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:

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”.