Christology and Metaphysics in the Seventeenth Century by Richard Cross. Oxford University Press, 2022. xxii + 333pp. $105.00. Hardcover.
As the name of the book would suggest, Richard Cross’ recent volume on seventeenth century Christology focuses on one of the many metaphysical curiosities related to the incarnate Christ, namely, the metaphysics of the incarnation itself. More particularly, how the Word or divine hypostasis of the Son assumed a human nature—what is the underlying logic or metaphysics of the hypostatic union itself? This volume comes on the heels of two earlier works by Cross, the Metaphysics of the Incarnation: From Thomas Aquinas to Duns Scotus (2003) and the Communicatio Idiomatum: Reformation Christological Debates (2019). Accordingly, as Cross admits, much of the terminology and concepts employed in this most recent volume are introduced in the prior works.
Speaking of terminology, Christology and Metaphysics in the Seventeenth Century is heavy sledding, requiring a comfort with Aristotelian metaphysics along with all the requisite classical Christological language used by scholastics in the medieval and early modern period. Cross traces how these philosophical and theological concepts were employed by Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed theologians to intelligibly explain the incarnation. According to Cross’ taxonomy, seventeenth century theologians fell into two broad camps. Some, following Scotus, held to what he calls a “union theory” of incarnation, which held that in order for the person of the Son to be united to human nature, there was a necessary, created metaphysical tie (as it were) which bound the two together, the tie typically identified as a dependence relation. The other position, following Thomas Aquinas (cf. Super Sent., lib. 3 d. 2 q. 2 a. 2), called a “communion theory,” posited that such a created tie was unnecessary or even impossible, and instead held that the only two items necessary for the union are simply the divine person (or nature) and human nature. Cross explains the latter theory like two pieces of Velcro which simply attach to each other without the need of a bonding agent. In the medieval period, Scotus’ union position became the majority position and continued to be the default position during the early modern period. However, because of Tommaso de Vio Cajetan’s sixteenth century defense of Thomas’ communion theory, many Thomists adopted the latter position, but not all.
There are a few rather surprising theological narratives offered by Cross. One is the fact that many Thomists in the seventeenth century—including the Salmanticenses and long-time professor at Salamanca, Pedro de Godoy—preferred the union theory over the Thomistic communion one. Of course, one of the ways such Thomists argued for their union theory was by reinterpreting Thomas, wherein the latter’s prima facie denial of union theory was, in fact, not a denial at all! Needless to say, Cross finds such hermeneutical gymnastics less than convincing. Another important early modern development for Scotus’ union theory was the Jesuit Francisco Suarez’s rejection of Scotus’ categorical relation as the bond between the divine person and human nature, opting instead for a mode of subsistence in the human nature as the uniting bond.
“Seminaries and theological institutions have not adequately prepared their students to read such a book as this”
Equally interesting is how committed the Lutherans were to Aquinas’ communion theory. All of the Lutherans surveyed in the book opt for a communion theory, most coupling that with Johannes Brenz’s homo assumptus Christology, which Cross argues strains classical Chalcedonian orthodoxy, sounding Nestorian and leading to the so-called genus maiesticum, whereby divine attributes are predicated of Christ’s human nature. The last few chapters of the book are dedicated to the later Lutheran understanding of the communicatio idiomatum, and how such semantics compared with the Catholic and Reformed theologians.
Because of the Christological polemics among the Reformed and Lutherans, it is no surprise that these two groups consistently found themselves on opposite ends of the two theories. Accordingly, the Reformed, at least if Cross is right, almost always opted for some version of a union theory, with Amandus Polanus being a notable exception. Consonant with my own observation of early modern Reformed theology, Cross observes that the Reformed generally avoided discussions of Christological metaphysics. His survey of the Reformed tradition did leave me a bit perplexed. I have a hard time believing his claim that Polanus is such an outlier by taking communion theory. If Polanus held it, there almost certainly are more. Cross may have found more diversity among the Reformed tradition had his survey gone beyond those theologians who fit within the Swiss or Dutch orbit and looked at the Bremen faculty, especially Mattaeus Martinius’ comprehensive Theologia De Unica Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Persona, or the faculty at Saumur in France. Perhaps he did check those sources and found nothing noteworthy.
“Cross may have found more diversity among the Reformed tradition had his survey gone beyond those theologians who fit within the Swiss or Dutch orbit.”
The Reformed theologians Cross does examine are Antonius Walaeus, Samuel Maresius, Francis Turretin, Heinrich Alting, Petrus Van Mastricht, Johannes Wollebius, Friedrich Heidegger, Marcus Wendelin, and David Pareus. In a tantalizing footnote, Cross also notes Edward Leigh’s affirmation of a substantial mode of union belonging to the human nature attending the hypostatic union. Unfortunately, he could not find any other Reformed theologians taking this Suarezian union approach. Another noteworthy find is Van Mastricht’s wholesale denial of the enhypostasis of Christ’s human nature. According to Van Mastricht, Christ’s human nature hypostatically depends upon Christ’s divine nature—and in that sense the former is anhypostatic—but in no way is the divine subsistence communicated to the human nature. Were the divine nature’s subsistence communicated to the divine subsistence, then Christ’s human nature would become a person and divinized, both of which effects are clearly deemed heretical options. Cross’ assessment of van Mastricht is decidedly positive: “I must confess that I find myself very sympathetic to Mastricht’s approach.” Cross also covers three conciliarists between the Reformed and Lutheran Christological debates, the two Englishman, Joseph Hall and Richard Hooker, and the famous philosopher G.W. Leibniz.
As I noted at the beginning, this book is not an easy read. Indeed, as I read it, I was reminded of Suarez’s introduction to his Metaphysical Disputations: “It is impossible to become a fully-formed theologian unless one has first laid secure foundations with metaphysics.” Seminaries and theological institutions more generally in my experience have not adequately prepared their students to read such a book as this. To be sure, it does not help that Cross depends on his own terminology developed in his earlier studies on Christology. Cross admits as much at the beginning of this volume, including a glossary of such terms. However, the chief hurdle is that such theologians with whom Cross engages are steeped in a nearly forgotten Aristotelian metaphysical linguistic world, writing in a foreign language hardly anyone has mastery of today. Cross is clearly an expert of both and thus can engage these theologians, but it remains that such a book will only be fruitful to those who have the theological as well as philosophical chops to distinguish between esse and essence, follow various medieval positions on predication, and have some skill with the Latin language.
Cross is not to blame for our educational malaise. Christology and Metaphysics in the Seventeenth Century is an impressive volume befitting the publisher. Cross carefully moves through a dizzying array of thinkers. Those looking for a particular discussion issue will be well-served by the very helpful index in the back. The price of the work is as one would expect, but in this case the content is certainly worth it.
Michael J. Lynch (PhD. Calvin Seminary) teaches Classical Languages and Humanities at Delaware Valley Classical School in New Castle, DE. He is also a teaching fellow at the Davenant Institute. He is the author of John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism: A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy (Oxford University Press, 2021).