Ephrem Reese

The thought of Thomas Aquinas is rightly understood to be hierarchical, but the word hierarchy is understood diversely across time and place, and important readers of Thomas have praised or blamed him for being less hierarchical than his contemporaries. Early modern critique of hierarchy with its political edge often dominates understanding of the notion, but such critique stems from medieval controversies over religious perfection and sacramental life, which in turn echo the monastic polemics of Pseudo-Dionysius, the probable inventor of the term hierarchy. The massive influence of Dionysius made him a contested authority in Thomas's time, and in his battles with secular clergy the Dominican theologian shows himself a more careful interpreter of the pseudo-Areopagite than his contemporaries, who purported to defend hierarchy against the mendicants. This study presents the reading method of Aquinas as a contemplative project, motivated and delineated by the mendicant controversi...

In his trinitarian theology, Augustine’s use of the term principium undergoes a change which has implications for his political theology. In De trinitate 1-7, the application of this concept to the Father first reflects an earlier usage, which follows a Neoplatonic idea of the divine ἀρχή of the One. However, reflection on scripture and religious polemic force a development, and he gradually abandons the term. While he does not abandon the theological idea of the Father’s special principium, the relations among the divine persons demand a consideration of the principium of the Son in common with the Father, an idea familiar to the debates on filioque. This Augustinian development is like what Erik Peterson identifies in the Cappadocians: a trinitarian theological development which threatens the monarchical political theology that would otherwise appeal to Christian Neoplatonist thinking.

In his trinitarian theology, Augustine’s use of the term principium undergoes a change which has implications for his political theology. In De trinitate 1-7, the application of this concept to the Father first reflects an earlier usage, which follows a Neoplatonic idea of the divine ἀρχή of the One. However, reflection on scripture and religious polemic force a development, and he gradually abandons the term. While he does not abandon the theological idea of the Father’s special principium, the relations among the divine persons demand a consideration of the principium of the Son in common with the Father, an idea familiar to the debates on filioque. This Augustinian development is like what Erik Peterson identifies in the Cappadocians: a trinitarian theological development which threatens the monarchical political theology that would otherwise appeal to Christian Neoplatonist thinking.