaff
spinning. The faggots upon the hearth burned brightly, and lighted
up the little room, but especially the face of the old woman shone
with the glow of a kind heart. Timidly she knocked at the door, but
there was no reply. Then she knocked again louder, and the old
woman called out in a cracked voice: "Who knocks at my door so
late in the night!"
"Only a poor maiden, who has no home, no friend on earth. I
pray you, good woman, let me in. The night is cold, and the starlight
chills me. I am so tired! so tired! Good mother, let me in!"
The old woman opened the door and led her in. She sat down in
the corner, gazing silently into the fire and wondering why the good
Lord in pity did not let her die; and big tears ran down her pale
cheeks.
The old woman baked a fresh tortilla and gave it to her with a
cup of milk.

"Eat, child," she said gently, "you are hungry," and she laid her
hand on the bowed head, saying again: "There! there! eat, child!
and sleep away the sorrow of youth which is fleeting as the dew of
morning."
Then she turned away and commenced spinning and singing in a
low, monotonous tone, which was strangely soothing, while Zaletta
ate her supper, and soon the sad, weary maiden fell asleep by the
warm, pleasant fireside.
For some time the old woman went on spinning and singing, till
another knock came at the door, and again she said: "Who knocks at
my door so late in the night?" "'Tis I, mother," replied a thick, rough
voice. She opened the door to a most curious looking dwarf. He was
round shouldered and thick set, with heavy, black hair covering his
forehead, and shaggy brows meeting over his eyes.
"How fared thee, to-day, son?"
"I haven't struck the lode yet, mother," said the dwarf, cheerfully,
"but I am sure the mine is rich. See what I have picked up among
the loose rocks!"
He handed her a small nugget of gold, almost pure, and turned
to the corner to put down his pick and shovel. "But who have we
here? A young girl, and very pretty," he added, looking admiringly
upon the sleeping maiden.
"Only a poor friendless child, who came to the door a little while
ago, weeping and asking shelter," answered the woman.
"Treat her kindly, mother; she will be company for you, and by-
and-by I may marry her, but I have no time to think of women now."
The dwarf sat down to the hot supper the mother had prepared
for him, and ate heartily, for he was very hungry. Then he drew his
chair near the fire, and sat for sometime looking dreamily into its
glowing embers.
"I must strike the lode soon," he mused. "Oh, my rich gold mine;
it must come at last." Then he rose, saying, kindly, "Good night,

mother," and climbed up into the little loft, where in a few minutes
he was sleeping soundly.
The old woman woke Zaletta, and they retired for the night,
sleeping in the same bed.
In the morning Zaletta was awakened by a kind voice calling,
"Get up now, daughter, and help me to prepare my son's breakfast,
he has been at work for an hour, and will soon come in very hungry."
Zaletta rose quickly and helped to prepare a breakfast of fresh
tortillas nicely browned, fried plantain, and venison, which, with
plenty of ripe fruit and goat's milk, made a repast fit for a prince.
Soon the dwarf came in, so smiling and cheerful, that though
Zaletta thought him the ugliest looking person she ever saw, she felt
sure his heart was in the right place. "You are welcome, my pretty
girl," he said, "but don't mind me; I've no time to compliment
women, though by-and-by, when I strike a rich lode, I may marry
you."
Zaletta's face flushed a deep crimson, and she looked as though
that would be any thing but desirable; but she made no reply, and in
a moment the dwarf seemed to have forgotten her presence, and
she became more comfortable.
Two years passed by and Zaletta remained at the cottage,
helping the old mother, who was very fond of her, and reading books
with which the dwarf kept her constantly supplied. All this time he
was working hard in his mine, but could not "strike the rich lode."
Sometimes he grew quite disheartened, then he would be joyous
and hopeful, and would say to Zaletta: "Though I have no time to
think of women now, by-and-by, when I am rich, I will marry you."
She soon got used to this, and only laughed, for he was always very
kind to her, and she learned to look upon him as a brother.
One dark night in the rainy season she and the mother sat by
the fire waiting for the dwarf to come in to his supper. The old
woman was spinning, and Zaletta reading a pleasant book of travels.

"My poor boy," sighed the old mother. "How it rains; he will be
wet through. Oh, dear! I fear he will never be able to strike the rich
lode." Just then a loud knock came at the door. "Who knocks at my
door so late in the night," said the old woman.
A voice, young, strong, and pure, answered, sending all the
warm blood from Zaletta's heart to her face: "A stranger, belated and
lost in the wood, begs for shelter from the storm."
The old woman opened the door, and Guilerme—dear, handsome
Guilerme, dripping with rain, and very cold, entered.
Zaletta's book dropped upon the floor, and her tongue refused
her heart utterance, but Guilerme's eyes rested upon the beautiful
girl with delighted surprise.
"Found at last, my own Zaletta." His arms opened, and the
trembling, lonely heart of the maiden found its true resting-place.
They sat down side by side, hand clasping hand, and explained
all the past to each other, how Guilerme had written and received no
answer, and at last returned to find her gone, and his heart desolate.
Zaletta told him all she had suffered, and of the kindness she
had received at the cottage. Then Guilerme took the old woman's
hands and thanked her with a voice trembling with emotion.
The mother rejoiced with them, but there mingled a sorrow for
her son with the joy. "Poor son," she thought, "He is very fond of the
child."
Soon another knock came, and again the old woman asked,
"Who knocks at my door so late in the night," and the dwarf
answered:—
"Mother! mother! I've struck the lode at last."
She opened the door, and he threw his arms round her neck and
kissed her, then he came in, and saw Guilerme; and they both told
their stories.

"So," said the dwarf, when Guilerme had finished: "You have
come to take my pretty maid away? Well, if she loves you, 'tis all
right, I have had no time to think of women; but, somehow, I have
grown fond of her," and he sighed heavily. "I have struck the lode at
last. I am a rich man, but I must find some one to share my good
fortune with me, some pure, good little girl like our Zaletta."
In the morning, when Guilerme and the dwarf went to the mine
together, they found it even richer than the dwarf had thought it, the
night before. Guilerme offered to furnish the money to build a mill to
crush the ore, for one-half the mine; and so they became partners.
Soon after this, Guilerme and Zaletta were married at the
cottage in the wood, and in time the good dwarf was united to a
pretty Mexican lass, who made him very happy.
After a time, Guilerme built a fine house for his wife, and, when
they had two little children, he took his family home to the old
hacienda.
The mother and sister did not recognize their old servant in
Guilerme's brilliant señora, but the old father (God bless him) knew
her, when she placed her little soft hand in his, and kissed him; and
very dearly he learned to love his dutiful daughter.
So they were all rich and happy, as long as it pleased God to
spare their lives.

THE STRONG MAN OF SANTA
BARBARA.
Many years ago, in the old Spanish mission of Santa Barbara,
lived an old Mexican, named Joza Silva, with his wife and child, in a
little adobe house, containing but one room.
There was a small window, rudely latticed with unplaned laths,
and a door opening upon a pleasant view of the golden-sanded
beach and the restless waves of the ocean.
At that time, the Spaniards, Mexicans, and Indians were the only
inhabitants of the country.
Over these people, the padres, who established the mission, had
acquired a most unlimited sway, ruling them more completely than
even the Pope his subjects of the Holy See of Rome.
The Mexicans are an indolent race. The luxurious climate of
Santa Barbara is not favorable to the development of latent energy
in any people, least of all to the inert Mexicans; yet the padres, by
awakening their superstitious fears, made them work until the
wilderness became a vineyard, and the golden orange glowed amid
the leaves of the fragrant trees.
Poor Joza disliked any exertion, and, if left to his own inclination,
would have lived on the spontaneous productions of that almost
tropical climate, and been happy after his oyster fashion.
Often he obeyed very reluctantly, those whom he thought had
power, not only over the body, but could doom his soul to
unnumbered years of suffering, in the fearful fires of purgatory.
The padres lived in great ease and comfort; though so far from
the elegances of the great world, their own ingenuity and the rapid

growth of the country, furnished them with many luxuries.
Their quaint adobe houses were very pleasant, built after the
Spanish style, in the form of a square with an open court in the
center.
Beautiful gardens flourished around them, in which grew the
fragrant citron, the lemon, with its shining leaves, and nearly all the
rare fruits and flowers of the tropics.
For some years, Joza labored in the vineyards and gardens; but
the ambitious padres were planning a greater work. A new church
was to be built, and elaborately ornamented; a convent and college
was planned; extensive grounds to be laid out and cultivated, and all
to be surrounded by the enduring adobe wall of mud and stones.
One evening, after a weary day in the vineyard, just as Joza was
about starting for home, padre Antonio called him.
"On the morrow," he said, "we will begin to lay the foundation of
the new church, the Grand San Pedro; you shall be permitted to aid
in the blessed work, by carrying stones and mortar, for which great
mercy thank the holy Mother and all the saints, especially the
blessed San Pedro, who is the patron saint of this great enterprise."
Then the padre blessed him, and wandered off into the delicious
shade of the garden.
In the gathering gloom of the twilight, Joza returned to his
cottage, more disheartened than ever, wondering how much more
torturing the fires of purgatory could be, than carrying stones under
the burning sun of Santa Barbara.
As he approached his cottage, he saw his wife sitting before the
door with a stranger, both smoking, with the greatest apparent
enjoyment.
His son, and a large dog, were rolling about on the soft earth,
near them, raising a cloud of dust, and making a great noise, which
seemed to disturb no one, and to afford them much pleasure.

When Joza came up, his wife introduced the stranger as his old
playmate, and her brother Schio, who, many years before, had gone
away, and, until that evening, had never been heard from.
Joza welcomed his old friend in the cordial Spanish way, placing
his house at his disposal.
For a short time, in pleasant memories of their boyhood, he
forgot the weary present. After they had eaten their frugal supper,
and were again seated in the vine-clad doorway, Joza looked out
upon the great ocean, dusky with the shadows of evening, growing
sad and silent.
"What ails thee, brother," said Schio, in his clear, ringing voice,
that sounded like the strong notes of a clarionet. "You are changed;
you are growing old, but see me, I am as young in heart as your
boy, and strong as a bullock."
He lifted a great stone that lay near him, and held it at arms'
length, laughing loudly, till the caves of the ocean sent back a
hundred echoes.
With many sighs, Joza told the story of his troubles; how, for
years, till his back had grown old and stiff, he had worked in the
vineyard of the padre, but the purple harvest had brought no
blessing to him.
How a harder task was to be laid upon him. He was to hew and
carry the heavy foundation-stones of the Grand San Pedro, and even
at the thought of so great labor, the beaded sweat rolled down his
forehead.
His sympathizing wife sobbed aloud, but the brother only
laughed, till again he woke the mysterious voices of the ocean
caves.
Half angry, Joza turned to Schio, saying: "'Tis all very well for
you, Schio, to laugh; you who roam at will in the cool of the
evening, and rest in the delightful shade, while the scorching
sunshine is burning my life out."

Poor Joza buried his face in his hands and sighed wearily.
"Cheer up, brother," said Schio, pleasantly. "Listen to me. Go in
the morning, to padre Antonio, and tell him you are getting old and
feeble, and cannot work through the heat of the day, but if he will
appoint your task, you will accomplish it after the burning sun has
gone down.
"Tell him if you carry those large stones in the day, your life will
be consumed like the burning candles before the altar; but that in
the cool of the evening, your strength returns as in the days of
youth."
"And what, then?" said Joza, wearily.
"I will see that the morning finds your task accomplished,"
replied Schio.
That night Joza dreamed that his tasks were ended, and that all
day long he luxuriated in most delicious ease, under the shade of
olive trees, and, when he woke, his heart grew sad, that it was only
a dream.
He rose in haste to go to his task, for he had overslept himself;
then he thought of Schio's advice. "I will do as he told me, though I
fear 'twill do no good," thought he. "I can but fail, and who knows
what may come.
"Schio is such a strange fellow; when he's talking, it seems as
though a hundred voices rung changes on his words. God grant he's
not in league with the devil."
Joza crossed himself, and muttered prayers most devoutly until
he reached the house of the padre Antonio.
After he had told the padre all Schio had directed, his task was
appointed, and he returned home, all day long resting in the shade
of his favorite lime-tree, smoking his cigarettés, and was happy as
only a careless, indolent Mexican could be, enjoying the luxury of
complete repose.

Toward evening he began to be a little uneasy, but with the
dewy twilight, came Schio, waking the mysterious echoes, with his
ringing laughter, and, as the darkness deepened, he placed a lantern
in Joza's hand, saying: "Now, brother, we will go to the task you
complain of so bitterly."
Silently they pursued their way, until they arrived at the huge
pile, upon which the padre had appointed Joza to begin his work.
Many days would have passed before he could have hewn the
rock as the padre desired, but, with one blow of an immense drill, in
Schio's powerful hand, the rock was cleft in twain. As he reduced it
to its proper size and shape, Joza stood by, trembling with fear; then
pointed out the chosen spot, and, in silence and darkness, the first
stone of the Grand San Pedro was laid.
When the full moon arose, clear and bright, shedding its floods
of golden light over the mission of Santa Barbara, and the blue
waves that washed its sanded shore, the laborers had gone—Joza,
to sleep peacefully in his little cottage, and Schio, down to the
echoing caverns by the sounding sea.
Morning came, gorgeous with sunshine and beauty, and the
padre walked out to inspect the site of his ambitious dreams.
He was an avaricious and unscrupulous man.
In building this new church, he hoped to erect a tower of
strength and greatness for himself, more than an edifice in which to
worship the blessed Christ, the immaculate Virgin, and the holy
saints.
When he saw the huge foundation-stone that Schio had laid, he
was greatly amazed.
Even the hewing of it, he knew to be the work of days, and
there it was, cleanly cleft, and in its proper place.
"There is a mystery here," he said; "the people will believe it a
miracle; be it as it will, I must make the most of it."

He called Joza, who came to him smiling and happy.
"You have done well for the beginning," said the padre, "but to-
night, you must lay two stones like this."
"Holy San Pedro, help me!" exclaimed Joza. "It is impossible!"
and he turned away, very sorrowful.
At night he told Schio what the padre had said. Schio frowned,
and answered, "The padre should not ask too much; but this shall
be as he desires."
Again they went out in the twilight, and before the rising of the
golden moon, two more foundation-stones were laid.
At daybreak the padre arose, and hastened to see if the task had
been accomplished, and before his wondering eyes, lay the three
immense foundation-stones, smooth, and in their proper places.
"Holy Virgin! I will give him enough to-night," exclaimed the
amazed padre, and again the task was doubled.
Thus it went on, night after night, and week after week, till the
Grand San Pedro began to rise up like Aladdin's wonderful palace,
but, Schio, the man of iron, grew very angry, as the full moon arose
upon him, bending over his unfinished task.
"Joza," said he, "the padre may go too far for even Schio to
bear; bid him beware!
"If the morning sun finds me here, I will not answer for the
result; too much pressure will burst open the hidden recesses of
earth, and cause the caverns of ocean to resound with fearful
echoes of mystery.
"Can he think San Pedro will bless avarice and oppression, even
in the padre Antonio?"
In the morning Joza went to the padre, and entreated him to
lessen the task, but he only laughed, and said: "You are getting fat
and lazy. I will not double your work to-night, but you shall do four
times as much as ever, and I will be there to see it accomplished."

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

The Oxford Handbook Of The Reception Of Aquinas Matthew Levering Marcus Plested

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Tags

Categories

Download

Quick Actions

Statistics

Related Slideshows

The Oxford Handbook Of The Reception Of Aquinas Matthew Levering Marcus Plested

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 6

Slide 8

Slide 9

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 19

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

Slide 23

Slide 24

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 28

Slide 29

Slide 30

Slide 31

Slide 32

Slide 33

Slide 34

Slide 35

Slide 36

Slide 37

Slide 38

Slide 39

Slide 40

Slide 41

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Slide 45

Slide 46

Slide 47

Slide 48

Slide 50

Slide 51

Slide 52

Slide 53

Slide 54

Slide 55

Slide 56

Slide 57

Slide 58

Slide 59

Slide 60

Slide 61

Slide 62

Slide 63

Slide 64

Slide 65

Slide 66

Slide 67

Slide 68

Slide 69

Slide 70

Slide 71

Slide 72

Slide 73

Slide 74

Slide 75

Slide 76

Slide 77

Slide 78

Slide 79

Slide 80

Slide 81

Slide 82