Richard Cross’ Christology and Metaphysics in the Seventeenth Century is a rigorous analysis of the intersection of metaphysics and the doctrine of Christ in the 17th century. Cross, well known as a scholar of John Duns Scotus, traces the reception history of two models of the doctrine of the incarnation from the 13th century through the 17th century.
Part 1 offers a brief introduction of the theories, followed by two chapters that flesh out each, and a chapter that describes developments that facilitate transformation in the 17th century. The communion theory has origins in the Franciscan Summa halensis, though it is most fully treated in the Dominican Thomas Aquinas. Cross observes that what “is distinctive about communion theories is the claim that the union between divine person and human nature is explained by no metaphysical component other than the two items themselves—the divine person and the human nature” (2).
The union theory originates with the Franciscan Bonaventure before reaching its fullest expression in Duns Scotus. Union theories posit “a third explanatory entity: a unifying relation (sometimes identified as a categorial accident) between the human nature and the divine person” (2). Cross offers some helpful analogies. Communion theories are akin to Legos or Velcro in that the human and divine natures in Jesus are held together by something intrinsic to their natures, whereas union theories are similar to pieces of silk or planks of wood that can be joined together, but need some other thing to accomplish this joining. From this framework follows the story of the adaptation or development of these theories, the focus of Cross’ book.
Cross introduces the reader to a wide cast of characters as he traces these trajectories—some well-known, such as Francisco Suárez or Johannes Gerhard, while others are likely to be known only by specialists in the field. Cross has clearly done his homework. Part 2, chapters 4 through 6, and part 3, chapters 7 through 9 are given over to descriptions of various schools within each theory. For instance, part 2 addresses union theories amongst Catholics (divided between the Jesuits and Scotists on one hand and Thomists on the other) and Reformed theologians. Part 3 canvasses communion theories among Catholics, including those who subscribed to Thomas Cajetan’s interpretation of Thomism, as well as those like John of St. Thomas, who are inclined to see subsistence as a mode, following Suárez. Protestants, primarily Lutherans, are considered here, too.
These sections unfold the divergent trajectories of the two traditions. The rediscovery of the concept of “modes” and their application to Christological discourse opens new territory for investigation in the 17th century. The conversation is fairly technical at this juncture, but the theory of modes allows the planks of wood to be connected (to return to Cross’ analogy) if one follows the Scotist nature-esse-subsistence model, as opposed to a Thomist nature-subsistence-esse sequence, which corroborates the union model. Christological differences are ultimately rooted in differing opinions about substances and their expression.
Significant here are alternative Lutheran expressions of communion theories originating with Johannes Brenz and advanced by Matthias Haffenrefer and Balthasar Meisner in chapter nine. The homo assumptus model, following Cajetan, sees communion as possible through the communication of divinity to humanity, but this opens a semantic Pandora’s box. The patristic distinction between enhypostasis and anhypostasia is critical. The former offers “a way of talking about the relationship between Christ’s human nature and the divine person: the nature exists in (‘en’) the divine person in some sense” (74). That funds the homo assumptus model in Lutheran scholasticism concluding with a perichoretic communion Christology.
The concluding chapters in part 4 build largely out of tensions within Lutheranism and are underwritten by a discussion of medieval theories of predication that occurs earlier in the book, in chapter three. The theories of predication explain how the communicatio idiomatum, a term intended to describe how Jesus’ divinity and humanity interact, functions grammatically. Chapter 10 features the Lutheran genus idiomaticum, “the idea, shared by almost all Christian theologians, that divine and human properties can be predicated of the divine person, however denominated” (243). Roman Catholics and Reformed theologians follow different medieval theories of predication, while Lutherans who subscribed to the homo assumptus Christology were seemingly necessarily committed to a more elaborate manner of working out the semantics of the hypostatic union by virtue of their Christological model.
The final two chapters consider the genus maiestaticum from Lutheran perspectives, followed by responses from other traditions. The genus maiestaticum refers to the belief “that certain divine attributes—specifically, omnipresence, omniscience, vivifying power, and adorability—can be predicated of Christ’s human nature, at least in its post-ascension state of exaltation” (266). Lutheran theologians address the problem of Jesus’ relation to these attributes during his earthly life by placing some distance between the divine attributes and their usage such that Jesus’ human nature was an instrument of the divine as a means to safeguard the distinction between Jesus’ humanity and divinity. Catholic scholastics rejected the genus maiestaticum, while the Englishmen Richard Hooker and Joseph Hall failed to rehabilitate the idea. The chapter ends with a few pages on Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’s engagement with Lutheran Christology.
One of the more interesting conclusions Cross draws is that the “Lutheran positions [he has] drawn out in this book are, basically, aberrations—deviations from the medieval path affirmed by Luther himself” (304). No one would dispute Luther’s indebtedness to medieval theology, but Cross’s view contrasts with a lot of scholarship that has stressed continuity between 16th century Protestantism and Protestant scholastics.
Cross’ work is challenged contextually in at least two senses. First, there is a fair amount of cross-referencing to his other works, some of which are not published yet, where his ideas are drawn out more fully. It is necessary to be economical, but outsourcing some of the argumentation to other works makes the text difficult to understand at points. Second, the reader is greeted by page after page of philosophical argumentation describing the flow of thought as they transform. It is not always clear if other factors influenced how Christology was shaped during the period. For example, Cross observes that Englishmen were not engaged in Christological speculation. Why? It is beyond Cross’s purview to answer, but it may speak to larger contextual considerations that may be overlooked by his investigative method.
Cross’ book is not for the faint of heart. The writing style is dense and the arguments are complex. Rereading is likely required to grasp all the subtleties of the text. Those who make their way through even once, however, will be rewarded. Cross has succeeded admirably in uncovering the riches of an often-neglected topic of the early modern period and his work ought to generate fresh research for years to come.
David M. Barbee is an assistant professor of Christian Thought at Winebrenner Theological Seminary.
David M. Barbee
Date Of Review:
July 17, 2023