The Aquinas Society of London came into existence naturally and, so to say, insensiblement among a little group of students who had been attending the pioneer lectures on the Summa Theologica that were given some twenty years ago by Father Vincent McNabb, O.P., at St. Peter’s Hut, Westminster, under the auspices of the University Extension Board.

Soon after the last war Father Vincent had conceived the idea of making the doctrine of Aquinas available to ordinary lay men and women. It was an immense and individual act of charity on the part of a poor friar who endeavoured in this way to share his intellectual riches and the special inheritance of his Order with lay folk for whom no other means of Catholic intellectual formation existed at the time. The success of these lectures on the Summa led in a short while to an expansion of the work, and in a few years three series of lectures on Theology and Ethics, and the History of Medieval Philosophy and a series on the Scriptures were being given by the Dominican Fathers at St. Peter’s Hut. Among the students who attended these courses of lectures were some who were destined in the course of years to occupy office and authority in the State. Who shall tell the full story of the influence these courses had on the lives of individuals and on the public life of the community?

Not long ago I was honoured by an invitation to address the Aquinas Society which I gladly accepted, choosing as my subject the title of this article. Since then it has been suggested that I should publish as an article the substance of that address, and I readily do so. It would be impossible to reproduce the address itself, because it was delivered from notes which were no more than headings, and these I destroyed as soon as the address was delivered. That, however, is of no consequence. What is important is not to recover what was said on a particular occasion, but to promote consideration of the teaching of St. Thomas in its bearing on the needs of our time.

I must make clear at the outset the fact that I am not in any serious sense a student of St. Thomas—as, for example, my father was. I have read a considerable portion of his writings with close attention, but without that perpetual comparison of one passage with another which is alone entitled to be called ‘study ‘in relation to any great writer. I speak therefore from a general impression which may be due to interpreters and critics of St. Thomas as much as, or more than, to himself. If so, those who are real students of his work can easily confute me, but may none the less be glad to have their attention called to points at which the current presentations of his doctrine have produced on one mind at least an impression calling for correction.

The address by His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury to the London Aquinas Society was a memorable and important event. To such of us as are students of St. Thomas, teachers and thinkers guided by his principles and thought, it was a very great encouragement. The mere fact that a contemporary thinker and scholar of the calibre of Dr. Temple, who is holder of the most eminent position in the Anglican Communion and exercises so considerable an influence on national life, should think it worth his while to turn from his many and pressing public duties to address us, was an event which should not lightly be forgotten, and which should provide us with stimulus for many years to come.

But his address was something more than an encouragement; it was a very serious challenge. Dr. Temple is a Christian leader who has shown himself to be quite exceptionally keenly aware of ‘modern needs ‘and full of ‘compassion for the multitude.’ His realisation of the unique role which pupils of St. Thomas have to play in meeting those needs and in providing for the hunger of the multitude presents us with claims which we dare not disregard. The very fact that he addresses us ‘from outside ‘makes his claims upon our attention all the more compelling. For must it not be admitted that we thomists are sometimes apt to forget our responsibilities to the world and the age in which we find ourselves, to live and work in academic isolation, too little heedful of the crying spiritual and intellectual needs of others and of our own obligation to impart to them the heritage entrusted to us—forgetful even of the opening words of the Summa itself anti of the whole purpose for which it was written?