Christology and Metaphysics in the Seventeenth Century by Richard Cross (review)

Reviewed by: Christology and Metaphysics in the Seventeenth Century by Richard Cross Tad M. Schmaltz Christology and Metaphysics in the Seventeenth Century. By Richard Cross. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. Pp. xxi + 333. 100. 00 (hard). ISBN: 978-0-192-85643-2. In the article on Pyrrho in his Dictionnaire historique et critique (1st ed. , 1697), Pierre Bayle has a philosophical abbé argue that the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation reveals that the basis for Pyrrhonian skepticism is even stronger in current Christian times than it was when paganism held sway. In particular, the insistence is that acceptance of this doctrine provides an additional basis for distrusting human reason insofar as it conflicts with the evident truth that "there is no difference between an individual, a nature, and a person" ("Pyrrhon", rem. B, in Pierre Bayle, Historical and Critical Dictionary: Selections, trans. Richard H. Popkin Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett, 1991, 200). The doctrine in fact requires, contrary to this dictate of reason, that the Incarnation of Christ involves the "hypostatic union" of distinct human and divine natures in a single person, namely, the Word as the second person of the Trinity. At the outset of his erudite study of seventeenth-century Christology, Richard Cross cites the claim of one scholar that 1600 marks "the nadir of creativity" for discussions of the Incarnation (vii). Indeed, one might well take the remarks in Bayle's article to reflect a continuing decline during the seventeenth century of the sort of metaphysical discourse found in Scholastic treatments of this topic. However, as Cross documents in rich detail, reports of the death of creative approaches to the Incarnation during this period are greatly exaggerated. He shows that seventeenth-century Reformed and Lutheran theologians were in line with their Dominican and Jesuit contemporaries in attempting to construct accounts of the Incarnation that develop, expand, and sometimes correct the Christology present in the medieval theologians Thomas Aquinas (as later interpreted by Cajetan) and Duns Scotus (as later modified by Suárez). There have been some recent attempts to map the terra incognita of early modern Scholasticism; one could mention here Daniel D. Novoty ("In Defense of Baroque Scholasticism, " Studia Neoaristotelica 6 2009: 209-33) and Jacob Schmutz ("Medieval Philosophy after the Middle Ages, " in John Marenbon, ed. , The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Philosophy End Page 361 Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, 245-66). Cross's work serves to advance significantly that effort. Cross organizes his study in terms of a distinction between two different kinds of metaphysical account of the Incarnation, the first reflected in "union theories, " deriving from Scotus, and the second in "communion theories, " deriving from Aquinas. A union theory is defined as one in which "the conjunction of human nature and divine person is explained by some sort of created tie in the human nature" (xxi), whereas a communion theory is defined as one in which this conjunction "is immediate, not explained by any created tie" (xx). To clarify the difference, Cross appeals to an analogous difference between planks of wood that are glued together (akin to the union theory), on the one hand, and planks of wood that are connected by a mortise and tenon joint (akin to the communion theory), on the other (3). With respect to the Incarnation, the main question is whether there needs to be some created feature added to Christ's human nature for it to be united to his divine nature and person (as in union theories) or whether no such feature is required for this union (as in communion theories). Cross documents that during the seventeenth century Reformed thinkers (e. g. , Maresius and Masterich, with the notable exception of Polanus) generally followed Scotus in offering versions of the union theory of the Incarnation, whereas their Lutheran counterparts (e. g. , Hutter and Calixt, with some interesting complications in the case of Leibniz) generally followed Aquinas in offering versions of the communion theory. Though in the abstract the distinction between union and communion theories is fairly clear, the lines become blurred in some of the particular cases Cross considers. From his survey, it is apparent that seventeenth-century union theories tend to incorporate the view in. . .