Early Scholastic Christology 1050–1250, by Richard Cross

Reviewed by: Communicatio idiomatum: Reformation Christological Debates by Richard Cross Corey L. Barnes Communicatio idiomatum: Reformation Christological Debates. By Richard Cross. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Pp. xxiv + 288. $85.00 (hardcover). ISBN: 978-0-19-884697-0. Richard Cross’s Communicatio Idiomatum: Reformation Christological Debates approaches the development of Lutheran Christologies with attention to the Scholastic background, to the intertwined metaphysical and semantic issues at play, and to internal and external pressures shaping the conversations. The result is seven chapters of careful exegesis leveraging finely wrought distinctions to offer a precise analysis of the nature and stakes of the debates. The Introduction sets out crucial parameters and terms for the investigation. The seven chapters trace developments in Lutheran and Reformed Christologies from the 1520s to the 1590s, featuring a lengthy cast of characters and several clearly drawn fault lines. The Council of Chalcedon serves as a point of initial departure and of constant reference, allowing Cross to introduce as technical terms “person,” “hypostasis,” and “suppositum” as well as to present overlapping metaphysical and semantic questions. Chalcedon affirms a union of and in two natures without change, confusion, separation, or division. This union is typically designated the hypostatic union. Chalcedon’s affirmation provides a limit marking off permissible and impermissible theological reflection, excluding as impermissible any combination of divine and human natures into some new nature (a tertium quid) and any assignment of separation of the natures between “two distinct concrete particulars” (3). Within the permissible limits, Cross argues that theologians “have by and large identified two ways of construing this union” (ibid.). One “makes the union between the natures basic” (ibid.), and the other “makes the hypostatic union derivative of or parasitic on some more basic relation” (5). Cross traces this second way of construing the union from Cyril of Alexandria to John Duns Scotus, whose own account focused on the dependence of the assumed nature on the person assuming, in a way akin to the dependence of an accident on a substance. Scotus’s articulation of this model proved influential on late medieval and Reformation debates. Lutheran scholars labelled the model “according to which the human nature was something like a (complex) contingent property of the divine person” the “supposital union” (8). Cross employs this label to indicate the assumed human nature’s dependence upon the divine person assuming and distinguishes the supposital union from the hypostatic union, which more generally indicates the relationship of the divine and human natures. Whether or not one affirms the supposital union can change one’s conception of the relationship between the divine person and the properties of the human nature. Cross employs the term “properties” to designate “both (contingent) accidents and propria, things that follow automatically from a given nature without being included in it” (9). Porphyry lies behind these [End Page 322] discussions. One fault line dividing the thinkers Cross treats is whether they view the divine person directly to bear the properties of human nature or indirectly to bear the properties insofar as they are directly borne by the human nature assumed. Another fault line concerns the assumed human nature as a concrete particular and the reasons why the concrete particular human nature assumed does not fulfill the necessary conditions for personhood. These metaphysical considerations relate to semantic issues as well. Cross establishes a detailed framework for categorizing a broad range of approaches in their general classifications and in their specific forms. He builds from a “semantics for Christological predication” suggested by Timothy Pawls, a semantics that allows symbolic formulation of fine-tuned differences (helpfully listed under “Frequently Cited Principles” on xxiii-xxiv). Using various symbolic formulations within this semantics allows Cross to develop precise designations to indicate the metaphysical grounds for different predications of Christ. In Cross’s analysis “one of the major fault lines in Reformation Christological debate focuses precisely on whether or [not] the divine person bears not only his human nature but also human properties” (19). Framed otherwise, intra-Lutheran and Lutheran-Reformed debates concerned different understandings of the communicatio idiomatum, a phrase Cross notes “specifically applies to predicating divine or human properties of the one person under a description appropriate to the...

This chapter examines the Christological account of Durandus of St.-Pourcain against the background of interpretations of Aquinas's teaching by contemporary Dominicans of Thomist persuasion. A good source for these alternative interpretations is the 1317 censure list against Durandus, in particular article 126, for it registers an interesting conflict between Hervaeus Natalis's Christology and standard Thomist view. The chapter relies on the template presented by Richard Cross in his book The Metaphysics of the Incarnation . In his examination of late thirteenth-century Christological accounts, Cross identifies two main models for understanding the hypostatic union: first, the 'substance-accident model' is based on the relation between a substance and its accidents as a suitable analogy for the relation between the assumed nature and Word. Secondly, the 'whole-part model' rejects the substance-accident analogy as inappropriate, and sees the assumed nature rather as an essential part of the whole 'Christ'. Keywords: Aquinas's teaching; Christology; Durandus of St.-Pourcain; Richard Cross; substance-accident model; The Metaphysics of the Incarnation ; Thomist view; whole-part model

Reviewed by: Communicatio Idiomatum: Reformation Christological Debates by Richard Cross Aaron Moldenhauer Communicatio Idiomatum: Reformation Christological Debates. By Richard Cross. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. 312 pp. Richard Cross takes a unique approach to the Christological debates among sixteenth-century Reformers. He does not survey the course of the debates, nor does he consider the many scriptural or patristic arguments raised. Instead, he limits his inquiry to a rigorous analysis of the metaphysical and semantic arguments made by Lutheran and Reformed theologians as they debated the communication of attributes. Cross’s goal is neither to judge which position is correct nor to provide a complete picture of the debates. Instead, he offers deep analysis of key snapshots in the course of the discussion that illuminate the metaphysical and semantic arguments. The result is a book that applies a typical methodology used to analyze scholastic philosophical theology to key moments of Reformation debates about the person of Christ. This approach situates Cross’s work among other works exploring the relation of the Reformers’ Christology to philosophy. Older analyses of Luther’s Christology, influenced by Reinhard Schwarz, argued that Luther broke cleanly with scholastic approaches to the person of Christ since Luther found late medieval metaphysics and semantics unsuited for Christology. Graham White’s Luther as Nominalist (1984) counters Schwarz’s approach by identifying continuities between the scholastics and Luther. In recent years works such as Joar Haga’s Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics? (2012) and David Luy’s Dominus Mortis (2014) have continued this conversation. Cross assumes two points debated in these and other works. First, Cross assumes that the Reformers made metaphysical and semantic arguments in their Christology. Second, Cross assumes that the Reformers knew and used scholastic Christology. The validity of these assumptions can be judged by assessing Cross’s work. An expert in medieval theology, Cross proceeds by [End Page 484] identifying and labeling arguments. While medieval theologians explicitly identified these arguments, the Reformers did not. Despite this difference in style, Cross argues that the Reformers raised metaphysical and semantic arguments and intended them to be taken seriously. Cross reduces key arguments to symbolic representation, using logical shorthand and identifying various positions by initials for ease of future reference. For instance, Cross isolates one of Luther’s arguments raised in his Christological debate with Ulrich Zwingli. Luther held that the two natures of Christ cannot be spatially separated without dividing the person of Christ. Accordingly, wherever Christ’s divine nature is, there Christ’s human nature must also be present. Otherwise the person of Christ is divided. Cross labels this argument as “impossibility of bodily separability” and abbreviates it as “the IBS principle.” He defines IBS as the argument: “If the natures lack two-way spatial inseparability, the person is not indivisible” (59–65). Cross’s list of such frequently cited principles runs close to two pages, showing the extent of his research into primary sources and the precision of his analysis. This type of analysis applied to the conceptually dense material of Reformation Christology demands careful attention from the reader. Cross succeeds in identifying metaphysical and semantic arguments raised by Reformers and in showing that the Reformers knew scholastic Christology, raising questions about how cleanly the Reformers broke with late medieval scholasticism. However, those interested in the debate will need to look beyond this book for a complete picture of Reformation Christology. Cross does not ask how important the arguments he analyzes were in relation to the scriptural, patristic, or other arguments raised. Nor does he ask how significant it is that the Reformers broke with medieval theologians as they pushed philosophical arguments to the background of their work. That is, the reader must recognize the limits of the study that Cross assigns himself. When the limited scope of the book is kept in mind, Cross’s work provides a window into an important facet of Reformation Christology and raises broader questions about the role of philosophy in Reformation theology. [End Page 485] Aaron Moldenhauer Concordia University Wisconsin Mequon, Wisconsin Copyright © 2021 Johns Hopkins University Press and Lutheran Quarterly, Inc

Reviewed by: Duns Scotus’s Theory of Cognition by Richard Cross Oleg V. Bychkov (bio) Richard Cross. Duns Scotus’s Theory of Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Pp xiv+224, Cloth, $74 R. Pasnau once commented that the present-day academic area of cognitive theory suits medieval thought better than epistemology. The comment seems to the point, and the focus of R. Cross’s book is thus appropriately placed. Scotus’s theory of cognition is worth a new treatment both because Scotus represents a new stage in medieval cognitive theory (with his theory of intuitive cognition, mental content, and ontological status of mental acts, among other things) and because his positions are “sometimes rather fluid” and “not always as clear” (3, cf. 56, 67n8). This lack of clarity extends to the most important subject in this book, such as various aspects of the issue of intentionality, where Scotus’s discussion is “anything but clear, even by his lax standards” (162; cf. 163). As is typical of Cross’s publications, the book is an invaluable source of information on Scotus’s thought for the audience who does not read Latin (for whom Cross provides “generous” quotes in his translation), has no access to texts and editions, especially older ones, and even for most of us since most have no access to manuscripts, which he transcribes and translates where no other texts are available, or to correct old editions (cf. 60). Cross’s translations sound more like very accurate transcriptions of the Latin, which is most helpful to people who do not read Latin, as they get the impression of what exactly is in the Latin. At the same time, following the Latin exactly may sound awkward (cf. 55: “just as however greatly a perfect natural cause is posited, it cannot act”) and transliterating Latin terms into English, rather than giving their modern equivalents, can be confusing, e.g., rendering members contained within a class as “its inferiors” (65) or a non-preferential relation as being “under such an indifference” (66). Despite Cross’s usual mastery of both the Latin text and the translation, this book, surprisingly, is not devoid of some blunders in rendering Scotus’s text and meaning. E.g., at 141n13, rendering Scotus’s text from De an. 9, n. 17, Cross places Latin terms into combinations that do not agree in gender, such as sensus collativa (twice) or sensus memorativa. Scotus’s text reads sensus communis non est potentia collativa proprie, sicut memorativa vel cogitativa, so the appropriate combinations would be either potentia collativa or sensus collativus. His comment on this line is that Scotus “identifies it [sc. sensus] as the sensus memorativa,” [End Page 392] while Scotus’s statement about the sensus communis implies the opposite, that it is not a potentia memorativa; and if it is potentia that is meant here, then the wording is confusing. At 177 Cross translates a passage from Metaph. 6.3, n. 61, where Scotus speaks of actus rectus, as “correct” act (twice), while it is well known that in a discussion involving reflex and direct acts rectus means “direct” (and this is how Allan Wolter translates this passage in the companion volume). Although Cross’s transcriptions from manuscripts are most helpful, on occasion his “correction” of the old Wadding/Vivès edition results in odd readings: e.g., at 156n11 he transcribes Quod. 13, n. 13 as tamen iste secundum actus instead of secundus actus (which is the Wadding/Vivès reading), and at 165n32, transcribing the same passage, writes illam non necessario requiritur (Wadding/Vivès has illam necessario requirit, which is grammatically correct, and alternative possibilities would be illud/illa non necessario requiritur or illam non necessario requirit). There are also a few typos in the English (e.g., 4; 35; 60; 166; 168). Despite these small problems, Cross, as usual, impresses the reader with his encyclopedic and detailed knowledge of Scotus’s texts, including those that are less well known, with his accurate translations and fine interpretations of analyzed passages. However, Cross’s claim to present an “original interpretation” of Scotus’s views can be contested, as in final stages of interpretation he often either disagrees...

Reviews in Religion & TheologyVolume 2, Issue 1 p. 27-32 Christian Missions and a Theology of Culture Richard Cross, Richard CrossSearch for more papers by this author Richard Cross, Richard CrossSearch for more papers by this author First published: February 1995 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9418.1995.tb00129.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume2, Issue1February 1995Pages 27-32 RelatedInformation

Reviewed by: A Companion to Giles of Rome ed. by Charles F. Briggs and Peter S. Eardley Chris Jones Briggs, Charles F., and Peter S. Eardley, eds, A Companion to Giles of Rome (Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, 71), Leiden, Brill, 2016; e-book; pp. xii, 319; R.R.P. US$194.00, €157.00; ISBN 9789004315396. Giles of Rome has never quite made the A-list. Machiavelli, typecast as the Eminem of medieval political thought, enjoys instant name recognition alongside a reputation for being occasionally offensive. Aquinas, on the other hand, remains an enigmatic Beyoncé-esque figure; even those who have not dived deeply into his back catalogue recognize both his genius and his influence. If constructing a taxonomy of late medieval celebrity, Giles, however, would be a Lloyd Cole-like figure. This is, in part, because, despite a semi-dramatic shift in style late in his career, his work is marked by strong underlying themes. In the context of this slightly stretched metaphor, however, the most important point is that, beyond a devoted and knowledgeable fan-base, his name is likely to invoke hazy recollection among some over-forties while leaving most to reach for Google. While this Companion is unlikely to change that, it is not only a welcome addition to the shelves of those interested in late medieval thought, but a notable reminder of Giles’s influence among his contemporaries. Today, Giles is probably best-known as a so-called papal hierocrat. His De ecclesiastica potestate sits alongside the work of James of Viterbo as the intellectual underpinning of Pope Boniface VIII’s ultimately disastrous attempt to pit papal theory against the reality of Capetian power at the start of the fourteenth century. A few decades earlier, Giles wrote what would become the most influential mirror of princes in the Middle Ages for the man who became Boniface’s most implacable foe, King Philip IV. At the same time, Giles was the [End Page 182] dominant intellectual force within the Augustinian order, a university master, an archbishop, and a voice in favour of suppressing the Templars. As one of the editors, Charles Briggs, explains in the first chapter, the last thirty years have seen a renewed interest in Giles and his work. This entry in Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition series capitalizes and builds on this research to provide a rounded introduction. Following Briggs’s overview of Giles’s life, works, and legacy, seven chapters explore his approach to, respectively, theology; natural philosophy; metaphysics; cognition; ethics and moral psychology; logic, rhetoric, and language; and political thought. Overall, the chapters are of an extremely high quality, written by leading experts in the field. Together, they draw attention to two questions: the degree to which Giles’s thought was shaped by Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas, and the extent to which Giles himself stepped beyond his influences. They nuance our understanding while underlining strongly, as Roberto Lambertini highlights (p. 273), that drawing a simplistic dichotomy between Augustinianism and Aristotelianism is highly misleading. Generally speaking, the editorial quality is high. The book is equipped with excellent bibliographies and a comprehensive index. I spotted only one obvious typo (p. 13, n. 31: the date should read 1293, not 1393) and two cases of repeated words in Chapter 6. Nevertheless, it should be said that the formal introduction (pp. 1–5) is perfunctory; it is little more than a series of abstracts. Further, while most chapters include the Latin source material in their notes, Richard Cross’s discussion of Giles’s theology (Chapter 2) does not. Editorial intervention here would have ensured greater consistency. Constantino Marmo’s contribution (Chapter 7), while drawing attention to Giles as the first medieval commentator on Aristotle’s Rhetoric and offering analysis of his much-neglected commentary on the Posterior Analytics, like Chapter 2, ends abruptly without any summing up. This seems out of step with the volume as a whole. It is also unclear why Chapter 5 (Giorgio Pini’s ‘Cognition’) restricts itself to Giles’s mature thought, while Chapter 6 (Peter Eardley’s ‘Ethics and Moral Psychology’) takes a—welcome—longer view. Inevitably, specialists will find points of contention in individual...

Reviewed by: Christology and Metaphysics in the Seventeenth Century by Richard Cross Mark Mattes Christology and Metaphysics in the Seventeenth Century. By Richard Cross. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. xxii + 333 pp. This book is a sequel to two others, The Metaphysics of the Incarnation: Thomas Aquinas to Duns Scotus, and Communicatio Idiomatum: Reformation Christological Debates, by the same author. Cross notes that he wrote this book to test a thesis “suggested in the latter of these two books, that later Lutheran theology, largely thanks to Johannes Brenz beginning from the late 1520s, adopted a homo assumptus or ‘assumed man’ Christology, as opposed to a more classical Chalcedonian outlook” (viii). He believes that his thesis is amply confirmed by the research presented here. In addition to Lutheran views of Christology, this book also surveys numerous Roman Catholic and Reformed thinkers, especially where these thinkers overlap. This book is not designed for those who lack training in medieval semantics and metaphysics but instead is designed for specialists. According to Chalcedon, Cross contends, the incarnation is understood as the divine person of the Son gaining a particular human nature in addition to the divine nature he already possesses. Crucial for Cross is to acknowledge that this particular human nature is not itself a person since the person of Christ is none other than the Logos. Hence the union between the two natures, divine and human, in the one Christ presupposes this prior union between the human [End Page 370] nature and the divine person. In the middle ages, two theories were offered to explain this. First, the “communion theory,” advanced by Thomas Aquinas, held that the union between the divine person and the human nature requires no third unifying element. The human nature is “drawn into communion” with the person of the Son. In contrast, John Duns Scotus advanced a “union theory” which said that there is a third explanatory entity, a unifying link between the human nature and the divine person which holds them together. More simply stated, the communion perspective sees unity between the human nature and the divine person as akin to a piece of Velcro sticking to another while the union perspective sees it as akin to two pieces of silk held together by a button. Cross maintains that the thought of seventeenth century Lutheran systematicians was similar to the thinking of Aquinas while Reformed theologians were akin the thinking of Scotus, though Luther, Melanchthon, and Chemnitz were in fact more similar to Scotus (7). Classical Christology maintained that the union between the divine person and the human nature was one of “non-causal dependence,” that is, the human nature does not inform the divine person since the divine is an actor but not a receiver. The “homo assumptus” view, distinctively Nestorian in outlook, misreads this scenario because it advances the view that the Logos assumed not a human nature but instead a particular human person. Cross believes that Johannes Brenz and Jacob Andreae took this stance and that those Lutherans who most closely followed their thinking, which includes a good portion of Lutheran scholastics, are, to different degrees, unfaithful to Chalcedon. For Brenz, the hypostatic union between the two natures is foundational in contrast to the Chalcedonian truth that the hypostatic union of natures is grounded in the prior union of the divine person and the human nature (45). Closer to Chalcedon than Brenz, Leonhard Hutter and Georg Calixt denied the homo assumptus model of Christology and advocated the stance that the Logos assumed a human nature and not an individual man (204). Johann Gerhard especially falls prey to Brenz’s confusion in that for him the human nature of Christ is not outside [End Page 371] of the Trinity but internal to the Trinity, a “hyper-theosis” of Christ’s humanity as Cross notes (223). In a nutshell, for Cross, the Lutheran teaching of the genus maiestaticum, in which Christ’s human nature is clothed with the attributes of his divine nature, is not compatible with Chalcedon, nor is it true to Luther (304). Cross’ evaluation of scholastic Lutheran Christologies is significant and it behooves those Lutheran groups which adhere to Lutheran scholasticism to address his...

Reviewed by: Human Action in Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, & William of Ockham by Thomas M. Osborne, Jr. Matthew R. McWhorter Human Action in Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, & William of Ockham by Thomas M. Osborne, Jr. (Washington DC: Catholic University of America, 2014), 250 pp. Thomas Osborne's Human Action in Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, & William of Ockham provides a helpful comparative analysis of three key medieval thinkers with respect to their distinct accounts of human action or theories of "moral psychology" (xvi). These thinkers, Osborne states, "are arguably the three most significant philosophers and theologians of the central period in the development of Scholastic thought" (xiii). His work is written in an accessible style that renders it useful not only as a resource for specialist researchers in [End Page 352] the medieval era but also as a supplemental text for course instruction at the graduate level. While the exact focus and content of this study is unique, it is comparable in approach to other recent volumes in medieval ethics and moral theology such as M. V. Dougherty's Moral Dilemmas in Medieval Thought: From Gratian to Aquinas (2013), or to the comparative medieval studies of Marilyn McCord Adams, Richard Cross, or Russell L. Friedman. Osborne states that his study aims to provide an overview of the issues with which medieval moral psychology grappled and that this, in turn, will serve to illuminate key philosophical questions in ethics, as well as to provide historical background for understanding Reformation and early modern thought (xvi). While Osborne states that his primary goal is to provide a systematic overview of the three thinkers under consideration, his study also illustrates a contextual historical understanding of the authors in question. For example, at times, he provides occasional contextual references to other important medieval ethicists such as Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Abelard, Peter Lombard, and Albert the Great. Osborne is explicitly conscious of the methodological need to avoid conforming the authors under consideration to a superficial historical narrative in which Scotus is construed as reacting to Aquinas, and Ockham in turn to Scotus (see 222–23, where Osborne briefly critiques two common historio-graphical trends). On this point, Osborne recognizes that Aquinas in the era prior to his canonization did not have as significant an intellectual import for Franciscan thinkers as contemporary scholars might expect (xix). Overall, Osborne indicates that his comparative studies should serve to provide his reader both with basic familiarity with the moral psychology of each thinker and with a cognizance of the doctrinal currents that proved to be influential upon subsequent Western thought (xxv). In this respect, Osborne points to three main themes that he indicates establish a reliable historical narrative concerning the doctrinal developments in fundamental ethics from Aquinas to Ockham: "(1) a developing separation between nature and will, (2) an increased emphasis on the will's activity, and (3) a changing view of mental causation" with respect to elicited exterior acts (xxiv–xxv, cf. 227). These themes collectively provide a helpful orientation for continued study of these thinkers, a framework that other scholars will benefit from exploring and evaluating. Osborne's work is organized into five chapters enveloped by an introduction and a conclusion. Each of the five chapters is focused on [End Page 353] a particular ethical topic, such as the causes of a moral act (viz., an agent's intellect and will), the stages of a moral act, or the specification of a moral act. Regarding the structure of the book, Osborne states that it "develops thematically" (xxii). The topical arrangement of the study is intended generally to follow the ordo doctrinae found in questions 6–21 of the prima secundae of Aquinas's Summa theologiae, which Osborne maintains is the most complete and systematic treatment of moral psychology found among the works of the three thinkers under consideration (xvi). Each of Osborne's chapters is further divided into four parts. This schema for the most part follows a common pattern of first expositing Aquinas's position on the ethical topic at hand and then the positions of Scotus and Ockham and closing with a synopsis that compares and contrasts the main positions of...

Reviewed by: Ioannis Duns Scoti Collationes Oxonienseseds. by Guido Alliney e Marina Fedeli Mary Beth Ingham Ioannis Duns Scoti Collationes Oxoniensesa cura di Guido Alliney e Marina Fedeli. Union Académique internationale/Unione Accademica Nazionale, Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi, Testi e studi xxiv. Firenze: Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2016. 318 pp. ISBN 978-88-8450-737-2. As the final volumes of John Duns Scotus's Opera Omniaare published by the International Scotistic Commission (Vatican), this volume of the Subtle Doctor's Oxford Collationesare a welcome addition to all the texts we now have at our disposal. Indeed, we can enumerate the corpus of critical works now available: the Opera Philosophica(Noone et al) along with the 'safe' texts of the ReportatioIA (Wolter/Bychkov) and, at this writing, the first seventeen distinctions of ReportatioIV (Bychkov/Pomplun). The Oxford and Parisian Collationesoffer the remaining pieces to the scholarly puzzle around Scotus, and a clearer portrait of his development as philosopher and theologian is slowly coming into view. The scholarly debates around the Collationes(their authenticity as well as their dating) have been alive since the beginning of the 20 thcentury. While the Wadding (III: 339-430) and Vivès (V: 131-317) editions reproduce the Collationesunder one title ( Collationes Parisienses), there is textual evidence from Scotus himself that some of these belong to the period during which he was a student in Oxford, at the Franciscan house of studies. As early at 1927, Carlo Balić claimed that it was a mistake to consider all these as part of his Parisian years, and that, indeed, the greater part were from his earlier years in Oxford. It was later established that the Wadding/Vivès editions did not contain all the Collationes. Between 1927 and 1929 various additional Collationeswere discovered. As a result, the listing of (what would become) the first fourteen was established on the basis of Magdalen Codex 194 (discovered by Longpré) and the ordering of numbers fifteen to twenty-four were the result of the discovery of Merton Codex 65 and Balliol Codex 209 (Balić). To these we can add the discoveries of Merton Codex 90 and Peterborough Codex 241 (Cambridge), both by Balić. Collationeswere student exercises, held outside of ordinary university work and most often in the houses of studies of the various religious orders. Ephrem Bettoni held them to be authentic but not important to our understanding of Scotus's teaching. Palémon Glorieux thought they [End Page 537]were a type of sermon or student exercise. Over the past twenty years, scholarly investigation and debate regarding Scotus's Collationeshas intensified, thanks to the electronic resources that enable deeper textual study and identification of sources and interlocutors. Recent studies by Stephen Dumont (Coll. 14), Richard Cross (Coll. 17), Olivier Boulnois (Coll. 24) and Guido Alliney (Coll. 18-23) frame the context for this present volume and its effort to contribute to the ongoing discussion around the role of these 'student exercises' in the development and clarification of Scotus's positions. Indeed, as the editors explain (p. xvi), their purpose is to provide a critical 'instrument de travail' for the future work that is still needed. In their lengthy introduction (178 pp.), the editors explain the modalities that guided the work of the team of international scholars who have contributed to this project. They followed four axes of analysis: 1) study of manuscript traditions; 2) provisionary edition to identify the typology of genre of each Collatio; 3) thematic study of the diverse groupings; and 4) reconstruction of the doctrinal positions held by the protagonists in the debate. The debates themselves fall into groupings that range from student exercises (that follow the methodology of a medieval disputation) to critical analyses of a particular doctrinal position, studied according to a 'pro' and 'con' approach. A cluster of the texts focus on metaphysical and theological questions, particular in terms of the question of relationships. Several focus on questions relating to the human will. The editors agree with Anton Vos' dating the Oxford Collationesto 'no later than 1301.' As a result of their work, and in light of the ongoing debate...

The following are some preliminary remarks that will set the stage for my individual replies to Timothy Pawl, Thomas McCall, A. J. Cotnoir, and Sara L. Uckelman’s responses to my paper ‘Christ – A Contradiction’. In that paper I advance and defend a contradictory Christology which solves the fundamental ‘problem’ of Christology by holding that Christ is a contradictory being: it is true that Christ is mutable and it is false that Christ is mutable; it is true that Christ is immutable and it is false that Christ is immutable; and so on for other fundamental-problem properties. Familiarity with ‘Christ – A Contradiction’ (and also with background discussion including, e.g., Richard Cross’s discussions of ‘the fundamental philosophical problem’) is assumed.

Théologie, science et censure au XIIIe siécle: Le cas de Jean Peckham, Alain Boureau Get access Richard Cross Richard Cross Oriel College, Oxford Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The English Historical Review, Volume 116, Issue 466, April 2001, Pages 458–459, https://doi.org/10.1093/ehr/116.466.458 Published: 01 April 2001

Journal Article ALLOIOSIS IN THE CHRISTOLOGY OF ZWINGLI Get access RICHARD CROSS RICHARD CROSS Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Journal of Theological Studies, Volume 47, Issue 1, April 1996, Pages 105–122, https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/47.1.105 Published: 01 April 1996

While Irish newspapers and magazines such as the Nation and the Dublin University Magazine featured a variety of both ‘original’ and reprinted translations, a number of Irish printers and publishers also contributed to the dissemination of translated works. This chapter illustrates the role played by translators and other actors in the process such as printers, publishers and booksellers. Throughout the nineteenth century, Irish printers and publishers such as Richard Cross, James Duffy and M. H. Gill and Sons contributed to the dissemination of what they identified as ‘good reading’ – an undertaking which also involved a careful selection of ‘good translations’. Translation in the nineteenth-century Irish literary marketplace was therefore inextricably interconnected with discourses of morality, education, and national virtues.

In this paper, I argue that adherents of Patrick Toner’s (2011b) hylemorphic animalism who also assent to orthodox Christology and a thesis about the necessity of identity must reject a prima facie plausible theological possibility held by Ockham, entertained in one form by St. Thomas Aquinas, and recently held by Richard Cross (1989), Thomas Flint (2001a), (2001b), and (2011), and Timothy Pawl (2016) and (forthcoming) concerning which individual concrete human natures an omnipotent God could assume (viz. any of them).

New BlackfriarsVolume 86, Issue 1001 p. 119-120 DUNS SCOTUS ON DIVINE LOVE: TEXTS AND COMMENTARIES ON GOODNESS AND FREEDOM, GOD AND HUMANS Richard Cross, Richard CrossSearch for more papers by this author Richard Cross, Richard CrossSearch for more papers by this author First published: 12 January 2005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0028-4289.2005.0069e.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume86, Issue1001January 2005Pages 119-120 RelatedInformation