Sybillina’s parents died when she was tiny and as soon as she was old enough to be of use to anyone, the neighbors, who had taken her in at the time she was orphaned, put her out to work. She must have been very young when she started to work, because at the age of 12, when she became blind and could not work any more, she already had several years of work behind her.

The cause of her blindness is unknown, but the child was left doubly destitute with the loss of her sight. The local chapter of the Dominican tertiary sisters took compassion on the child and brought her home to live with them. After a little while of experiencing their kind help, she wanted to join them. They accepted her, young though she was, more out of pity than in any hope of her being able to carry on their busy and varied apostolate.

They were soon agreeably surprised to find out how much she could do. She learned to chant the Office quickly and sweetly, and to absorb their teaching about mental prayer as though she had been born for it. She imposed great obligations of prayer on herself, since she could not help them in other ways. Her greatest devotion was to Saint Dominic, and it was to him she addressed herself when she finally became convinced that she simply must have her sight back so that she could help the sisters with their work.

Praying earnestly for this intention, Sybillina waited for his feast day. Then, she was certain, he would cure her. Matins came and went with no miracle; little hours, Vespers–and she was still blind. With a sinking heart, Sybillina knelt before Saint Dominic’s statue and begged him to help her. Kneeling there, she was rapt in ecstasy, and she saw him come out of the darkness and take her by the hand.

He took her to a dark tunnel entrance, and she went into the blackness at his word. Terrified, but still clinging to his hand, she advanced past invisible horrors, still guided and protected by his presence. Dawn came gradually, and then light, then a blaze of glory. “In eternity, dear child,” he said. “Here, you must suffer darkness so that you may one day behold eternal light.”

Sybillina, the eager child, was replaced by a mature and thoughtful Sybillina who knew that there would be no cure for her, that she must work her way to heaven through the darkness. She decided to become a anchorite, and obtained the necessary permission. In 1302, at the age of 15, she was sealed into a tiny cell next to the Dominican church at Pavia. At first she had a companion, but her fellow recluse soon gave up the life. Sybillina remained, now alone, as well as blind.

The first seven years were the worst, she later admitted. The cold was intense, and she never permitted herself a fire. The church, of course, was not heated, and she wore the same clothes winter and summer. In the winter there was only one way to keep from freezing–keep moving–so she genuflected, and gave herself the discipline. She slept on a board and ate practically nothing. To the tiny window, that was her only communication with the outside world, came the troubled and the sinful and the sick, all begging for her help. She prayed for all of them, and worked many miracles in the lives of the people of Pavia.

One of the more amusing requests came from a woman who was terrified of the dark. Sybillina was praying for her when she saw her in a vision, and observed that the woman–who thought she was hearing things–put on a fur hood to shut out the noise. The next day the woman came to see her, and Sybillina laughed gaily. “You were really scared last night, weren’t you?” she asked. “I laughed when I saw you pull that hood over your ears.” The legend reports that the woman was never frightened again.

Sybillina had a lively sense of the Real Presence and a deep devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. One day a priest was going past her window with Viaticum for the sick; she knew that the host was not consecrated, and told him so. He investigated, and found he had indeed taken a host from the wrong container.

Sybillina lived as a recluse for 67 years. She followed all the Masses and Offices in the church, spending what few spare minutes she had working with her hands to earn a few alms for the poor (Attwater2, Benedictines, Dorcy).

Born: 1287 at Pavia, Lombardy, Italy

Died: 1367 of Natural Causes: Her body remains Incorrupt

Beatified: 1853 (Cultus confirmed); 1854 beautified

Patronage: Children whose parents are not married, illegitimacy, loss of parents

Blessed Isnard is another very distinguished and saintly first disciple of Saint Dominic whom Father Touron somehow overlooked. Of Isnard’s life up to the time he entered the Order practically nothing is known with certainty; whilst some of the statements anent his debut as a Friar Preacher are irreconcilable among themselves, and contrary to facts which have been ascertained in later years. Chiampo, a small town not far from Vicenza, Italy, was most likely the place of his birth; yet there are those who give the latter city this honor. Some think he was born of poor parents, and spent his youth in poverty. Others suggest that he belonged to a wealthy family by the name of Isnardi, which has been long extinct.(1)

It is beyond doubt that the future wonder-worker received the habit in Bologna, from Saint Dominic, in 1219; for this is a point on which nearly all the early authors are in accord. This truth seems certainly to prove that he was a student at the university there, and far advanced in his studies, At that time only such applicants were accepted; and this fact is a strong proof that his parents were well-to-do, for only the sons of this kind were given a higher education. Without exception the writers tell us of his singular purity of heart and religious disposition. His mind had been carefully guarded against the evils of the day, and in Bologna he proved faithful to the lessons of his earlier youth. Association with the holy man from Caleruega quickened his efforts for holiness of life and the salvation of souls.

For ten years after he entered the Order of Saint Dominic, we have no positive knowledge of where Isnard made his home. Yet the indications are that he spent this time between Bologna and Milan. In which case, of course, he labored energetically in those parts of Italy. Although a quite corpulent man, we are told, he was endowed with extraordinary energy, and was very gracious in action as well as in word. San Eustorgio, Milan, was most likely his convent for the greater part of this decade. So at least thinks Rudolph Majocchi, Blessed Isnard’s latest hagiographer.(2)

In more than one of our sketches, but especially in that of Saint Peter of Verona, we have seen how the Albigenses and kindred sects overran northern Italy at that date. Milan was one of the centers of Dominican activity against them; and it was from Milan that the convent of the Order in Pavia was founded. At Pavia the heretics were long in the ascendancy. The city was also a stronghold of Frederic II, whose Ghibellines, always opposed to the Holy See, constantly persecuted those who favored the authority of the Church. When, in 1230, zealous Rodobald Cipolla became bishop of Pavia, he found religion in a sad plight in his diocese, and began at once to seek means for a reformation.

Blessed Isnard’s reputation for holiness of life, zeal, eloquence, power over the souls of others, and fearlessness was broadcast. Most likely he had already preached in the Diocese of Pavia — perhaps many times; for the Friars Preacher of Milan carried their work in every direction. Possibly, too, he and Bishop Cipolla, himself an energetic character, had become friends at a prior date. Anyway, one of the new prelate’s first steps for the spiritual betterment of his flock was to invite the subject of our narrative from Milan, that he might establish a house of the Order at Pavia. This was in 1231; and before the close of the year we find the fathers actively engaged in their apostolate under the leadership of the man of God from Chiampo.(3)

The convent, which Rodobald Cipolla generously helped to erect, stood in the little village of Ticino, a short distance outside the walls of Pavia, and was given the name of Saint Mary of Nazareth. Throughout Italy the Friars Preacher were known as an effective aid to the hierarchy against the evils of the day. Thus Bishop Cipolla felt that, at least under Isnard, they would be an immense help to him in putting an end to the inroads of the enemy, and in freeing his diocese from the many ills in which it was enmeshed. He had not long to wait before he saw that his choice of auxiliaries was no mistake.

However, the task proved difficult, trying, and full of danger. On the one hand, the faithful, through long bad associations, had become so cold, careless, and wayward in the practice of their religious duties that it was exceeding hard to arouse them to a sense of their obligations. On the other, the Ghibellines and sectarians, ever of stubborn mood as well as violent in their methods, were even less subject to management. These possessed little or no faith. Besides they were loath to change their views, to amend their lives, or to part with the earthly goods which they had obtained by robbery or dishonesty.

As is ever the case in such conditions, the Friar Preacher’s success began with the poor and the laboring classes. For these he had a special love. He gathered them around him at the conventual church, instructed them in their religion, and inspired them with a love of its practice. Although he met with much opposition at first, it was not long before he had completely changed their lives. Reports of the good thus effected soon spread near and far. Meanwhile, he and his confrères preached throughout the City of Pavia and its environments — in churches, public squares, market places, or wherever they could find a space large enough for an audience. Gradually the wealthier Guelfs, and even not a few of the Ghibellines, began to harken to the call of grace and to receive the sacraments.

Among the little band of missioners Isnard shone with special brilliancy for his saintliness, zeal, and eloquence. The influence which he soon began to wield over the people caused the leaders of the heretics to single him out for their hatred. They mocked and ridiculed him, publicly spurned him, laughed at his corpulent figure, defamed him, threatened him, did everything in their power either to bring him into disrepute or to make him desist from his tireless apostolate. All was in vain. His sermons were incessant. He challenged his enemies wherever he met them. If they undertook to answer him, his inexorable logic put them to shame, or reduced them to silence. Never was he known to be ill natured, or to lose his patience; yet he showed the fire of divine love that glowed within his breast.

No doubt as much to demonstrate the holiness of His faithful servant as for the benefit of those to whom he preached, God blessed Isnard with the gift of miracles. The early writers mention many wrought by him both before and after his death.(4) These, quite naturally, quickened and strengthened the faith of the Catholics. They also gradually undermined the influence and broke the spirit of the heretics, many of whom were brought into the Church. By the time of the holy man’s death, the Diocese of Pavia was free from attacks by Albigenses, Catharists, and similar sects. They bad gone to other parts, been converted, or held their peace. No one could be found who would profess their principles. It was a glorious apostolate brought to a successful termination.

The Ghibellines, or adherents of Emperor Frederic II, gave Christ’s ambassador no end of worry and trouble. These were the rich who were not guided by their consciences in the acquisition of wealth; politicians without scruples; and soldiers of fortune, whose restless spirits ever led them into the service in which they might expect the greatest booty, license, and excitement. The machinations of the German monarch helped to keep them in keen antagonism to ecclesiastical authority and the interests of religion; which, of course, rendered them less responsive to our blessed’s impelling eloquence or the strong influence of his holiness and miracles. We may judge of the contempt of these friends of Frederic for the Holy See from the fact that their acts more than once led to a papal interdict on Pavia.

Still these men, who could laugh at an excommunication and interdict from the highest authority in the Church, perforce loved and admired Father Isnard. His charity, his zeal, his gentle goodness, his purity of heart, his constant efforts for the right, which they witnessed day by day, simply wrung respect from them. His dealings with Frederic II must have been much like those of John of Wildeshausen. Even when Bishop Cipolla was driven into exile, Isnard and his band of missionaries were left to continue their fruitful labors. In the absence of the ordinary, the clergy who still remained in the diocese seem to have gathered around the subject of our sketch for guidance. Possibly the saintly prelate, at the time of his departure, placed him in charge of his spiritual vineyard.(5)

Despite the turbulence and the anti-ecclesiastical spirit of the day, the holy Friar Preacher from Chiampo effected untold good even among this class of citizens. Documents which have escaped the ravages of time show that some, who deferred conversion until on their deathbeds, made him the instrument of their restitution. Others entrusted him with their charity and benefactions. Historians call him an apostle of Pavia, and largely attribute the preservation of the faith in the city to his zeal.

Another proof of the respect and confidence which Isnard enjoyed among all classes, as well as of his reputation abroad, is found in the incident which we have now to tell. From early times the Diocese of Tours, France, possessed landed estates in and around Pavia. Because of the political disturbances and the Ghibelline spirit, to which we have referred, the canons of the Tours cathedral found it impossible to collect their rents. In this dilemma, they appointed our Friar Preacher their agent; for they felt that he was the only man in northern Italy who either could obtain their dues for them, or would dare undertake the task. This was in 1240, the year after the historic excommunication of Frederic 11 by Gregory IX. The affair shows bow wisely Isnard steered his course, how all venerated him at home, and how well his courage and prudence were known even in France.(6)

Like a number of the early disciples of Saint Dominic whose lives we have outlined, the apostle and reformer of Pavia did not feel that he had done his all for the benefit of religion until he established a community of Dominican Sisters. These he placed in the immediate vicinity of his own convent, that he might the better look after their spiritual welfare. Their house bore the same name as that of the fathers — Saint Mary of Nazareth. Although he had perhaps never seen Prouille, his double institution at Pavia must have been much like that with which the Order started in southern France. The dowries of many of these sisters indicate that he founded them, in part, so that wealthy worldly dames, whom he had converted, might have a place in which they could more completely give themselves to the service of God. Saint Dominic, it will be recalled, established the community of Prouille principally with women converted from Albigensianism. When, some years after our blessed’s death, the fathers moved into the city proper, the original Saint Mary of Nazareth was turned over to the sisters.

Isnard had a profound devotion towards the Mother of God. He perpetually preached her protection over the faithful. In every way he propagated love and veneration for her. Father Majocchi thinks that this apostolate was of immense aid to him in his work of reformation; for no other piety seems to be more congenital to the affectionate Italian character. He labored zealously on almost to the very last. At least the Lives of the Brethren (Vitae Fratrum) say his final sickness was a matter of only a few days. The manuscript annals, or chronicles, of the old Friar-Preacher convent at Pavia tell us that he surrendered his pure soul to God on March 19, 1244. He knew that the end was near, prepared for it, and died as holily as he had lived.(7)

We have no account of the funeral of the man of God. Yet the great love and admiration in which he was held justify one in the belief that the Pavians attended it in immense numbers. Perhaps the sad event plunged the city in no less grief than his own community. He was buried in the Church of Saint Mary of Nazareth, where his tomb became at once a place of pilgrimage for the city and province of Pavia. Not a few miracles were wrought in answer to prayers to him. The name Isnard was often given to children at their baptism.

Later, for various reasons, the fathers moved into the city proper. First (1281), they took possession of San Marino, but gave up this place the next year for Saint Andrew’s. There they remained until 1302, when they exchanged Saint Andrew’s for Saint Thomas’, which was better suited to their purposes. At this last location they at once began a splendid temple of prayer, which was completed between 1320 and 1330. The body of Blessed Isnard, which had been brought from the extra-urban Church of Saint Mary of Nazareth to Saint Andrew’s, while the fathers lived in the latter convent, was again translated and enshrined in a marble sarcophagus built for the purpose in a chapel of the new Saint Thomas’ Church. The devotion of the people followed his relies to both of these places of rest. Nor is it any stretch of fancy to imagine that the two translations were times of great fervor for all Pavia.

Unfortunately, in a spirit of zeal and friendship, the fathers gave the use of Blessed Isnard’s Chapel, as it was called, to the University of Pavia for religious functions. Although its walls were afterwards decorated with paintings commemorative of the chief events in his life, these academic associations tended rather to decrease veneration for the saintly Friar Preacher. The misfortunes of Pavia during the Spanish-Austrian reigns of Charles V and Philip III, which lasted almost throughout the sixteenth century, well-nigh caused him (or rather his final resting-place) to be forgotten even by some members of his own Order, and his relies to be scattered to the winds. Happily the researches of Pavian historians helped to avert such a disaster.

In spite of the most thorough identification, however, and to the great sorrow of the fathers, the rector and senate of the university, though without authority in the matter, later compelled our blessed’s sarcophagus to be taken from the chapel and destroyed. This was in 1763. But, before its removal, the community reverently gathered up his relies and placed them in a wooden chest. All this was done in the presence of Cardinal Charles Francis Durini, who then closed the box, and fastened it with his seal. Thence until the suppression of Saint Thomas’ Convent by Emperor Joseph II, in 1785, Isnard’s relies were carefully preserved in the archives. The fathers then took the chest, with its precious contents, to Saint Peter’s. When, in 1799, they were also forced to leave this abode, they gave their spiritual treasure to Bishop Joseph Bertieri, O. S. A. This prelate, after an official examination, not only entrusted Isnard’s relies to the Church of Saints Gervasius and Protasius, but even ordered them to be exposed for public veneration.

It looks providential that, under all these changes and difficulties, popular devotion for Saint Dominic’s early disciple did not completely die out. That it continued to exist shows the unalterable love in which the Pavians held him. Bishop Bertieri’s act gave it new life. In 1850 portions of his relies were given to Chiampo and Vicenza. Old paintings of him here and there, which represented him as a saint, also helped the cause. In 1907 the diocesan authorities of Pavia approved of his cult, and requested the Holy See to accept their decision. The late Benedict XV, of happy memory, after a thorough investigation by the Sacred Congregation of Rites (that is, in 1919), granted his office and mass to the Friars Preacher and the Diocese of Pavia. March 22 was appointed as his feast day.

Isnard is the last of the original disciples of Dominic to be accorded the honors of the altar. The late date of his beatification affords the hope that several others of them may yet he similarly dignified by the Church.

NOTES

1. ALBERTI, fol. 189 ff; Année Dominicaine, I (January), 633-635; BALME-LELAIDIER, Cartulaire de Saint Dominique, II, 359; BZOVIUS (Bzowski), XIII, col. 520; CASTILLO, pp. 238-239; FRACHET, Gerard de (Reichert ed.), pp. 227-228, 302-303; MAJOCCHI, Rudolph, Il Beato Isnardo da Vicenza; MALVENDA, pp. 664-665; MAMACHI, p. 545; PIO, col. 33. Father Marchese, strange to say, overlooks Blessed Isnard in his Sagro Diario Domenicano. Too much carelessness about their statements is shown by some of the other writers who speak of him. In this sketch we have followed the thorough and well documented little biography by Majocchi.

2. Il Beato Isnardo da Vicenza, pp. 35-36.

3. Some authors say that Isnard established the convent of Pavia in 1221, which certainly seems an error.

4. Some authors hardly say more about Isnard than give a list of the miracles he wrought.

5. Bishop Cipolla has been beatified. See Acta Sanctorum, LIV (6th vol. for October), 127 ff.

6. MAJOCCHI, op. cit., pp. 89 ff.

7. Vitae Fratrum (Reichert ed.), p. 228; MAJOCCHI, op. cit., p. 99. Some of the authors give no date for Isnard’s death; others simply place it in 1244; Majocchi tells us the exact time.

Born: at Chiampo, Diocese of Vicenza

Died: 1244

Beatified: 1919 (Cultus Confirmed)

Although his birth was attended by the prodigies also associated with Blessed James of Bevagna (of Mevania)–that of three brilliant stars bearing the image of a friar preacher–Ambrose Sansedoni got off to a very bad start by the world’s account. He was so badly deformed and so ugly that his own mother could hardly bear to look at him.

He was given into the care of a nurse, who daily took him with her to the Dominican church where she attended Mass. Here it was remarked that the baby, who fretted most of the time, was quiet and content when the nurse would hold him near the altar of relics, and that he cried violently when taken away.

One day, as the nurse was kneeling there with the baby’s face covered with a scarf, a pilgrim approached and said to her, “Do not cover that child’s face. He will one day be the glory of this city.” A few days later, at this same altar, a miracle occurred. The unfortunate child suddenly reached out his twisted limbs and quite distinctly pronounced the sacred name of Jesus. At once, all deformity left him, and he became a normal child.

So early marked with the favor of God, it was only natural that Ambrose would be pious. As a child of seven he would rise at night to pray and meditate, and he daily recited the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin. While still a child, he was charitable to a heroic degree, and busied himself with the poor, the abandoned, and the sick. When he was only two or three years old, his father, who was an illuminator of books, made two little books for him. One was on secular subjects, the other on the saints. Ambrose made no hesitation about choosing the latter as his favorite, and throughout his life he was to exhibit this same choice of the things of God.

Being a handsome and talented young man, Ambrose was beset with difficulties when he expressed his intention of becoming a member of the preaching friars. Parents and friends tried to change his mind, and the devil appeared in several different forms to counsel him against such a step. Ambrose courageously overcame all the obstacles in his path and joined the friars on his 17th birthday.

After his profession in 1237, Ambrose was sent to Paris to study under Saint Albert the Great. With his fellow pupil, Saint Thomas Aquinas, he returned to Cologne with Saint Albert, and thus was associated for some years with the two finest minds of the century. It is said that the humility of Ambrose, and his recognition of the true greatness of Saint Thomas’s writings, led him to devote his time to preaching rather than writing. He was sent on many peace-making missions during his 30 years of preaching, and was highly regarded by both popes and Dominicans.

Despite a very active apostolate of preaching in Germany, France, and Italy, Ambrose lived a life of almost uninterrupted prayer. He was often in ecstasy, and, shortly before his death, he was favored with several visions of great beauty. It is said that his death was hastened by the vehemence of his preaching. Sometimes when he preached he levitated and a circle of glory, in which birds of brilliant plumage flitted, surrounded him. Many miracles were reported at his tomb, and he has been popularly called “Saint Ambrose of Siena” since the time of his death (Benedictines, Dorcy).

Born: 1220 at Siena, Italy

Died: 1287 of natural causes

Beatified: 1622 (cultus confirmed)

Patronage: betrothed couples, affianced couples, engaged couples, Siena Italy

Representation: Dominican with a dove at his ear, holding a model of Siena, Italy, holding a book, preaching

The great outlines and all the important events of his life are known, but biographers differ as to some details and dates. Death prevented Henry Denifle from executing his project of writing a critical life of the saint. Denifle’s friend and pupil, Dominic Prümmer, O.P., professor of theology in the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, took up the work and published the “Fontes Vitae S. Thomae Aquinatis, notis historicis et criticis illustrati”; and the first fascicle (Toulouse, 1911) has appeared, giving the life of St. Thomas by Peter Calo (1300) now published for the first time. From Tolomeo of Lucca . . . we learn that at the time of the saint’s death there was a doubt about his exact age (Prümmer, op. cit., 45). The end of 1225 is usually assigned as the time of his birth. Father Prümmer, on the authority of Calo, thinks 1227 is the more probable date (op. cit., 28). All agree that he died in 1274.

Landulph, his father, was Count of Aquino; Theodora, his mother, Countess of Teano. His family was related to the Emperors Henry VI and Frederick II, and to the Kings of Aragon, Castile, and France. Calo relates that a holy hermit foretold his career, saying to Theodora before his birth: “He will enter the Order of Friars Preachers, and so great will be his learning and sanctity that in his day no one will be found to equal him” (Prümmer, op. cit., 18). At the age of five, according to the custom of the times, he was sent to receive his first training from the Benedictine monks of Monte Cassino. Diligent in study, he was thus early noted as being meditative and devoted to prayer, and his preceptor was surprised at hearing the child ask frequently: “What is God?”

About the year 1236 he was sent to the University of Naples. Calo says that the change was made at the instance of the Abbot of Monte Cassino, who wrote to Thomas’s father that a boy of such talents should not be left in obscurity (Prümmcr, op. cit., 20). At Naples his preceptors were Pietro Martini and Petrus Hibernus. The chronicler says that he soon surpassed Martini at grammar, and he was then given over to Peter of Ireland, who trained him in logic and the natural sciences. The customs of the times divided the liberal arts into two courses: the Trivium, embracing grammar, logic, and rhetoric; the Quadrivium, comprising music, mathematics, geometry, and astronomy . . . . Thomas could repeat the lessons with more depth and lucidity than his masters displayed. The youth’s heart had remained pure amidst the corruption with which he was surrounded, and he resolved to embrace the religious life.

Some time between 1240 and August, 1243, he received the habit of the Order of St. Dominic, being attracted and directed by John of St. Julian, a noted preacher of the convent of Naples. The city wondered that such a noble young man should don the garb of poor friar. His mother, with mingled feelings of joy and sorrow, hastened to Naples to see her son. The Dominicans, fearing she would take him away, sent him to Rome, his ultimate destination being Paris or Cologne. At the instance of Theodora, Thomas’s brothers, who were soldiers under the Emperor Frederick, captured the novice near the town of Aquapendente and confined him in the fortress of San Giovanni at Rocca Secca. Here he was detained nearly two years, his parents, brothers, and sisters endeavouring by various means to destroy his vocation. The brothers even laid snares for his virtue, but the pure-minded novice drove the temptress from his room with a brand which he snatched from the fire. Towards the end of his life, St. Thomas confided to his faithful friend and companion, Reginald of Piperno, the secret of a remarkable favour received at this time. When the temptress had been driven from his chamber, he knelt and most earnestly implored God to grant him integrity of mind and body. He fell into a gentle sleep, and, as he slept, two angels appeared to assure him that his prayer had been heard. They then girded him about with a white girdle, saying: “We gird thee with the girdle of perpetual virginity.” And from that day forward he never experienced the slightest motions of concupiscence.

The time spent in captivity was not lost. His mother relented somewhat, after the first burst of anger and grief; the Dominicans were allowed to provide him with new habits, and through the kind offices of his sister he procured some books — the Holy Scriptures, Aristotle’s Metaphysics, and the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard. After eighteen months or two years spent in prison, either because his mother saw that the hermit’s prophecy would eventually be fulfilled or because his brothers feared the threats of Innocent IV and Frederick II, he was set at liberty, being lowered in a basket into the arms of the Dominicans, who were delighted to find that during his captivity “he had made as much progress as if he had been in a studium generale” (Calo, op. cit., 24).

Thomas immediately pronounced his vows, and his superiors sent him to Rome. Innocent IV examined closely into his motives in joining the Friars Preachers, dismissed him with a blessing, and forbade any further interference with his vocation. John the Teutonic, fourth master general of the order, took the young student to Paris and, according to the majority of the saint’s biographers, to Cologne, where he arrived in 1244 or 1245, and was placed under Albertus Magnus, the most renowned professor of the order. In the schools Thomas’s humility and taciturnity were misinterpreted as signs of dullness, but when Albert had heard his brilliant defence of a difficult thesis, he exclaimed: “We call this young man a dumb ox, hut his bellowing in doctrine will one day resound throughout the world.”

In 1245 Albert was sent to Paris, and Thomas accompanied him as a student. In 1248 both returned to Cologne. Albert had been appointed regent of the new studium generale, erected that year by the general chapter of the order, and Thomas was to teach under him as Bachelor. (On the system of graduation in the thirteenth century see ORDER OF PREACHERS — II, A, 1, d). During his stay in Cologne, probably in 1250, he was raised to the priesthood by Conrad of Hochstaden, archbishop of that city. Throughout his busy life, he frequently preached the Word of God, in Germany, France, and Italy. His sermons were forceful, redolent of piety, full of solid instruction, abounding in apt citations from the Scriptures.

In the year 1251 or 1252 the master general of the order, by the advice of Albertus Magnus and Hugo a S. Charo (Hugh of St. Cher), sent Thomas to fill the office of Bachelor (sub-regent) in the Dominican studium at Paris. This appointment may be regarded as the beginning of his public career, for his teaching soon attracted the attention both of the professors and of the students. His duties consisted principally in explaining the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard, and his commentaries on that text-book of theology furnished the materials and, in great part, the plan for his chief work, the “Summa theologica”.

In due time he was ordered to prepare himself to obtain the degree of Doctor in Theology from the University of Paris, but the conferring of the degree was postponed, owing to a dispute between the university and the friars. The conflict, originally a dispute between the university and the civic authorities, arose from the slaying of one of the students and the wounding of three others by the city guard. The university, jealous of its autonomy, demanded satisfaction, which was refused. The doctors closed their schools, solemnly swore that they would not reopen them until their demands were granted, and decreed that in future no one should be admitted to the degree of Doctor unless he would take an oath to follow the same line of conduct under similar circumstances. The Dominicans and Franciscans, who had continued to teach in their schools, refused to take the prescribed oath, and from this there arose a bitter conflict which was at its height when St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure were ready to be presented for their degrees. William of St-Amour extended the dispute beyond the original question, violently attacked the friars, of whom he was evidently jealous, and denied their right to occupy chairs in the university. Against his book, “De periculis novissimorum temporum” (The Perils of the Last Times), St. Thomas wrote a treatise “Contra impugnantes religionem”, an apology for the religious orders (Touron, op. cit., II, cc. vii sqq.). The book of William of St-Amour was condemned by Alexander IV at Anagni, 5 October, 1256, and the pope gave orders that the mendicant friars should be admitted to the doctorate.

About this time St. Thomas also combated a dangerous book, “The Eternal Gospel” (Touron, op. cit., II, cxii). The university authorities did not obey immediately; the influence of St. Louis IX and eleven papal Briefs were required before peace was firmly established, and St. Thomas was admitted to the degree of Doctor in Theology. The date of his promotion, as given by many biographers, was 23 October, 1257. His theme was “The Majesty of Christ”. His text, “Thou waterest the hills from thy upper rooms: the earth shall be filled with the fruit of thy works” (Psalm 103:13), said to have been suggested by a heavenly visitor, seems to have been prophetic of his career. A tradition says that St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas received the doctorate on the same day, and that there was a contest of humility between the two friends as to which should be promoted first.

From this time St. Thomas’s life may be summed up in a few words: praying, preaching, teaching, writing, journeying. Men were more anxious to hear him than they had been to hear Albert, whom St. Thomas surpassed in accuracy, lucidity, brevity, and power of exposition, if not in universality of knowledge. Paris claimed him as her own; the popes wished to have him near them; the studia of the order were eager to enjoy the benefit of his teaching; hence we find him successively at Anagni, Rome, Bologna, Orvieto, Viterbo, Perugia, in Paris again, and finally in Naples, always teaching and writing, living on earth with one passion, an ardent zeal for the explanation and defence of Christian truth. So devoted was he to his sacred task that with tears he begged to be excused from accepting the Archbishopric of Naples, to which he was appointed by Clement IV in 1265. Had this appointment been accepted, most probably the “Summa theologica” would not have been written.

Yielding to the requests of his brethren, he on several occasions took part in the deliberations of the general chapters of the order. One of these chapters was held in London in 1263. In another held at Valenciennes (1259) he collaborated with Albertus Magnus and Peter of Tarentasia (afterwards Pope Innocent V) in formulating a system of studies which is substantially preserved to this day in the studia generalia of the Dominican Order (cf. Douais, op. cit.).

It is not surprising to read in the biographies of St. Thomas that he was frequently abstracted and in ecstasy. Towards the end of his life the ecstasies became more frequent. On one occasion, at Naples in 1273, after he had completed his treatise on the Eucharist, three of the brethren saw him lifted in ecstasy, and they heard a voice proceeding from the crucifix on the altar, saying “Thou hast written well of me, Thomas; what reward wilt thou have?” Thomas replied, “None other than Thyself, Lord” (Prümmer, op. cit., p. 38). Similar declarations are said to have been made at Orvieto and at Paris.

On 6 December, 1273, he laid aside his pen and would write no more. That day he experienced an unusually long ecstasy during Mass; what was revealed to him we can only surmise from his reply to Father Reginald, who urged him to continue his writings: “I can do no more. Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have written now appears to be of little value” (modica, Prümmer, op. cit., p. 43). The “Summa theologica” had been completed only as far as the ninetieth question of the third part (De partibus poenitentiae).

Thomas began his immediate preparation for death. Gregory X, having convoked a general council, to open at Lyons on 1 May, 1274, invited St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure to take part in the deliberations, commanding the former to bring to the council his treatise “Contra errores Graecorum” (Against the Errors of the Greeks). He tried to obey, setting out on foot in January, 1274, but strength failed him; he fell to the ground near Terracina, whence he was conducted to the Castle of Maienza the home of his niece the Countess Francesca Ceccano. The Cistercian monks of Fossa Nuova pressed him to accept their hospitality, and he was conveyed to their monastery, on entering which he whispered to his companion: “This is my rest for ever and ever: here will I dwell, for I have chosen it” (Psalm 131:14). When Father Reginald urged him to remain at the castle, the saint replied: “If the Lord wishes to take me away, it is better that I be found in a religious house than in the dwelling of a lay person.” The Cistercians were so kind and attentive that Thomas’s humility was alarmed. “Whence comes this honour”, he exclaimed, “that servants of God should carry wood for my fire!” At the urgent request of the monks he dictated a brief commentary on the Canticle of Canticles.

The end was near; extreme unction was administered. When the Sacred Viaticum was brought into the room he pronounced the following act of faith:

If in this world there be any knowledge of this sacrament stronger than that of faith, I wish now to use it in affirming that I firmly believe and know as certain that Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, Son of God and Son of the Virgin Mary, is in this Sacrament . . . I receive Thee, the price of my redemption, for Whose love I have watched, studied, and laboured. Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee: if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.

 

He died on 7 March, 1274. Numerous miracles attested his sanctity, and he was canonized by John XXII, 18 July, 1323. The monks of Fossa Nuova were anxious to keep his sacred remains, but by order of Urban V the body was given to his Dominican brethren, and was solemnly translated to the Dominican church at Toulouse, 28 January, 1369. A magnificent shrine erected in 1628 was destroyed during the French Revolution, and the body was removed to the Church of St. Sernin, where it now reposes in a sarcophagus of gold and silver, which was solemnly blessed by Cardinal Desprez on 24 July, 1878. The chief bone of his left arm is preserved in the cathedral of Naples. The right arm, bestowed on the University of Paris, and originally kept in the St. Thomas’s Chapel of the Dominican church, is now preserved in the Dominican Church of S. Maria Sopra Minerva in Rome, whither it was transferred during the French Revolution.

A description of the saint as he appeared in life is given by Calo (Prümmer, op. cit., p. 401), who says that his features corresponded with the greatness of his soul. He was of lofty stature and of heavy build, but straight and well proportioned. His complexion was “like the colour of new wheat”: his head was large and well shaped, and he was slightly bald. All portraits represent him as noble, meditative, gentle yet strong. St. Pius V proclaimed St. Thomas a Doctor of the Universal Church in the year 1567. In the Encyclical “Aeterni Patris”, of 4 August, 1879, on the restoration of Christian philosophy, Leo XIII declared him “the prince and master of all Scholastic doctors”. The same illustrious pontiff, by a Brief dated 4 August, 1880, designated him patron of all Catholic universities, academies, colleges, and schools throughout the world.

 

IIa. WRITINGS (GENERAL REMARKS)

Although St. Thomas lived less than fifty years, he composed more than sixty works, some of them brief, some very lengthy. This does not necessarily mean that every word in the authentic works was written by his hand; he was assisted by secretaries, and biographers assure us that he could dictate to several scribes at the same time. Other works, some of which were composed by his disciples, have been falsely attributed to him.

In the “Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum” (Paris, 1719) Fr. Echard devotes eighty-six folio pages to St. Thomas’s works, the different editions and translations (I, pp. 282-348). Touron (op. cit., pp. 69 sqq.) says that manuscript copies were found in nearly all the libraries of Europe, and that, after the invention of printing, copies were multiplied rapidly in Germany, Italy, and France, portions of the “Summa theologica” being one of the first important works printed. Peter Schöffer, a printer of Mainz, published the “Secunda Secundae” in 1467. This is the first known printed copy of any work of St. Thomas. The first complete edition of the “Summa” was printed at Basle, in 1485. Many other editions of this and of other works were published in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, especially at Venice and at Lyons. The principal editions of all the work (Opera Omnia) were published as follows: Rome, 1570; Venice, 1594, 1612, 1745; Antwerp, 1612; Paris, 1660, 1871-80 (Vives); Parma, 1852-73; Rome, 1882 (the Leonine). The Roman edition of 1570, called “the Piana”, because edited by order of St. Pius V, was the standard for many years. Besides a carefully revised text it contained the commentaries of Cardinal Cajetan and the valuable “Tabula Aurea” of Peter of Bergamo. The Venetian edition of 1612 was highly prized because the text was accompanied by the Cajetan-Porrecta commentaries . . . . The Leonine edition, begun under the patronage of Leo XIII, now continued under the master general of the Dominicans, undoubtedly will be the most perfect of all. Critical dissertations on each work will be given, the text will be carefully revised, and all references will be verified. By direction of Leo XIII (Motu Proprio, 18 Jan., 1880) the “Summa contra gentiles” will be published with the commentaries of Sylvester Ferrariensis, whilst the commentaries of Cajetan go with the “Summa theologica”.

The latter has been published, being volumes IV-XII of the edition (last in 1906). St. Thomas’s works may be classified as philosophical, theological, scriptural, and apologetic, or controversial. The division, however, cannot always be rigidly maintained. The “Summa theologica”, e.g., contains much that is philosophical, whilst the “Summa contra gentiles” is principally, but not exclusively, philosophical and apologetic. His philosophical works are chiefly commentaries on Aristotle, and his first important theological writings were commentaries on Peter Lombard’s four books of “Sentences”; but he does not slavishly follow either the Philosopher or the Master of the Sentences (on opinions of the Lombard rejected by theologians, see Migne, 1841, edition of the “Summa” I, p. 451).

 

IIb. WRITINGS (HIS PRINCIPAL WORKS)

Amongst the works wherein St. Thomas’s own mind and method are shown, the following deserve special mention:

(1) “Quaestiones disputatae” (Disputed Questions) — These were more complete treatises on subjects that had not been fully elucidated in the lecture halls, or concerning which the professor’s opinion had been sought. They are very valuable, because in them the author, free from limitations as to time or space, freely expresses his mind and gives all arguments for or against the opinions adopted. These treatises, containing the questions “De potentia”, “De malo”, “De spirit. creaturis”, “De anima”, “De unione Verbi Incarnati”, “De virt. in communi”, “De caritate”, “De corr. fraterna”, “De spe”, “De virt. cardinal.”, “De veritate”, were often reprinted, e.g. recently by the Association of St. Paul (2 vols., Paris and Fribourg, Switzerland, 1883).

(2) “Quodlibeta” (may be rendered “Various Subjects”, or “Free Discussions”) — They present questions or arguments proposed and answers given in or outside the lecture halls, chiefly in the more formal Scholastic exercises, termed circuli, conclusiones, or determinationes, which were held once or twice a year.

(3) “De unitate intellectus contra Averroistas” — This opusculum refuted a very dangerous and widespread error, viz., that there was but one soul for all men, a theory which did away wth individual liberty and responsibility.

(4) “Commentaria in Libros Sententiarum” (mentioned above) — This with the following work are the immediate forerunners of the “Summa theologica”.

(5) “Summa de veritate catholicae fidei contra gentiles” (Treatise on the Truth of the Catholic Faith, against Unbelievers) — This work, written at Rome, 1261-64, was composed at the request of St. Raymond of Pennafort, who desired to have a philosophical exposition and defence of the Christian Faith, to be used against the Jews and Moors in Spain. It is a perfect model of patient and sound apologetics, showing that no demonstrated truth (science) is opposed to revealed truth (faith). The best recent editions are those of Rome, 1878 (by Uccelli), of Paris and Fribourg, Switzerland, 1882, and of Rome, 1894. It has been translated into many languages. It is divided into four books: I. Of God as He is in Himself; II. Of God the Origin of Creatures; III. Of God the End of Creatures; IV. Of God in His Revelation. It is worthy of remark that the Fathers of the Vatican Council, treating the necessity of revelation (Coast. “Dei Filius”, c. 2), employed almost the very words used by St. Thomas in treating that subject in this work (I, cc. iv, V), and in the “Summa theologica” (I:1:1).

(6) Three works written by order of Urban IV —

	The “Opusculum contra errores   Graecorum” refuted the errors of the Greeks on doctrines in dispute   between them and the Roman Church, viz., the procession of the Holy Ghost   from the Father and the Son, the primacy of the Roman pontiff, the Holy   Eucharist, and purgatory. It was used against the Greeks with telling effect   in the Council of Lyons (1274) and in the Council of Florence (1493). In the   range of human reasonings on deep subjects there can be found nothing to   surpass the sublimity and depth of the argument adduced by St. Thomas to   prove that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son (cf. Summa   I:36:2); but it must be borne in mind that our Faith is not based on that   argument alone.
	“Officium de festo Corporis Christi”.   Mandonnet (Ecrits, p. 127) declares that it is now established beyond doubt   that St. Thomas is the author of the beautiful Office of Corpus Christi, in   which solid doctrine, tender piety, and enlightening Scriptural citations are   combined, and expressed in language remarkably accurate, beautiful, chaste,   and poetic. Here we find the well-known hymns, “Sacris Solemniis”,   “Pange Lingua” (concluding in the “Tantum Ergo”),   “Verbum Supernum” (concluding with the “O Salutaris   Hostia”) and, in the Mass, the beautiful sequence “Lauda   Sion”. In the responses of the office, St. Thomas places side by side   words of the New Testament affirming the real presence of Christ in the   Blessed Sacrament and texts from the Old Testament referring to the types and   figures of the Eucharist. Santeuil, a poet of the seventeenth century, said   he would give all the verses he had written for the one stanza of the   “Verbum Supernum”: “Se nascens dedit socium, convescens in   edulium: Se moriens in pretium, Se regnans dat in praemium” — “In   birth, man’s fellow-man was He, His meat, while sitting at the Board: He died   his Ransomer to be, He reigns to be his Great Reward” (tr. by Marquis of   Bute). Perhaps the gem of the whole office is the antiphon “O Sacrum   Convivium” (cf. Conway, “St. Thomas Aquinas”, London and New   York, 1911, p. 61).
	The “Catena Aurea’ though not as original   as his other writings, furnishes a striking proof of St. Thomas’s prodigious   memory and manifests an intimate acquaintance with the Fathers of the Church.   The work contains a series of passages selected from the writings of the   various Fathers, arranged in such order that the texts cited form a running   commentary on the Gospels. The commentary on St. Matthew was dedicated to   Urban IV. An English translation of the “Catena Aurea was edited by John   Henry Newman (4 vols., Oxford 1841-1845; see Vaughan, op. cit., vol. II,) pp.   529 sqq..

 

(7) The “Summa theologica” — This work immortalized St. Thomas. The author himself modestly considered it simply a manual of Christian doctrine for the use of students. In reality it is a complete scientifically arranged exposition of theology and at the same time a summary of Christian philosophy (see SUMMÆ). In the brief prologue St. Thomas first calls attention to the difficulties experienced by students of sacred doctrine in his day, the causes assigned being: the multiplication of useless questions, articles, and arguments; the lack of scientific order; frequent repetitions, “which beget disgust and confusion in the minds of learners”. Then he adds: “Wishing to avoid these and similar drawbacks, we shall endeavour, confiding in the Divine assistance, to treat of these things that pertain to sacred doctrine with brevity and clearness, in so far as the subject to he treated will permit.” In the introductory question, “On Sacred Doctrine”, he proves that, besides the knowledge which reason affords, Revelation also is necessary for salvation first, because without it men could not know the supenatural end to which they must tend by their voluntary acts; secondly, because, without Revelation, even the truths concerning God which could be proved by reason would be known “only by a few, after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors”. When revealed truths have been accepted, the mind of man proceeds to explain them and to draw conclusions from them. Hence results theology, which is a science, because it proceeds from principles that are certain (Answer 2). The object, or subject, of this science is God; other things are treated in it only in so far as they relate to God (Answer 7). Reason is used in theology not to prove the truths of faith, which are accepted on the authority of God, but to defend, explain, and develop the doctrines revealed (Answer 8). He thus announces the division of the “Summa”: “Since the chief aim of this sacred science is to give the knowledge of God, not only as He is in Himself, but also as He is the Beginning of all things, and the End of all, especially of rational creatures, we shall treat first of God; secondly, of the rational creature’s advance towards God (de motu creaturae rationalis in Deum); thirdly, of Christ, Who, as Man, is the way by which we tend to God.” God in Himself, and as He is the Creator; God as the End of all things, especially of man; God as the Redeemer — these are the leading ideas, the great headings, under which all that pertains to theology is contained.

(a) Sub-divisions

The First Part is divided into three tracts:

	On those things which pertain to the Essence   of God;
	On the distinction of Persons in God (the   mystery of the Trinity);
	On the production of creatures by God and on   the creatures produced.

 

The Second Part, On God as He is in the End of man, is sometimes called the Moral Theology of St. Thomas, i.e., his treatise on the end of man and on human acts. It is subdivided into two parts, known as the First Section of the Second (I-II, or 1a 2ae) and the Second of the Second (II-II, or 2a 2ae).

The First of the Second. The first five   questions are devoted to proving that man’s last end, his beatitude, consists   in the possession of God. Man attains to that end or deviates from it by   human acts, i.e. by free, deliberate acts. Of human acts he treats, first, in   general (in all but the first five questions of the I-II), secondly, in   particular (in the whole of the II-II). The treatise on human acts in general   is divided into two parts: the first, on human acts in themselves; the other,   on the principles or causes, extrinsic or intrinsic, of those acts. In these   tracts and in the Second of the Second, St. Thomas, following Aristotle,   gives a perfect description and a wonderfully keen analysis of the movements   of man’s mind and heart.

The Second of the Second considers human acts,   i.e., the virtues and vices, in particular. In it St. Thomas treats, first,   of those things that pertain to all men, no matter what may be their station   in life, and, secondly, of those things that pertain to some men only. Things   that pertain to all men are reduced to seven headings: Faith, Hope, and   Charity; Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance. Under each title, in   order to avoid repetitions, St. Thomas treats not only of the virtue itself,   but also of the vices opposed to it, of the commandment to practise it, and   of the gift of the Holy Ghost which corresponds to it. Things pertaining to   some men only are reduced to three headings: the graces freely given (ratia   gratis datae) to certain individuals for the good of the Church, such as the   gifts of tongues, of prophecy, of miracles; the active and the contemplative   life; the particular states of life, and duties of those who are in different   states, especially bishops and religious.   The Third Part treats   of Christ and of the benefits which He has conferred upon man, hence three   tracts: On the Incarnation, and on what the Saviour did and suffered; On the Sacraments,   which were instituted by Christ, and have their efficacy from His merits and   sufferings; On Eternal Life, i.e., on the end of the world, the resurrection   of bodies, judgment, the punishment of the wicked, the happiness of the just   who, through Christ, attain to eternal life in heaven. Eight years were given   to the composition of this work, which was begun at Rome, where the First   Part and the First of the Second were written (1265-69). The Second of the   Second, begun in Rome, was completed in Paris (1271). In 1272 St. Thomas went   to Naples, where the Third Part was written, down to the ninetieth question   of the tract On Penance (see Leonine edition, I, p. xlii). The work has been   completed by the addition of a supplement, drawn from other writings of St.   Thomas, attributed by some to Peter of Auvergne, by others to Henry of   Gorkum. These attributions are rejected by the editors of the Leonine edition   (XI, pp. viii, xiv, xviii). Mandonnet (op. cit., 153) inclines to the very   probable opinion that it was compiled by Father Reginald de Piperno, the   saint’s faithful companion and secretary. The entire “Summa”   contains 38 Treatises, 612 Questions, subdivided into 3120 articles, in which   about 10,000 objections are proposed and answered. So admirably is the   promised order preserved that, by reference to the beginning of the Tracts   and Questions, one can see at a glance what place it occupies in the general   plan, which embraces all that can be known through theology of God, of man,   and of their mutual relations . . . “The whole Summa is arranged on a   uniform plan. Every subject is introduced as a question, and divided into   articles. . . . Each article has also a uniform disposition of parts. The   topic is introduced as an inquiry for discussion, under the term Utrum,   whether — e.g. Utrum Deus sit? The objections against the proposed thesis   are then stated. These are generally three or four in number, but sometimes   extend to seven or more. The conclusion adopted is then introduced by the   words, Respondeo dicendum. At the end of the thesis expounded the objections   are answered, under the forms, ad primum, ad secundum, etc.” . . . . The   “Summa” is Christian doctrine in scientific form; it is human   reason rendering its highest service in defence and explanation of the truths   of the Christian religion. It is the answer of the matured and saintly doctor   to the question of his youth: What is God? Revelation, made known in the   Scriptures and by tradition; reason and its best results; soundness and   fulness of doctrine, order, conciseness and clearness of expression,   effacement of self, the love of truth alone, hence a remarkable fairness   towards adversaries and calmness in combating their errors; soberness and   soundness of judgment, together with a charmingly tender and enlightened   piety — these are all found in this “Summa” more than in his other   writings, more than in the writings of his contemporaries, for “among   the Scholastic doctors, the chief and master of all, towers Thomas Aquinas,   who, as Cajetan observes (In 2am 2ae, Q. 148, a. 4) ‘because he most   venerated the ancient doctors of the Church in a certain way seems to have   inherited the intellect of all'” (Encyclical, “Aeterni   Patris”, of Leo XIII). (b) Editions and Translations It is impossible to   mention the various editions of the “Summa”, which has been in   constant use for more than seven hundred years. Very few books have been so   often republished. The first complete edition, printed at Basle in 1485, was   soon followed by others, e.g., at Venice in 1505, 1509, 1588, 1594; at Lyons   in 1520, 1541, 1547, 1548, 1581, 1588, 1624,1655; at Antwerp in 1575. These   are enumerated by Touron (op. cit., p. 692), who says that about the same   time other editions were published at Rome, Antwerp, Rouen, Paris, Douai,   Cologne, Amsterdam, Bologna, etc. The editors of the Leonine edition deem   worthy of mention those published at Paris in 1617, 1638, and 1648, at Lyons   in 1663, 1677, and 1686, and a Roman edition of 1773 (IV, pp. xi, xii). Of all   old editions they consider the most accurate two published at Padua, one in   1698, the other in 1712, and the Venice edition of 1755. Of recent editions   the best are the following: the Leonine; the Migne editions (Paris, 1841,   1877); the first volume of the 1841 edition containing the “Libri   quatuor sententiarum” of Peter Lombard; the very practical Faucher   edition (5 vols. small quarto, Paris, 1887), dedicated to Cardinal Pecci,   enriched with valuable notes; a Roman edition of 1894. The “Summa”   has been translated into many modern languages as well.   IIc. WRITINGS (METHOD AND STYLE) It is not possible to   characterize the method of St. Thomas by one word, unless it can be called   eclectic. It is Aristotelean, Platonic, and Socratic; it is inductive and   deductive; it is analytic and synthetic. He chose the best that could he   found in those who preceded him, carefully sifting the chaff from the wheat,   approving what was true, rejecting the false. His powers of synthesis were   extraordinary. No writer surpassed him in the faculty of expressing in a few   well-chosen words the truth gathered from a multitude of varying and   conflicting opinions; and in almost every instance the student sees the truth   and is perfectly satisfied with St. Thomas’s summary and statement. Not that   he would have students swear by the words of a master. In philosophy, he   says, arguments from authority are of secondary importance; philosophy does   not consist in knowing what men have said, but in knowing the truth (In I   lib. de Coelo, lect. xxii; II Sent., D. xiv, a. 2, ad 1um). He assigns its   proper place to reason used in theology (see below: Influence of St. Thomas),   but he keeps it within its own sphere. Against the Traditionalists the Holy   See has declared that the method used by St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure does   not lead to Rationalism (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1652). Not so bold or   original in investigating nature as were Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon, he   was, nevertheless, abreast of his time in science, and many of his opinions are   of scientific value in the twentieth century. Take, for instance, the   following: “In the same plant there is the two-fold virtue, active and   passive, though sometimes the active is found in one and the passive in   another, so that one plant is said to be masculine and the other   feminine” (3 Sent., D. III, Q. ii, a 1). The style of St.   Thomas is a medium between the rough expressiveness of some Scholastics and   the fastidious elegance of John of Salisbury; it is remarkable for accuracy,   brevity, and completeness. Pope Innocent VI (quoted in the Encyclical,   “Aeterni Patris”, of Leo XIII) declared that, with the exception of   the canonical writings, the works of St. Thomas surpass all others in   “accuracy of expression and truth of statement” (habet proprietatem   verborum, modum dicendorum, veritatem sententiarum). Great orators, such as   Bossuet, Lacordaire, Monsabré, have studied his style, and have been   influenced by it, but they could not reproduce it. The same is true of   theological writers. Cajetan knew St. Thomas’s style better than any of his   disciples, but Cajetan is beneath his great master in clearness and accuracy   of expression, in soberness and solidity of judgment. St. Thomas did not   attain to this perfection without an effort. He was a singularly blessed   genius, but he was also an indefatigable worker, and by continued application   he reached that stage of perfection in the art of writing where the art   disappears. “The author’s manuscript of the Summa Contra Gentiles is   still in great part extant. It is now in the Vatican Library. The manuscript   consists of strips of parchment, of various shades of colour, contained in an   old parchment cover to which they were originally stitched. The writing is in   double column, and difficult to decipher, abounding in abbreviations, often   passing into a kind of shorthand. Throughout many passages a line is drawn in   sign of erasure” (Rickaby, Op. cit., preface: see Ucelli ed., “Sum.   cont. gent.”, Rome, 1878).   III. INFLUENCES EXERTED ON ST. THOMAS How was this great   genius formed? The causes that exerted an influence on St. Thomas were of two   kinds, natural and supernatural.   A. Natural Causes (1) As a foundation,   he “was a witty child, and had received a good soul” (Wisdom 8:19).   From the beginning he manifested precocious and extraordinary talent and   thoughtfulness beyond his years. (2) His education was   such that great things might have been expected of him. His training at Monte   Cassino, at Naples, Paris, and Cologne was the best that the thirteenth century   could give, and that century was the golden age of education. That it   afforded excellent opportunities for forming great philosophers and   theologians is evident from the character of St. Thomas’s contemporaries.   Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus, St. Bonaventure, St. Raymond of   Pennafort, Roger Bacon, Hugo a S. Charo, Vincent of Beauvais, not to mention   scores of others, prove beyond all doubt that those were days of really great   scholars. (See Walsh, “The Thirteenth, Greatest of Centuries”, New   York, 1907.) The men who trained St. Thomas were his teachers at Monte   Cassino and Naples, but above all Albertus Magnus, under whom he studied at   Paris and Cologne. (3) The books that   exercised the greatest influence on his mind were the Bible, the Decrees of   the councils and of the popes, the works of the Fathers, Greek and Latin,   especially of St. Augustine, the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard, the   writings of the philosophers, especially of Plato, Aristotle, and Boethius.   If from these authors any were to be selected for special mention,   undoubtedly they would be Aristotle, St. Augustine, and Peter Lombard. In   another sense the writings of St. Thomas were influenced by Averroes, the   chief opponent whom he had to combat in order to defend and make known the   true Aristotle. (4) It must be borne   in mind that St. Thomas was blessed with a retentive memory and great powers   of penetration. Father Daniel d’Agusta once pressed him to say what he   considered the greatest grace he had ever received, sanctifying grace of   course excepted. “I think that of having understood whatever I have   read”, was the reply. St. Antoninus declared that “he remembered   everything be had read, so that his mind was like a huge library” (cf.   Drane, op. cit., p. 427; Vaughan, op. cit., II, p. 567). The bare enumeration   of the texts of Scripture cited in the “Summa theologica” fills   eighty small-print columns in the Migne edition, and by many it is not   unreasonably supposed that he learned the Sacred Books by heart while he was   imprisoned in the Castle of San Giovanni. Like St. Dominic he had a special   love for the Epistles of St. Paul, on which he wrote commentaries (recent   edition in 2 vols., Turin, 1891). (5) Deep reverence for   the Faith, as made known by tradition, characterizes all his writings. The consuetudo   ecclesiae — the practice of the Church — should prevail over the authority   of any doctor (Summa II-II:10:12). In the “Summa” he quotes from 19   councils, 41 popes, and 52 Fathers of the Church. A slight acquaintance with   his writings will show that among the Fathers his favourite was St. Augustine   (on the Greek Fathers see Vaughan, op. cit., II, cc. iii sqq.). (6) With St.   Augustine (II De doctr. Christ., c. xl), St. Thomas held that whatever there   was of truth in the writings of pagan philosophers should be taken from them,   as from “unjust possessors”, and adapted to the teaching of the   true religion (Summa I:84:5). In the “Summa” alone he quotes from   the writings of 46 philosophers and poets, his favourite authors being   Aristotle, Plato, and, among Christian writers, Boethius. From Aristotle he   learned that love of order and accuracy of expression which are   characteristic of his own works. From Boethius he learned that Aristotle’s   works could be used without detriment to Christianity. He did not follow   Boethius in his vain attempt to reconcile Plato and Aristotle. In general the   Stagirite was his master, but the elevation and grandeur of St. Thomas’s   conceptions and the majestic dignity of his methods of treatment speak strongly   of the sublime Plato.   B. Supernatural Causes Even if we do not   accept as literally true the declaration of John XXII, that St. Thomas   wrought as many miracles as there are articles in the “Summa”, we   must, nevertheless, go beyond causes merely natural in attempting to explain   his extraordinary career and wonderful writings. (1) Purity of mind and   body contributes in no small degree to clearness of vision (see St. Thomas,   “Commentaries on I Cor., c. vii”, Lesson v). By the gift of purity,   miraculously granted at the time of the mystic girdling, God made Thomas’s   life angelic; the perspicacity and depth of his intellect, Divine grace   aiding, made him the “Angelic Doctor”. (2) The spirit of   prayer, his great piety and devotion, drew down blessings on his studies.   Explaining why he read, every day, portions of the “Conferences” of   Cassian, he said: “In such reading I find devotion, whence I readily   ascend to contemplation” (Prümmer, op. cit., p. 32). In the lessons of the   Breviary read on his feast day it is explicitly stated that he never began to   study without first invoking the assistance of God in prayer; and when he   wrestled with obscure passages of the Scriptures, to prayer he added fasting. (3) Facts narrated by   persons who either knew St. Thomas in life or wrote at about the time of his   canonization prove that he received assistance from heaven. To Father   Reginald he declared that he had learned more in prayer and contemplation   than he had acquired from men or books (Prümmer, op. cit., p. 36). These same   authors tell of mysterious visitors who came to encourage and enlighten him.   The Blessed Virgin appeared, to assure him that his life and his writings   were acceptable to God, and that he would persevere in his holy vocation.   Sts. Peter and Paul came to aid him in interpreting an obscure passage in   Isaias. When humility caused him to consider himself unworthy of the   doctorate, a venerable religious of his order (supposed to be St. Dominic)   appeared to encourage him and suggested the text for his opening discourse   (Prümmer, op. cit., 29, 37; Tocco in “Acta SS.”, VII Mar.; Vaughan,   op. cit., II, 91). His ecstasies have been mentioned. His abstractions in   presence of King Louis IX (St. Louis) and of distinguished visitors are   related by all biographers. Hence, even if allowance be made for great   enthusiasm on the part of his admirers, we must conclude that his   extraordinary learning cannot be attributed to merely natural causes. Of him   it may truly be said that he laboured as if all depended on his own efforts   and prayed as if all depended on God.   IVa. INFLUENCE OF ST. THOMAS (ON SANCTITY) The great Scholastics   were holy as well as learned men. Alexander of Hales, St. Albertus Magnus,   St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure prove that learning does not necessarily dry   up devotion. The angelic Thomas and the seraphic Bonaventure represent the   highest types of Christian scholarship, combining eminent learning with   heroic sanctity. Cardinal Bessarion called St. Thomas “the most saintly   of learned men and the most learned of saints”. His works breathe the   spirit of God, a tender and enlightened piety, built on a solid foundation,   viz. the knowledge of God, of Christ, of man. The “Summa theologica”   may he made a manual of piety as well as a text-book for the study of   theology (Cf. Drane, op. cit., p. 446). St. Francis de Sales, St. Philip   Neri, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Vincent Ferrer, St. Pius V, St. Antoninus   constantly studied St. Thomas. Nothing could be more inspiring than his   treatises on Christ, in His sacred Person, in His life and sufferings. His   treatise on the sacraments, especially on penance and the Eucharist, would   melt even hardened hearts. He takes pains to explain the various ceremonies of   the Mass (“De ritu Eucharistiae” in Summa III:83), and no writer   has explained more clearly than St. Thomas the effects produced in the souls   of men by this heavenly Bread (Summa III:79). The principles recently urged,   in regard to frequent Communion, by Pius X (“Sacra Trid. Synodus”,   1905) are found in St. Thomas (Summa III:79:8, III:80:10), although he is not   so explicit on this point as he is on the Communion of children. In the   Decree “Quam Singulari” (1910) the pope cites St. Thomas, who   teaches that, when children begin to have some use of reason, so that they can conceive some devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, they may be allowed to   communicate (Summa III:80:9). The spiritual and devotional aspects of St.   Thomas’s theology have been pointed out by Father Contenson, O.P., in his   “Theologia mentis et cordis”. They are more fully explained by   Father Vallgornera, O.P., in his “Theologia Mystica D. Thomae”,   wherein the author leads the soul to God through the purgative, illuminative,   and unitive ways. The Encyclical Letter of Leo XIII on the Holy Spirit is   drawn largely from St. Thomas, and those who have studied the “Prima   Secundae” and the “Secunda Secundae” know how admirably the   saint explains the gifts and fruits of the Holy Ghost, as well as the Beatitudes,   and their relations to the different virtues Nearly all good spiritual   writers seek in St. Thomas definitions of the virtues which they recommend.   IVb. INFLUENCE OF ST. THOMAS (ON INTELLECTUAL   LIFE) Since the days of   Aristotle, probably no one man has exercised such a powerful influence on the   thinking world as did St. Thomas. His authority was very great during his   lifetime. The popes, the universities, the studia of his order were anxious   to profit by his learning and prudence. Several of his important works were   written at the request of others, and his opinion was sought by all classes.   On several occasions the doctors of Paris referred their disputes to him and   gratefully abided by his decision (Vaughan, op. cit., II, 1 p. 544). His principles,   made known by his writings, have continued to influence men even to this day.   This subject cannot be considered in all its aspects, nor is that necessary.   His influence on matters purely philosophical is fully explained in histories   of philosophy. (Theologians who followed St. Thomas will be mentioned in   THOMISM. See also ORDER OF PREACHERS — II, A, 2, d) His paramount importance   and influence may be explained by considering him as the Christian Aristotle,   combining in his person the best that the world has known in philosophy and   theology. It is in this light that he is proposed as a model by Leo XIII in   the famous Encyclical “Aeterni Patris”. The work of his life may be   summed up in two propositions: he established the true relations between   faith and reason; he systematized theology. (1) Faith and Reason The principles of St.   Thomas on the relations between faith and reason were solemnly proclaimed in   the Vatican Council. The second, third, and fourth chapters of the   Constitution “Dei Filius” read like pages taken from the works of   the Angelic Doctor. First, reason alone is not sufficient to guide men: they   need Revelation; we must carefully distinguish the truths known by reason   from higher truths (mysteries) known by Revelation. Secondly, reason and   Revelation, though distinct, are not opposed to each other. Thirdly, faith   preserves reason from error; reason should do service in the cause of faith.   Fourthly, this service is rendered in three ways: reason should prepare the minds     of men to receive the Faith by proving the truths which faith presupposes (praeambula     fidei); reason should explain and     develop the truths of Faith and should propose them in scientific form; reason should defend the truths     revealed by Almighty God.   This is a development   of St. Augustine’s famous saying (De Trin., XIV, c. i), that the right use of   reason is “that by which the most wholesome faith is begotten . . . is   nourished, defended, and made strong.” These principles are proposed by   St. Thomas in many places, especially in the following: “In Boethium, da   Trin. Proem.”, Q. ii, a. 1; “Sum. cont. gent.”, I, cc. iii-ix;   Summa I:1:1, I:1:5, I:1:8, I:32:1, I:84:5. St. Thomas’s services to the Faith   are thus summed up by Leo XIII in the Encyclical “Aeterni Patris”:   “He won this title of distinction for himself: that singlehanded he   victoriously combated the errors of former times, and supplied invincible   arms to put to rout those which might in after times spring up. Again,   clearly distinguishing, as is fitting, reason and faith, he both preserved   and had regard for the rights of each; so much so, indeed, that reason, borne   on the wings of Thomas, can scarcely rise higher, while faith could scarcely   expect more or stronger aids from reason than those which she has already   obtained through Thomas.” St. Thomas did not combat imaginary foes; he   attacked living adversaries. The works of Aristotle had been introduced into   France in faulty translations and with the misleading commentaries of Jewish   and Moorish philosophers. This gave rise to a flood of errors which so   alarmed the authorities that the reading of Aristotle’s Physics and Metaphysics   was forbidden by Robert de Courçon in 1210, the decree being moderated by   Gregory IX in 1231. There crept into the University of Paris an insidious   spirit of irreverence and Rationalism, represented especially by Abelard and   Raymond Lullus, which claimed that reason could know and prove all things,   even the mysteries of Faith. Under the authority of Averroes dangerous doctrines   were propagated, especially two very pernicious errors: first, that   philosophy and religion being in different regions, what is true in religion   might be false in philosophy; secondly, that all men have but one soul.   Averroes was commonly styled “The Commentator”, but St. Thomas says   he was “not so much a Peripatetic as a corruptor of Peripatetic   philosophy” (Opuse. de unit. intell.). Applying a principle of St.   Augustine (see I:84:5), following in the footsteps of Alexander of Hales and   Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas resolved to take what was true from the   “unjust possessors”, in order to press it into the service of   revealed religion. Objections to Aristotle would cease if the true Aristotle   were made known; hence his first care was to obtain a new translation of the   works of the great philosopher. Aristotle was to be purified; false   commentators were to be refuted; the most influential of these was Averroes,   hence St. Thomas is continually rejecting his false interpretations. (2) Theology Systematized The next step was to   press reason into the service of the Faith, by putting Christian doctrine   into scientific form. Scholasticism does not consist, as some persons   imagine, in useless discussions and subtleties, but in this, that it   expresses sound doctrine in language which is accurate, clear, and concise.   In the Encyclical “Aeterni Patris” Leo XIII, citing the words of   Sixtus V (Bull “Triumphantis”, 1588), declares that to the right   use of philosophy we are indebted for “those noble endowments which make   Scholastic theology so formidable to the enemies of truth”, because   “that ready coherence of cause and effect, that order and array of a   disciplined army in battle, those clear definitions and distinctions, that   strength of argument and those keen discussions by which light is   distinguished from darkness, the true from the false, expose and lay bare, as   it were, the falsehoods of heretics wrapped around by a cloud of subterfuges   and fallacies”. When the great Scholastics had written, there was light   where there had been darkness, there was order where confusion had prevailed.   The work of St. Anselm and of Peter Lombard was perfected by the Scholastic   theologians. Since their days no substantial improvements have been made in   the plan and system of theology, although the field of apologetics has been   widened, and positive theology has become more important.   IVc. INFLUENCE OF ST. THOMAS (HIS DOCTRINE   FOLLOWED) Within a short time   after his death the writings of St. Thomas were universally esteemed. The   Dominicans naturally took the lead in following St. Thomas. The general   chapter held in Paris in 1279 pronounced severe penalties against all who   dared to speak irreverently of him or of his writings. The chapters held in   Paris in 1286, at Bordeaux in 1287, and at Lucca in 1288 expressly required   the brethren to follow the doctrine of Thomas, who at that time had not been   canonized (Const. Ord. Praed., n. 1130). The University of Paris, on the   occasion of Thomas’s death, sent an official letter of condolence to the   general chapter of the Dominicans, declaring that, equally with his brethren,   the university experienced sorrow at the loss of one who was their own by   many titles (see text of letter in Vaughan, op. cit., II, p. 82). In the   Encyclical “Aeterni Patris” Leo XIII mentions the Universities of   Paris, Salamanca, Alcalá, Douai, Toulouse, Louvain, Padua, Bologna, Naples,   Coimbra as “the homes of human wisdom where Thomas reigned supreme, and   the minds of all, of teachers as well as of taught, rested in wonderful   harmony under the shield and authority of the Angelic Doctor”. To the   list may be added Lima and Manila, Fribourg and Washington. Seminaries and   colleges followed the lead of the universities. The “Summa”   gradually supplanted the “Sentences” as the textbook of theology.   Minds were formed in accordance with the principles of St. Thomas; he became   the great master, exercising a world-wide influence on the opinions of men   and on their writings; for even those who did not adopt all of his conclusions   were obliged to give due consideration to his opinions. It has been estimated   that 6000 commentaries on St. Thomas’s works have been written. Manuals of   theology and of philosophy, composed with the intention of imparting his   teaching, translations, and studies, or digests (études), of portions of his   works have been published in profusion during the last six hundred years and   to-day his name is in honour all over the world (see THOMISM). In every one   of the general councils held since his death St. Thomas has been singularly   honoured. At the Council of Lyons his book “Contra errores   Graecorum” was used with telling effect against the Greeks. In later   disputes, before and during the Council of Florence, John of Montenegro, the   champion of Latin orthodoxy, found St. Thomas’s works a source of   irrefragable arguments. The “Decretum pro Armenis” (Instruction for   the Armenians), issued by the authority of that council, is taken almost   verbatim from his treatise, “De fidei articulis et septem sacramentis”   (see Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 695). “In the Councils of Lyons, Vienne,   Florence, and the Vatican”, writes Leo XIII (Encyclical “Aeterni   Patris”), “one might almost say that Thomas took part in and   presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers contending against   the errors of the Greeks, of heretics, and Rationalists, with invincible   force and with the happiest results.” But the chief and special glory of   Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic doctors, is that   the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of the conclave to lay upon   the altar, together with the code of Sacred Scripture and the decrees of the   Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel,   reason, and inspiration. Greater influence than this no man could have.   Before this section is closed mention should be made of two books widely   known and highly esteemed, which were inspired by and drawn from the writings   of St. Thomas. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, composed by disciples   of the Angelic Doctor, is in reality a compendium of his theology, in   convenient form for the use of parish priests. Dante’s “Divina   Commedia” has been called “the Summa of St. Thomas in verse”,   and commentators trace the great Florentine poet’s divisions and descriptions   of the virtues and vices to the “Secunda Secundae”.   IVd. INFLUENCE OF ST. THOMAS (APPRECIATION) (1) In the Church The esteem in which he   was held during his life has not been diminished, but rather increased, in   the course of the six centuries that have elapsed since his death. The   position which he occupies in the Church is well explained by that great   scholar Leo XIII, in the Encyclical “Aeterni Patris”, recommending   the study of Scholastic philosophy: “It is known that nearly all the   founders and framers of laws of religious orders commanded their societies to   study and religiously adhere to the teachings of St. Thomas. . . To say   nothing of the family of St. Dominic, which rightly claims this great teacher   for its own glory, the statutes of the Benedictines, the Carmelites, the   Augustinians, the Society of Jesus, and many others, all testify that they   are bound by this law.” Amongst the “many others” the   Servites, the Passionists, the Barnabites, and the Sulpicians have been devoted   in an especial manner to the study of St. Thomas. The principal ancient   universities where St. Thomas ruled as the great master have been enumerated   above. The Paris doctors called him the morning star, the luminous sun, the   light of the whole Church. Stephen, Bishop of Paris, repressing those who   dared to attack the doctrine of “that most excellent Doctor, the blessed   Thomas”, calls him “the great luminary of the Catholic Church, the   precious stone of the priesthood, the flower of doctors, and the bright   mirror of the University of Paris” (Drane, op. cit., p. 431). In the old   Louvain University the doctors were required to uncover and bow their heads   when they pronounced the name of Thomas (Goudin, op. cit., p. 21). “The ecumenical   councils, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been   careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honour” (Leo XIII in   “Aeterni Patris”). This subject has been sufficiently treated   above. The “Bullarium Ordinis Praedicatorum”, published in 1729-39,   gives thirty-eight Bulls in which eighteen sovereign pontiffs praised and   recommended the doctrine of St. Thomas (see also Vaughan, op. cit., II, c.   ii; Berthier, op. cit., pp. 7 sqq.). These approbations are recalled and   renewed by Leo XIII, who lays special stress on “the crowning testimony   of Innocent VI: `His teaching above that of others, the canons alone   excepted, enjoys such an elegance of phraseology, a method of statement, a   truth of proposition, that those who hold it are never found swerving from   the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of   error (ibid.).'” Leo XIII surpassed his predecessors in admiration of   St. Thomas, in whose works he declared a remedy can be found for many evils   that afflict society (see Berthier, op. cit., introd.). The notable   Encyclical Letters with which the name of that illustrious pontiff will   always be associated show how he had studied the works of the Angelic Doctor.   This is very noticeable in the letters on Christian marriage, the Christian   constitution of states, the condition of the working classes, and the study   of Holy Scripture. Pope Pius X, in several letters, e.g. in the   “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” (September, 1907), has insisted on the   observance of the recommendations of Leo XIII concerning the study of St.   Thomas. An attempt to give names of Catholic writers who have expressed their   appreciation of St. Thomas and of his influence would be an impossible   undertaking; for the list would include nearly all who have written on   philosophy or theology since the thirteenth century, as well as hundreds of   writers on other subjects. Commendations and eulogies are found in the   introductory chapters of all good commentaries. An incomplete list of authors   who have collected these testimonies is given by Father Berthier (op. cit.,   p. 22). . . . (2) Outside the Church (a) Anti-Scholastics — Some persons have been   and are still opposed to everything that comes under the name of   Scholasticism, which they hold to be synonymous with subtleties and useless   discussions. From the prologue to the “Summa” it is clear that St.   Thomas was opposed to all that was superfluous and confusing in Scholastic   studies. When people understand what true Scholasticism means, their   objections will cease. (b) Heretics and Schismatics — “A last   triumph was reserved for this incomparable man — namely, to compel the   homage, praise, and admiration of even the very enemies of the Catholic   name” (Leo XIII, ibid.). St. Thomas’s orthodoxy drew upon him the hatred   of all Greeks who were opposed to union with Rome. The united Greeks,   however, admire St. Thomas and study his works (see above Translations of the   “Summa”). The leaders of the sixteenth-century revolt honoured St.   Thomas by attacking him, Luther being particularly violent in his coarse   invectives against the great doctor. Citing Bucer’s wild boast, “Take   away Thomas and I will destroy the Church”, Leo XIII (ibid.) remarks,   “The hope was vain, but the testimony has its value”. Calo, Tocco,   and other biographers relate that St. Thomas, travelling from Rome to Naples,   converted two celebrated Jewish rabbis, whom he met at the country house of   Cardinal Richard (Prümmer, op. cit., p. 33; Vaughan, op. cit., I, p. 795).   Rabbi Paul of Burgos, in the fifteenth century, was converted by reading the   works of St. Thomas. Theobald Thamer, a disciple of Melancthon, abjured his   heresy after he had read the “Summa”, which he intended to refute.   The Calvinist Duperron was converted in the same way, subsequently becoming Archbishop   of Sens and a cardinal (see Conway, O.P., op. cit., p. 96). After the   bitterness of the first period of Protestantism had passed away, Protestants   saw the necessity of retaining many parts of Catholic philosophy and   theology, and those who came to know St. Thomas were compelled to admire him.   Überweg says “He brought the Scholastic philosophy to its highest stage   of development, by effecting the most perfect accommodation that was possible   of the Aristotelian philosophy to ecclesiastical orthodoxy” (op. cit.,   p. 440). R. Seeberg in the “New Schaff-Herzog Religious   Encyclopedia” (New York, 1911) devotes ten columns to St. Thomas, and   says that “at all points he succeeded in upholding the church doctrine   as credible and reasonable” (XI, p. 427). For many years, especially   since the days of Pusey and Newman, St. Thomas has been in high repute at   Oxford. Recently the “Summa contra gentiles” was placed on the list   of subjects which a candidate may offer in the final honour schools of Litterae   Humaniores at that university (cf. Walsh, op. cit., c. xvii). For several   years Father De Groot, O.P., has been the professor of Scholastic philosophy   in the University of Amsterdam, and courses in Scholastic philosophy have   been established in some of the leading non-Catholic universities of the   United States. Anglicans have a deep admiration for St. Thomas. Alfred   Mortimer, in the chapter “The Study of Theology” of his work   entitled “Catholic Faith and Practice” (2 vols., New York, 1909),   regretting that “the English priest has ordinarily no scientific   acquaintance with the Queen of Sciences”, and proposing a remedy, says,   “The simplest and most perfect sketch of universal theology is to be   found in the Summa of St. Thomas” (vol. II, pp. 454, 465).   V. ST. THOMAS AND MODERN THOUGHT In the Syllabus of   1864 Pius IX condemned a proposition in which it was stated that the method   and principles of the ancient Scholastic doctors were not suited to the needs   of our times and the progress of science (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1713). In   the Encyclical “Aeterni Patris” Leo XIII points out the benefits to   be derived from “a practical reform of philosophy by restoring the   renowned teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas”. He exhorts the bishops to   “restore the golden wisdom of Thomas and to spread it far and wide for   the defence and beauty of the Catholic Faith, for the good of society, and   for the advantage of all the sciences”. In the pages of the Encyclical   immediately preceding these words he explains why the teaching of St. Thomas   would produce such most desirable results: St. Thomas is the great master to   explain and defend the Faith, for his is “the solid doctrine of the   Fathers and the Scholastics, who so clearly and forcibly demonstrate the firm   foundations of the Faith, its Divine origin, its certain truth, the arguments   that sustain it, the benefits it has conferred on the human race, and its   perfect accord with reason, in a manner to satisfy completely minds open to   persuasion, however unwilling and repugnant”. The career of St. Thomas   would in itself have justified Leo XIII in assuring men of the nineteenth   century that the Catholic Church was not opposed to the right use of reason.   The sociological aspects of St. Thomas are also pointed out: “The   teachings of Thomas on the true meaning of liberty, which at this time is   running into license, on the Divine origin of all authority, on laws and   their force, on the paternal and just rule of princes, on obedience to the   highest powers, on mutual charity one towards another — on all of these and kindred   subjects, have very great and invincible force to overturn those principles   of the new order which are well known to be dangerous to the peaceful order   of things and to public safety” (ibid.). The evils affecting modern   society had been pointed out by the pope in the Letter   “Inscrutabili” of 21 April, 1878, and in the one on Socialism,   Communism, and Nihilism (“The Great Encyclicals of Leo XIII”, pp. 9   sqq.; 22 sqq.). How the principles of the Angelic Doctor will furnish a remedy   for these evils is explained here in a general way, more particularly in the   Letters on the Christian constitution of states, human liberty, the chief   duties of Christians as citizens, and on the conditions of the working   classes (ibid., pp. 107, 135, 180, 208). It is in relation to   the sciences that some persons doubt the reliability of St. Thomas’s   writings; and the doubters are thinking of the physical and experimental   sciences, for in metaphysics the Scholastics are admitted to be masters. Leo   XIII calls attention to the following truths: (a) The Scholastics were not   opposed to investigation. Holding as a principle in anthropology “that   the human intelligence is only led to the knowledge of things without body   and matter by things sensible, they well understood that nothing was of   greater use to the philosopher than diligently to search into the mysteries   of nature, and to be earnest and constant in the study of physical   things” (ibid., p. 55). This principle was reduced to practice: St.   Thomas, St. Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, and others “gave large   attention to the knowledge of natural things” (ibid., p. 56). (b)   Investigation alone is not sufficient for true science. “When facts have   been established, it is necessary to rise and apply ourselves to the study of   the nature of corporeal things, to inquire into the laws which govern them   and the principles whence their order and varied unity and mutual attraction   in diversity arise” (p. 55). Will the scientists of to-day pretend to be   better reasoners than St. Thomas, or more powerful in synthesis? It is the   method and the principles of St. Thomas that Leo XIII recommends: “If   anything is taken up with too great subtlety by the Scholastic doctors, or   too carelessly stated; if there be anything that ill agrees with the discoveries   of a later age or, in a word, is improbable in any way, it does not enter   into our mind to propose that for imitation to our age” (p. 56). Just as   St. Thomas, in his day, saw a movement towards Aristotle and philosophical   studies which could not be checked, but could be guided in the right   direction and made to serve the cause of truth, so also, Leo XIII, seeing in   the world of his time a spirit of study and investigation which might be   productive of evil or of good, had no desire to check it, but resolved to   propose a moderator and master who could guide it in the paths of truth. No better guide could   have been chosen than the clear-minded, analytic, synthetic, and sympathetic   Thomas Aquinas. His extraordinary patience and fairness in dealing with   erring philosophers, his approbation of all that was true in their writings,   his gentleness in condemning what was false, his clear-sightedness in   pointing out the direction to true knowledge in all its branches, his aptness   and accuracy in expressing the truth — these qualities mark him as a great   master not only for the thirteenth century, but for all times. If any persons   are inclined to consider him too subtle, it is because they do not know how   clear, concise, and simple are his definitions and divisions. His two summae   are masterpieces of pedagogy, and mark him as the greatest of human teachers.   Moreover, he dealt with errors similar to many which go under the name of   philosophy or science in our days. The Rationalism of Abelard and others   called forth St. Thomas’s luminous and everlasting principles on the true   relations of faith and reason. Ontologism was solidly refuted by St. Thomas   nearly six centuries before the days of Malebranche, Gioberti, and Ubaghs   (see Summa I:84:5). The true doctrine on first principles and on universals,   given by him and by the other great Scholastics, is the best refutation of   Kant’s criticism of metaphysical ideas (see, e.g., “Post. Analyt.”,   I, lect. xix; “De ente et essentia”, c. iv; Summa I:17:3 corp. and   ad 2um; I:79:3; I:84:5; I:84:6 corp and ad 1um; I:85:2 ad 2um; I:85:3 ad 1um,   ad 4um; Cf. index to “Summa”: “Veritas”,   “Principium”, “Universale”). Modern psychological   Pantheism does not differ substantially from the theory of one soul for all   men asserted by Averroes (see “De unit. intell.” and Summa I:76:2;   I:79:5). The Modernistic error, which distinguishes the Christ of faith from   the Christ of history, had as its forerunner the Averroistic principle that a   thing might be true in philosophy and false in religion. In the Encyclical   “Providentissimus Deus” (18 November, 1893) Leo XIII draws from St.   Thomas’s writings the principles and wise rules which should govern   scientific criticism of the Sacred Books. From the same source recent writers   have drawn principles which are most helpful in the solution of questions   pertaining to Spiritism and Hypnotism. Are we to conclude, then, that St.   Thomas’s works, as he left them, furnish sufficient instruction for   scientists, philosophers, and theologians of our times? By no means. Vetera   novis augere et perficere — “To strengthen and complete the old by aid   of the new” — is the motto of the restoration proposed by Leo XIII.   Were St. Thomas living to-day he would gladly adopt and use all the facts   made known by recent scientific and historical investigations, but he would   carefully weigh all evidence offered in favour of the facts. Positive   theology is more necessary in our days than it was in the thirteenth century.   Leo XIII calls attention to its necessity in his Encyclical, and his   admonition is renewed by Pius X in his Letter on Modernism. But both pontiffs   declare that positive theology must not be extolled to the detriment of   Scholastic theology. In the Encyclical “Pascendi”, prescribing   remedies against Modernism, Pius X, following in this his illustrious   predecessor, gives the first place to “Scholastic philosophy, especially   as it was taught by Thomas Aquinas”, St. Thomas is still “The Angel   of the Schools”.

 

Born: 1225 at Roccasecca, Aquino, Naples, Italy

Died: March 7,1274 at Fossanuova near Terracina of apparent natural causes; relics at Saint-Servin, Toulouse, France

Canonized: July 18, 1323, John XXII enrolled him in the catalogue of the saints.

Patronage: Academics; against storms; against lightning; apologists; book sellers; Catholic academies; Catholic schools; Catholic universities; chastity; colleges; learning; lightning; pencil makers; philosophers; publishers; scholars; schools; storms; students; theologians; universities; University of Vigo

Representation: chalice; monstrance; ox; star; sun; teacher with pagan philosophers at his feet; teaching