25. Douglas Gray, Themes and Images in the Medieval English Lyric (London/Boston: Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1972), 123, for example, quotes a sermon tag, a rubric around which a priest could compose an entire sermon, that reads, “Crux est / A barge to beren fro depe groundes / A targe to weren fro detly woundes / A falle to taken in the fend / And an halle to glathen in a frend.” Thanks to Mary Agnes Edsall for this reference. On Anselm’s theory of atonement, see Eileen C. Sweeney, Anselm of Canterbury and the Desire for the Word (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2012), 277–302.
26. On Corpus Christi plays, see Alan H. Nelson, “The Temptation of Christ; or, The Temptation of Satan,” in Medieval English Drama: Essays Critical and Contextual, ed. Jerome Taylor and Alan H. Nelson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972), 218–29.
27. Aquinas, Summa of Theology III, quest. 41, art. 2, resp. 2241–42.
28. Aquinas, Summa of Theology I, quest. 64, art. 1, resp. 4, 321.
29. Aquinas, Summa of Theology III, quest. 29, art. 1, reply 3, 2177. See George Duriez, La théologie dans le drame religieux en Allemagne au moyen âge (Lille: René Girard, 1914), 72–81, for a survey of theological opinion concerning this deception and how it filtered into German religious plays.
30. Jean Gerson, Considérations sur Saint Joseph, in Oeuvres Complètes, VII: L’oeuvre Française, ed. Palemon Glorieux (Paris: Desclée & Cii, 1966), 76. During his discussion of the Annunciation, Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend, vol. 1, trans. William Granger Ryan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 197, cites Bernard of Clairvaux as he relates the story of Joseph’s deceptive role.
31. Meyer Schapiro, “Muscipula Diaboli: The Symbolism of the Mérode Altarpiece,” Art Bulletin 27:3 (1945): 182–87.
32. Bonaventure, Sententiarum III, dist. 20, art. 1, quaest. 5, conclusio, 427–28.
33. Bonaventure, Collations on the Six Days, in The Works of Bonaventure, vol. 5, trans. José de Vinck (Patterson: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1970), 6th collation, 12, 13, 16. For a more detailed discussion, see Christopher M. Cullen, Bonaventure (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 96–104.
34. Bonaventure, Sententiarum II, dist. 7, pars 2, art. 1, quaest. 3.
35. Aquinas, Summa of Theology II-II, quest. 55, art. 3, resp. and reply 2, 1423.
36. William Langland, Piers Plowman: A New Annotated Edition of the C–Text, ed. Derek Pearsall (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2008), Passus XX, ln. 163–65, 329.
37. Alan of Lille, Liber poenitentialis I.12, ed. Jean Longère, vol. 2 (Louvain: Editions Nauwelaerts, 1965), 29. For a brief survey of the circumstances and sin, see Dallas G. Denery II, Seeing and Being Seen in the Later Middle Ages: Optics, Theology and Religious Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 57–63.
38. Thomas Chobham, Summa Confessorum, ed. F. Broomfield, art. 3, dist. 2, quest. 2a (Louvain: Editions Nauwelaerts, 1968), 56–57.
39. Guido de Monte Rocherii, Manipulus curatorum, pars 2, trac. 2, cap. 9 (Strassburg, 1490).
40. Jacobus de Voraigne, The Golden Legend, vol. 1, 210.
41. Bonaventure, Tractatus de praeparatione ad missam, in Opera Omnia VIII, cap. I:1:3 (Rome: Quaracchi, 1898), 100.
42. Miri Rubin, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 12–82, discusses the design and development of the mass.
43. William of Auxerre, Summa Aurea IV, ed. J. Ribaillier (Rome: Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas, 1980) d. VII, cap. vii, quaest. 4, 173. William invokes this idea while arguing that priests should never deceive their parishioners about whether or not the host is consecrated. More typical is Bonaventure, Sententiarum IV, in Opera Omnia IV, dist. X, pars. II, art. II, quaest. II, ad. iii, 137, who considers the problem entirely within the context of sensory discrepancy, “Ad illud obicitur de deceptione, dicendum, quod in hoc Sacramento nullus sensus decipitur nec aliquid, quia est Sacramentum veritatis.”
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.
&nbs
p; 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.
> 106. Gerald L. Bruns, Inventions: Writing, Textuality, and Understanding in Literary History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), 94: “[I]n Descartes’ construction God, in creating the world, is not obliged to speak, He does not say, ‘Let there be light.’ Even if he did say it, no light would therefore shine. Systems are alogorithmic rather than logocentric, as Leibniz knew, which is a way of explaining the Cartesian or rationalist thesis that God does not create the world, he introduces procedures, in whose actual operation and results he need not maintain any loving or mythological interest—or, as John Stuart Mill thought, could not maintain an interest even if he wanted to. Hence the old schoolroom joke that Descartes proved the existence of God only to show how little God matters in the scheme of things.”
107. Descartes, Principles, 2.36, 240.
108. Cited and translated in Robert C. Bartlett, “On the Politics of Faith and Reason: The Project of Enlightenment in Pierre Bayle and Montesquieu,” Journal of Politics 63:1 (February 2001): 1–28, here p. 12, ft. 13, and, generally, 9–12. The line in its original context can be found in Pierre Bayle, Ce que c’est que la France toute Catholique sous le règne de Louis le Grand, ed. Elisabeth Labrousse (Paris: J. Vrin, 1973), 46.
CHAPTER THREE. HUMAN BEINGS
1. Blaise Pascal, Les Provinciales, or, The Mystery of Jesuitisme, 2nd ed., trans. Henry Hammond (London: Richard Royston, 1658), (mostly) unpaginated prefatory material written by Hammond.
2. Augustine, Against Lying, ch. 1 (1), 126.
3. Augustine, Against Lying, ch. 6 (11), 137. Viriginia Burrus, The Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority and the Priscillianist Controversy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 115–22, surveys Consentius’s efforts.
4. Augustine, Against Lying, ch. 18 (36), 171–72.
5. 1 Corinthians 9:20.
The Devil Wins: A History of Lying from the Garden of Eden to the Enlightenment Page 32
