* Previous issues of The Thomist can be accessed electronically through Project Muse.
* Previous issues of The Thomist can be accessed electronically through Project Muse.
Volume 89, Number 4 (October 2025)
General Index To The Thomist Volume 89 (2025)
pp. i-iii
Articles
The Principle of the Maximum as a Hub of St. Thomas Aquinas’s Metaphysics
Abstract: In his treatment of theological themes, Saint Thomas does not usually provide an in-depth analysis of the metaphysical foundation that they require, rather, he refers back to this foundation by means of metaphysical principles that contain it in a condensed form. Among these, none other is more ubiquitous and relevant than the Aristotelian “principle of the maximum.” Heretofore its role within Aquinas’s corpus—especially in his theology—has not been tackled. In this contribution we demonstrate that the principle functions as a metaphysical hub within this corpus because it contains the four basic components of Thomas’s and Aristotle’s metaphysics of causality. These components enable us to recognize its presence despite its manifold formulation and varying contexts: within an analogous genus the first is the maximum and the cause of all the other members. These components also ensure that the principle of the maximum connects other principles to itself, thus revealing their own metaphysical teaching and enriching them through their association with itself and the other principles. The result is a versatile network capable of engaging all manner of topics and elucidating their metaphysical foundation. Within sacra doctrina, the principle of the maximum and its plexus of principles allows Thomas constantly to base his theological discourse on actuality and guarantees its interconnectedness.
Keywords: causality, priority, genus, perfection, Aristotle, actuality, theology
pp. 577-623
Creation as Relation: An Existential Consideration
Abstract: Aquinas argues that the relation established by the act of creation is mixed, with the creature enjoying a real relation (relatio realis)—possessing both the relational mode of being and its relational notion (esse et ratio relationis)—while the Creator accommodates only a corresponding relation of reason (relatio rationis)—possessing the relational notion (ratio relationis) without any relational mode of being (esse relationis). This position is frequently the source of misunderstanding, for theologians, both natural and revealed, and for ordinary persons of biblical faith. By clarifying Aquinas’s position, I show how such disquiet flows from a twofold interconnected failure: lack of appreciation for Aquinas’s conception of relation as a categorial mode of being; and inadequate consideration of the compelling theological reasons he has for holding such an ostensibly disconcerting position. By way of response, I argue that the position of Aquinas possesses a balanced tension that is necessary to secure the crucial duality of divine transcendence and divine immanence, while concomitantly safeguarding the corresponding radicality of creaturely dependence upon the Creator. Finally, I conclude by noting several existential implications of Aquinas’s position, all of which are centered around the unmediated presence of the Creator to the creature, and the correlative unmediated dependence of the creature upon the Creator.
Keywords: Creation, Relation, Person, Thomism, Existential, Dependence, Gift.
pp. 625-661
Anselm’s New Trinitarian Grammar
Abstract: In the Monologion, Anselm of Canterbury asserts that “each and every person is perfectly the supreme essence.” In De incarnatione Verbi, he says things like “God is the Father,” or “God is the Son.” In De processione, his last and most mature work of Trinitarian theology, he says such things even more frequently, and in one passage, he also introduces the phrase, “God is the Holy Spirit.” Before Anselm, Christians did not speak this way. They said things like “The Son is consubstantial with the Father,” but they did not say things like “The Son is the divine essence.” They also said things like “The Father is God, and the Son is God,” but they did not say things like “God is the Father, and God is the Son.” This article will first show that Christians did not use Trinitarian formulas like these before the eleventh century, at least not to any noticeable extent. Then, it will argue that the new Trinitarian formulas that became popular in the twelfth century trace directly to Anselm. Finally, it will discuss the significance of this historical development and offer a provisionary evaluation of its implications for contemporary Trinitarian theology.
Keywords: Anselm of Canterbury; God; Trinity; divine essence; logic; Gilbert of Poitiers; Fourth Lateran Council
pp. 663-695
Abstract: How should one rightly understand the role of the Trinity in the act of creation? A neglected commentary of Domingo Bañez (1528–1604) on a key article in the Summa theologiae of Thomas Aquinas suggests a way forward through conflicting scholarly interpretations of various high medieval and early modern theologians. Read against the commentary of Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio: 1469–1534) on this same article, one can grasp an early-modern panorama of responses to this question. Bañez argues, in his reading of Thomas, that each divine person creates (a) indivisibly and inseparably, with the other divine persons, on account of the unity of the divine essence, which is the principle of divine action—and yet each person acts (b) in a distinct manner, for the divine essence, the principle of action, is itself possessed by each divine person under or according to a distinctly relational mode. One must coordinate the “essential” and the “personal” perspectives on divine action in order to get a full view of divine activity. That is to say, on my reading of Bañez, the divine persons act in a distinct, proper, and personal mode that is not reducible to appropriation. And, to clarify further, this distinct mode of acting does not jeopardize their essential unity of action, such that each person acts “in virtue of” (speaking from our perspective) one and the same divine essence.
Keywords: Trinity, creation, divine action, Domingo Bañez, Thomas Aquinas, Cajetan
pp. 697-729
Felix culpa, or One More Christian Response to the Problem of Suffering
pp. 731-741
Reviews
Theistic Evolution: A Contemporary Aristotelian-Thomistic Perspective by Mariusz Tabaczek (review)
pp. 743-748
Kant on Freedom and Rational Agency by Markus Kohl (review)
pp. 748-754
pp. 754-757
pp. 757-761
pp. 761-764
Rethinking Cooperation with Evil: A Virtue-Based Approach by Ryan Connors (review)
pp. 764-767