The Devil Wins: A History of Lying from the Garden of Eden to the Enlightenment (43 page)

44
.   Cited in Ian Christopher Levy,
John Wyclif: Scriptural Logic, Real Presence and the Parameters of Orthodoxy
(Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2003), 127–28.

45
.   The literature concerning the development of Eucharistic theory is vast. For an excellent recent overview, see Levy,
John Wyclif
, 127–215.

46
.   Aquinas,
Summa of Theology
III, quest. 75, art. 1, resp., 2446.

47
.   John Pecham, Quodlibet IV, quaest. 41, in
Quodlibeta Quatuor
, ed. F. Delorme and G. J. Etzkorn (Grottaferrata: Quaracchi, 1989), 263.

48
.   For examples of these and other Eucharistic wonder stories, see Caesarius of Heisterbach,
The Dialogue on Miracles
, vol. 2, trans. H. Von E. Scott and C. Swinton Bland (London: George Routledge & Sons,, 1929), 105–69. On the value of miracle as a means of confronting the faithful with the incredible facts alleged about the Eucharist, see Steven Justice, “Eucharistic Miracle and Eucharistic Doubt,”
Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies
42:2 (2012): 307–32.

49
.   William Ockham,
De corpore christi in eucharistia
, in
Opera Theologica
, vol. 10, ed. Carolus A. Grassi (St. Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute, 1986), cap. 8, 107. For a defense of the sincerity of Ockham’s Eucharistic orthodoxy, see Gabriel N. Buescher,
The Eucharistic Teaching of William Ockham
(Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1950), 1–14.

50
.   On Peter Aureol, see Katherine Tachau,
Vision and Certitude in the Age of Ockham
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988), 84–122, and Denery,
Seeing and Being Seen
, 117–36.

51
.   William Ockham,
Quodlibeta
VI, quaest. 6, in
Opera philosophica et theologica
, vol. IX, ed. Gedeon Gál et al. (St. Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute, 1967–), 605. For brevity, I have greatly simplified Ockham’s analysis. Philotheus Boehner, “The Notitia Intuitiva of Non-Existents According to William Ockham,” in
Collected Articles on Ockham
, ed. Eligius Buytaert (St. Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute, 1958), 274–87, offers the clearest account of how Ockham situates this scenario within his broader epistemological and cognitive theories. Compare with Katherine Tachau,
Vision and Certitude in the Age of Ockham
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988), 115–29, for a somewhat different interpretation.

52
.   Robert Holkot presents these objections to the doctrine of bodily presence at
Super sententias
(Lugduni, 1518, rprt. Frankfurt: Minerva, 1967) IV, quaest. III, primi principi, secundo. He responds with his own opinions at
Super sententias
IV, quaest. III, responsio, ad secundum.

53
.   Holkot,
Super sententias
IV, quaest. III, responsio, ad experientiam. At
Super sententias
IV, quaest. III, ad. secundo, he adds, “Dicendum est quod deus potest plus facere quam intellectus intelligere, et ideo non est inconveniens concedere quod deus posset totam machinam mundi convertere et facere existere sub speciebus unius musce.” Gary Macy,
The Banquet’s Wisdom: A Short History of the Lord’s Supper
(Mahway: Paulist Press, 1992), 120, makes a similar point.

54
.   Holkot,
Super sententias
IV, quaest. III, responsio, ad secundo.

55
.   
Fasciculus Morum
, ed. Siegfried Wenzel (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1989) V.ii, 409.

56
.   Levy,
John Wyclif
, 125.

57
.   Robert Holkot,
Sententiarum
II, quest. 2, in
Seeing the Future Clearly: Questions on Future Contingents
, ed. Paul A. Streveler and Katherine H. Tachau (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1995), 156. Here I follow the lead of both Katherine Tachau, in two separate articles, “Robert Holcot on Contingency and Divine Deception,” in
Filosofia e teologia nel Trecento: Studi in ricordo di Eugenio Randi
, ed. L. Bianchi (Louvain-la Neuve: Fédération internationale des instituts d’études médiévales, 1994), 178–78, and “Logic’s God and the Natural Order in Late Medieval Oxford,”
Annals of Science
53 (1996): 235–67, here, 250–55, and especially, Hester Gelber,
It Could Have Been Otherwise
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, NV, 2004), 191–222. Neither of them address these problems in relation to Eucharistic theory.

58
.   Holkot,
Sententiarum
III, quaest. 1, BBB, “Probatur quod deus potest fallere, sexto.”

59
.   Holkot,
Sententiarum
III, quaest. 1, CCC, responsio.

60
.   Holkot,
Sententiarum
III, quaest. 1, primo through tertio, A. The edition is unpaginated. These questions are raised in the very first column of the question.

61
.   Holkot,
Sententiarum
III, quaest. 1, art. 5, MM.

62
.   Heiko A. Oberman, “
Facientibus quod in se est deus non denegat gratiam
: Robert Holcot, O.P. and the Beginnings of Luther’s Theology,” in
The Dawn of the Reformation
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 84–103.

63
.   John Wyclif,
De eucharistia
, ed. Iohann Loserth (London: Wyclif Society, 1892), cap. 3, 57.

64
.   Stephen E. Lahey,
John Wyclif
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 102–34, and Gordon Leff,
Heresy in the Later Middle Ages: The Relation of Heterodoxy to Dissent, 1250–1450
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967), 499 and 550. On scripture and church councils, see Maurice Keen, “Wyclif, the Bible and Transubstantiation,” in
Wyclif in His Times
, ed. Anthony Kenny (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 11–3, and Ian Christopher Levy, “
Christus qui mentiri non potest
: John Wyclif’s Rejection of Transubstantiation,”
Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie
66:2 (1999): 316–34.

65
.   On medieval Eucharistic practices and devotion see, E. Dumoutet,
Le Désir de voir l’hoste et les origins de la dévotion au saintsacrament
(Paris: Beauchesne, 1926). On Wyclif’s reactions to these practices, see J. I. Catto, “John Wyclif and the Cult of the Eucharist,” in
The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley
, ed. Katherine Walsh and Diana Wood (Oxford: Blackwell, 1985), 269–86, here, 279–82, and Heather Phillips, “John Wyclif and the Religion of the People,” in
A Distinct Voice: Medieval Studies in Honor of Leonard E. Boyle, O.P.
, ed. Jacqueline Brown and William P. Stoneman (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997), 561–90, here, 572–75.

66
.   The Parisian theologian Gregory of Rimini attempted to refute the possibility of a deceptive God using similar arguments. See Dominik Perler, “Does God Deceive Us? Skeptical Hypotheses in Late Medieval Epistemology,” in
Rethinking the History of Skepticism: The Missing Medieval Background
, ed. Henrik Lagerlund (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2010), 171–92, here, 181–84.

67
.   Wyclif,
De eucharistia
, cap. III, 73.

68
.   Wyclif,
Sermones
, ed. Iohann Loserth (London: Wyclif Society, 1889), vol. III, XVIII, 139.

69
.   Wyclif,
De benedicta incarnacione
, ed. Edward Harris (London: Wyclif Society, 1886), ch. 5, 76–77. Lahey,
John Wyclif
, 32–64, describes “the Oxford context of Wyclif’s thoughts.”

70
.   Wyclif,
De eucharistia
, cap. IV, 109.

71
.   Luther,
Lectures on Genesis
, vol. 5, 151. Gustaf Aulén,
Christus Victor: An Historical: Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement
, trans. A. G. Herbert (New York: Macmillan, 1954), 103–11, discusses the connections between Luther’s and the Church fathers’ conception of Christ’s work.

72
.   Luther,
Lectures on Genesis
, vol. 5, 150–51.

73
.   Luther,
Lectures on Genesis
, vol. 4, 93–97.

74
.   Alister E. McGrath,
Luther’s Theology of the Cross: Martin Luther’s Theological Breakthrough
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985), 158–60.

75
.   Luther,
Selected Psalms
, in
Luther’s Works
, vol. 14, 31.

76
.   Luther,
The Bondage of the Will
, in
Luther’s Works
, vol. 33, ed. and trans. Philip S. Watson (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), 140.

77
.   John Calvin,
Commentaries on the Prophet Ezekiel
, lecture XXXVIII, 58.

78
.   Calvin,
Commentaries on Ezekiel
, lecture XXXVIII, 57–58.

79
.   Calvin,
Commentary on Corinthians
, vol. 2, trans. John Pringle (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1849), 2 Corinthians 4:1–6.

80
.   Calvin,
Commentaries on Ezekiel
, lecture XXXVIII, 58–59.

81
.   Calvin,
Commentaries on Ezekiel
, lecture XXXVIII, 59–60. On Calvin and biblical style, see William Bouwsma,
John Calvin
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1988),104–6.

82
.   Calvin,
Commentaries on Ezekiel
, lecture XXXVIII, 59–60.

83
.   Calvin,
Institutes
, bk. 1, ch. 18:4, 237.

84
.   Pierre Bayle,
Dictionaire
[
sic
]
Historique et Critique
, 4th ed., “Gregoire (de Rimini)” (Amsterdam: P. Brunel et al., 1730), 57. On reading seventeenth-century natural philosophers as “secular theologians,” see Amos Funkenstein,
Theology and the Scientific Imagination from the Middle Ages to the Seventeenth Century
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 3–9.

85
.   Descartes,
Meditations
, “Second Set of Objections,” 89–90.

86
.   Gregory of Rimini,
Lectura super primum et secundum Sententiarum
, vol. 3, ed. A. Damasus Trapp and Venicio Marcolino (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1979), lib. 1, dist. 42–44, quaest. 2, 391.

87
.   Bayle,
Dictionaire
, 57.

88
.   Descartes,
Meditations
, “Second Set of Replies,” 101–2.

89
.   Descartes,
Meditations
, “Second Set of Replies,” 102.

90
.   Descartes,
Meditations
, “Sixth Set of Replies,” 289. For a brief account of Descartes’s studies and education, see Geneviève Rodis-Lewis,
Descartes: His Life and Thought
, trans. Jane Marie Todd (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), 8–23.

91
.   Descartes,
Meditations
, “Dedicatory Letter to the Sorbonne,” 3–4.

92
.   Descartes undertakes this analysis most explicitly at
Meditations
, “Second Meditation,” beginning at 17, when he asks, “What then did I formerly think I was? A man. But what is a man?”

93
.   Descartes,
Meditations
, “Second Set of Replies,” 102.

94
.   Bayle,
Dictionaire
, 57.

95
.   Bayle,
Dictionaire
, 57.

96
.   Pierre Sylvain Regis,
Systême de Philosophie Contenant La Logique. La Métaphysique. La Physique et La Morale
, vol. 1 (Paris: Denys Thierry, 1690), 89.

97
.   Descartes,
Meditations
, “Second Set of Replies,” 102–3.

98
.   Descartes,
Principles of Philosophy
, in
The Philosophical Writings of Descartes
, vol. I, 1.40, 206.

99
.   Descartes,
Principles
, 1.28, 202. Stephen Menn,
Augustine and Descartes
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 237, elaborates on this idea.

100
. Descartes,
Principles
, 1.40, 206. For a succinct list of what Descartes “learns” about God, see David Cunning,
Argument and Persuasion in Descartes’
Meditations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 208–9. On the relation between God’s infinity and his perfection, see Jean-Marie Beyssade, “The Idea of God and the Proofs of His Existence,” in
The Cambridge Companion to Descartes
, ed. John Cottingham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 174–99, especially 193–96. Jean-Luc Marion, “Outline of a History of Definitions of God in the Cartesian Epoch,” in
On the Ego and God: Further Cartesian Questions
, trans. Christina M. Geshwandtner (New York: Fordham University Press, 2007), 161–92, here, 170–75, stresses the incoherence of Descartes’s conception of God.

101
. Descartes,
Principles
, 2.36, 240.

102
. This is an extraordinarily condensed summary of the metaphysical super-structure that supports Descartes’s physics. For more, see Daniel Garber, “Descartes’ Physics,” in
The Cambridge Companion to Descartes
, 286–334. For an excellent account of Descartes’s “metaphysical turn,” see John Henry, “Metaphysics and the Origins of Modern Science: Descartes and the Importance of Laws of Nature,”
Early Science and Medicine
9:2 (2004): 73–114.

103
. Descartes,
Meditations
, “Fourth Meditation,” 42–43. For a nuanced account of Descartes’s acceptable deployment of teleological explanations, as captured in terms like “beneficial,” see Alison J. Simmons, “Sensible Ends: Latent Teleology in Descartes’ Account of Sensation,”
Journal of History of Philosophy
39:1 (January 2001): 49–75.

104
. Descartes,
Meditations
, “Sixth Meditation,” 61.

105
. Cited in David Cunning, “Descartes on the Immutability of the Divine Will,”
Religious Studies
39 (2003): 79–92, here 87, and more generally 86–88 for a very good and succinct account of the relations between philosophy and theology in Descartes’s thought. This paragraph relies heavily on his analysis. On Malebranche, see Andrew Pessin, “Malebranche’s Distinction between General and Particular Volitions,”
Journal of the History of Philosophy
39:1 (January 2001): 77–99.