1

TO SIFT AND TO WINNOW: THE INFLUENCE

ON MILTON'S TRINITY OF THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH FATHERS

Karl Lewis Winegardner

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate School of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

August 1974 li

ABSTRACT

John Milton’s doctrine of the Trinity, which serves as a central tenet of his theology, contains the heavy influence of several ante-Nicene Church Fathers, whose works Milton read during a crucial period of his life immediately after completing his formal education. Milton spent about two and a half years reading and translating thoroughly the works of the earliest leaders of the Church, but he tired of this procedure and began to read with much less profundity. His reading had taken him to the age of Constantine in the early fourth century when he began this less complete reading.

By comparing Milton’s doctrinal elements with those of the Fathers whom he read thoroughly, the extent of the influence can be determined.

Milton developed his own unique understanding of the Three Persons of the Godhead; seldom did he actually use the term "Trinity." He believed that the singleness of God and His omnipotence, indivisibility, omniscience excluded any other being from possessing God's same qualities. Milton found this emphasis in the early Fathers, especially Justin, Irenaeus, and Clement. These Fathers had emphasized monotheism against Gnostic dualism. Post-Nicene Fathers did not need this heavy emphasis on God's Oneness.

Milton's concept of Christ as Son followed the logical implications of his doctrine of God. Christ was a creation; therefore, he was not exactly equal to God. Milton accepted the Subordinationalist view of Christ from those Fathers whom he read. Milton also accepted Irenaeus's "Theory of Recapitulation" which understood Christ as the "Second Adam" in whom the destiny of all humanity had been focused. Christ's resurrection re­ moved the finality of sin and death from all mankind.

The Holy Spirit received third rank in Milton's arrangement of the Godhead. The Spirit possessed fewer attributes of God than Christ did. Milton denied many references which other thinkers believed pertained to the Holy Spirit. He believed that the Third Person had been released by Christ at Pentecost and that it remains active in the reasoned affairs of man. Tertullian had been especially useful to Milton in furnishing the vocabulary and definitions necessary in understanding the relationships of the Godhead.

This unbalanced Trinity was derived from Milton's reading of Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Cyprian, Tertullian, Lactantius and Eusebius. It was their ideas that Milton sifted and winnowed as he produced his own Trinity which heavily empha­ sized the position of the Father in the Godhead. Ill

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A work of this nature would be totally impossible without the guidance, dedication and sensitivity of many persons. I should like to express sincere appreciation to: my doctoral committee members for their scholarly, patient, and omnipresent guidance; the staff of Bowling Green State University Library, the staff of Ohio Northern University Library, and to Mrs. Jean Sewell and

Ms. Betty Schwartz of the Ohio State University, Lima Campus,

Library. Finally, I owe an immeasurable debt of gratitude to my wife, Jo, and my children, Beth and Doug, for their patient love and understanding. IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page INTRODUCTION: "Milton and the Trinity" ...... 1

CHAPTER ONE: "The Development of the Trinity Doctrine and Its Role in Milton's Emerging Trinity"...... 20

Early Development of the Trinity...... 20

Milton and the Ante-Nicene Fathers ...... 23

Milton's Trinitarian References...... 26

Milton's Ante-Nicene Trinity ...... 39

Conclusion...... 42

CHAPTER TWO: "The Doctrine of God, the Father"...... 47

Justin Martyr...... 48

Irenaeus...... 50

Clement of Alexandria...... 52

Origen...... 55

Lactantius...... 58

Eusebius of Caesarea ...... 61

Conclusion...... 64

CHAPTER THREE: "The Doctrine of Christ, the Son" .... 72

Ignatius...... 74

Justin Martyr ...... 78

Irenaeus...... 79

Tertullian...... 81

Origen...... 83

Eusebius of Caesarea ...... 84 V

Conclusion...... 85

CHAPTER FOUR: "The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit" .... 97

Justin Martyr...... 102

Irenaeus...... 104

Origen...... 106

Lactantius...... 106

Eusebius of Caesarea ...... 107

Conclusion...... 108

CONCLUSION: "The Influence on Milton's Trinity of the Ante-NiceneF athers"...... 110

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 119 I

INTRODUCTION

Nearly all Christians have come to venerate the Trinity.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute the historic revelation

of God's love for His errant creation. All Christians believe

that God, the Creator, called His Son, Jesus Christ, into human

form in order to retrieve Israel since it had strayed far afield

from God's expectations and had failed to heed the ancient prophets' admonitions. The Holy Spirit, Christians universally believe, continues the redemptive mission of Christ through the work of believers, beginning at Pentecost when the Spirit was first released to the first Christians. Since the earliest years of the Church, few have questioned its nature; few deny its existence even today. But John Milton in the seventeenth century defined "Trinity" to satisfy himself.

It is the central contention of this dissertation that

Milton developed his own unique concept of the Trinity which served as the primary anchor for his epics. His attitude toward the Trinity colored his thoughts on related topics, since theology dominated Milton's thought and production. With­ out a firmly rooted and fully grown doctrine of the Trinity, his Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained would have been stunted from the beginning since the creative work of the Father, the redemptive mission of the Son, and the consoling activity of the Spirit provide Milton with numerous possibilities for plot, theme, tone, and style for his epics. Without having carefully -2-

considered the Trinity, Milton's poetry would have been vastly

different from what it is.

Many have analyzed that unique Trinity which Milton developed

and they have reached a variety of conclusions. Most are convinced

that Milton developed a brand of Trinitarian thought which diverged

so much from standard concepts that Milton would have to be con­

sidered anti-Trinitarian. Maurice Kelley, one of the first

scholars to study thoroughly Milton's theology in light of the

De Doctrina Christiana, the prose treatise in which he carefully

sought to set down his theological views, concludes that Milton

espoused the Arian heresy, which emphasized Christ's humanity at

the expense of His divinity. William B. Hunter, Jr., and others

have challenged Kelley's conclusion by referring to those Patristic

influences which shaped Milton's theology and poetry. Hunter

understands Milton's views to be consistent with those of the

early Church, but at variance with the views of the later Church

since they superseded those Patristic ideas. This latter view

of Milton's thinking presupposes that Milton had more than a casual knowledge of the early Church Fathers, but although Hunter

and others sketch the influence of these Fathers on Milton, they

do not exhaustively examine that influence.

That is the purpose of this dissertation, which will examine

Milton's references to the Trinity and then attempt to prove that his reading of the Ante-Nicene Fathers had an appreciable impact upon his understanding of the Trinity, which then played the central role in the development of Milton's epics. The -3- subsequent chapters will examine the influence of significant pre-

Nicene Fathers upon Milton's concept of the collective Trinity and of the individual doctrines of the Father, the Son, and the

Spirit. In all of these, similarities between Milton's Trinitarian notions and those of the Ante-Nicene Fathers will be examined.

This study seeks to prove that Milton's Trinitarian doctrines are largely consistent with those of the first Nicene Council, and although subsequent Christian history developed beyond these doctrines, Milton adhered to them because he firmly believed that those subsequent developments strayed away from those truths which Scripture alone revealed. Further, this study seeks to show that Milton's unbalanced Trinity, in which the Father's position so far outweighs the other two Persons that the Father's supremacy can be doubted in no way, derives its proportions from his reading of significant Ante-Nicene Fathers. This unbalanced

Trinity, essentially evolved before the doctrine reached its modern form, can not be squared with the orthodox view which specifies three co-equal Persons. Milton's Trinity, therefore, can only be classified as unorthodox, because it was pre-Trinitarian

Before the cause for Milton's Trinitarian aberration can be ascertained, his awareness of the Trinity, which matured through­ out his lifetime, will be examined and will reveal the impact of his early reading upon that development. A study of the Trinity remained a central concern for Milton throughout his poetic and polemic career. In his very early works, his Trinity appears little different from any other Christian's references: in his poem of 1629, "On the Morning of Christ's Nativity," he uses the

term "Trinal Unity"!; in 1641, in "Of Reformation Touching Church o Discipline in England," he invokes "one Tri-personall GODHEAD."

In the 1641 "Animadversions," his notion of the Son appears

orthodox because he addresses the Son as the "ever-begotten light."3

By 1658, when Milton compiled, edited, and revised a series of manuscripts which outlined his theological position and which he entitled De Doctrina Christiana, his Trinitarian position had changed from its earlier, conventional view into a heterodox one.

In his theological treatise, God the Father becomes so universal, so unified, so incomprehensible, that the positions of the two other Persons become secondary. The Son, because He is God's creation and because He does His Father's bidding, thus can be regarded as subordinate to the Father. The Holy Spirit, although it shares some of God's attributes as does the Son, is appropri­ ately in a third position, and Milton considers the Holy Spirit as less important than the Son, who is less important than the

Father.^ This is Milton's final pronouncement on this doctrine which, as the above illustrates, changed rather basically from its earlier conception.

For Milton to have been influenced, by the Patristics, his life would have to include sustained periods of exposure to them.

It does. Milton read the Ante-Nicene Fathers during an early period in which he thought seriously about his life's work.

Those Fathers who serve as one important influence upon Milton's unbalanced Trinity are Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of -5-

Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius, and Eusebius

of Caesarea. Milton read these early writers during his post-

Cambridge retirement at his family estate, first located at

Hammersmith and then at Horton. He studied there for nearly three

years and during this time devoted most of his attention to those

disciplines which would be necessary for his intended profession,

the ministry. During this time, however, he decided not to pursue

that respected profession, and chose instead to devote his life

primarily to literature. At least two central factors prompted

that decision: he had earlier shown considerable promise as a

writer; in addition, his temperament did not seem compatible with

conditions within the Church of England, which had endured

considerable change and pressure stimulated by the Protestant

Reformation of the preceding century.

Despite his change in career, Milton's theology remained

important to him, since religion underscored all of the issues

of the day and since his own temperament would not permit him to remain aloof from these issues which eventually produced the revolution of the Roundheads in whose civil service he served as

Latin Secretary. When he retired from that position, he further dwelt on religious issues: Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained derive their vision and force from his theology. In both, the

Persons of the Trinity are personified and serve as major characters; thus Milton's conception of the Trinity stands squarely at the center of any understanding of Milton's greatest works. -6-

His Horton reading resulted in a significant change in his

doctrine of the Trinity. This study contends that Milton's final

doctrine should be considered as pre-Trinitarian or as non-

Trinitarian rather than anti-Trinitarian. Actually, the term

"ante-Trinitarian" works best. By the time he had begun composition of his epics, he had accepted the view that God's absolute supremacy made less tenable the commonly accepted view of the Trinity as

Three Persons equally sharing the essence of God and equally directing God's plan for His creation. Milton's logic simply would not allow the division of one indivisible substance. His study of the Scriptures and his reading of Church history convinced him that the orthodox view of the Trinity, as finally formulated by the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 A.D., did not possess full scriptural and apostolic support. As later details will illus­ trate, his Horton reading included thorough examination of those

Church Fathers who lived and wrote while the elements of the doctrine of the Trinity were being heatedly contested and slowly formulated. However, his reading of Church History which covered the post-Nicene development of the Trinity was much less intense than his ante-Nicene reading had been. After that, Milton's interest began to shift elsewhere.

But before Milton's position can be judged as heterodox, the orthodox view of the Trinity to which he took exception, but by which his critics tended to judge his departures, should be reviewed. Without major change, modern thinkers retain this same view of the Trinity. The "Nicene" Creed, possibly written -7- by Athanasius, as the culminating statement of the Council of

Constantinople in 381 A.D., and the Apostles' Creed were standard statements of Christian belief during Milton's day.? The Church of England had also phrased a statement concerning the Trinity which Milton had to study and to use while he was a student at O Cambridge. Because these documents were influential for Milton, and inasmuch as they remain the orthodox statements of the

Trinitarian position, they deserve review:

The Apostles' Creed

1. I believe in God Almighty 2. And in Christ Jesus, his only Son, our Lord 3. Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary 4. Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried 5. And the third day rose from the dead 6. And ascended into heaven 7. And sitteth on the right hand of the Father 8. Whence he cometh to judge the living and the dead 9. And in the Holy Ghost 10. The holy church 11. The remission of sins 12. The resurrection of thQe flesh 13. The life everlasting.

The "Nicene" Creed

(also called the "Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan" Creed)

We believe in one God the Father All sovereign, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father before all the ages, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens and was made flesh of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again -8-

on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and cometh again with glory to judge living and dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end:

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Life-giver, that proceedeth from the Father, who with Father and Son is worshipped together and glorified together, who spake through the prophets:

In one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church:

We acknowledge one baptism unto remission of sins. We look for a resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come.10

The latter creed obviously develops each element in more detail than does the more ancient, primitive Apostles' Creed, which had been attributed to the Apostles, who used it very early at the

Jerusalem "church" after Christ's Assumption. Milton acknowledged the Apostles ’ Creed as the "most ancient and the most widely accepted creed which the Church possesses.The "Nicene" Creed adds to the skeletal structure of the earlier creed phrases and clauses designed to test the credulity of Vacillating believers, and at the same time, to provide more specific rationale for believers in need of additional sophisticated structures for their belief.

Chronologically nearer to Milton, hence more immediate statements of Trinitarian orthodoxy for his time, were the "Articles of Religion" of the Church of England, promulgated by the 1552

Act of Uniformity. Today's Book of Common Prayer maintains the same statement which Milton read: -9

Article I_. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity.

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Article II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very man.

The Son, which is the Work of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.

Article V. Of the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.13

The "Articles of Religion" ordained belief in the Trinity as its first priority. Although the Articles employ vocabulary and phrasing which can be recognized from the early Church's creeds, the Articles add their own emphases. The term "Persons" has entered the statement of faith and is even capitalized as are all holy pronouns. God's power achieves a greater prestige in the statement of 1552 than can be found in previous ones.

Even the mechanics of the physical conception of Jesus receive more description. The simultaneity of Father and Son, "very God, and very Man” receives attention also. Curiously, Article Five -10-

fails to expand the role of the Third Person to the extent that the other articles had expanded the roles of the first two Persons.

These three statements of Christian orthodoxy, then, set the parameters which contained Milton's Trinity, and it was from them that his version veered.

The above paragraphs establish Milton's familiarity with and usage of the term "Trinity"; they also establish that Milton spent several months during a germinal period of his life studying intensely the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Other paragraphs set Milton's evolving notion of the Trinity in the Trinitarian perspective which his age had accepted. Next, a review of the significant scholarship on Milton's theology will demonstrate the necessity for this dissertation which received much of its incentive from a suggestion in A.S.P. Woodhouse's unfinished The Heavenly Muse

(1972). Before his death Woodhouse sketched some notes concerning the antecedents of Milton's theology:

On the whole, it is the Patristic period that we must look for the closest analogues, and there we shall find them not in the opinions of Arius and the original Arians only, but in the doctrine of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and very markedly in the teachings of Eusebius.!^

This dissertation seeks to finish Woodhouse's task.

The scholarship on Milton as theologian has been relatively extensive; valid contributions to it have been advanced by many authors in addition to Woodhouse. This research tends to focus on Milton's departures from orthodoxy.& brief over-view of these positions will provide a necessary perspective for the -11- reader, so that he can better judge the precision of the assertions in this study. During his lifetime and through the eighteenth century, most critics considered Milton orthodox, but after 1825, when De Doctrina Christiana was published, many began to question that estimation.16 Largely because the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries concerned themselves with other religious issues than were current in Milton's day, such as the relationship between science and religion, the critics' reactions to Milton were generally indifferent. Not until the early twentieth century did criticism begin to consider even vaguely the implications of

Milton's theological treatise upon his poetic works, and then criticism split into two major areas, one considering Milton as thinker, the other, Milton as artist. But no one seriously dealt with those implications until the twentieth century.1?

In the 1920's, several important works were written, but for our purposes, we need consider only that first area, and within it, Milton as theologian specifically. James Holly Hanford's

A Milton Handbook (1926) serves as a standard reference even to succeeding generations. Hanford says that Milton's theology could best be described as "eclectic, Christian idealism." As an eclectic, Milton steered his own course among the Catholic,

Calvinist, and Anglican positions; his was a mixture of orthodox and heretical views.At the core of Milton's theology is his firm belief in the individual's freedom of choice. Hanford believes that this of necessity diminished the importance of

Christ's sacrifice. He further calls Milton an Arian because of -12-

Milton's view of Christ's secondary role to God. Milton rather

carefully concealed his heresies in the epics, but Hanford asserts

that those heresies do exist, especially when they are read in

the light of De Doctrina. Hanford quotes works which have

attempted single influence assessment upon Milton's theology:

Ochino (L.A. Wood, Milton's Antitrinitarian Conception, 1911),

Boehme (Marjorie L. Bailey, Milton and Jakob Boehme, 1914), the

Cabalists (Denis Saurat, Milton: Man and Thinker, 1925), the

Cambridge Platonists (Marjorie Nicholson, A Reader's Guide to

John Milton, 1963), Bruno (S.B. Liljegren, Milton et Giordano

Bruno, 1923), Servetus (Martin Larson, "Milton and Servetus",

1926), and the Quakers (Alden Samson, Studies in Milton, 1913).

Hanford urges that the reader beware of single-source attribution;

unfortunately, scholars failed to heed this advice. These early-

twentieth-century scholars realized only partial success in

attributing sole influence. Milton scholarship soon rediscovered

his essential complexity; consequently, more recent works tended

to discuss multiple influences. Single source analyses failed to

provide the appropriate complexity which characterized Milton as poet and as thinker.

Arthur Sewell undertook the first serious study of the

effects of De Doctrina upon Milton's poetry. Sewell's A Study in

Milton's Doctrine (1939) carefully examined the manuscript of the

theological treatise and concluded that Milton's views contain

Arianism although he seldom allowed that heresy to pervade his

epics which Sewell believed published Milton's orthodox theological -13-

views.2! Sewell's study of the manuscript proves valuable, but

Maurice Kelley, in This Great Argument: A Study of Milton's De

Doctrina Christiana As a_ Gloss Upon Paradise Lost (1941), refutes

much of Sewell's argument that a great theological difference

existed between the treatise and the epics. The former serves as

a theological prose.statement of the poetic message of the latter.

Kelley scrupulously studied the manuscripts with an eye to their

date of authorship, which he sees as the key to the entire argument.

He proves that Milton wrote his treatise in several portions,

apparently having begun the earliest in his post-Cambridge retire­

ment days. Several persons' handwritings remained on the text

discovered in a bottom drawer in a dusty government office in 22 1823. From a careful analysis of these manuscripts, Kelley

concluded that Milton's final revisions were complete between

1658 and 1660, before he began Paradise Lost. Thus the treatise

and its Arianism served as homework for the epic; and, Kelley 23 argued, the epic included Milton's heresies. Eisenring's

Milton's 'De Doctrina Christiana': An Historical Introduction and

Critical Analysis (1946) judges Milton's theology as it deviates

from Anglo-Catholic sacramentalism and finds Milton's theological

eclecticism too rootless. Arthur Barker's Milton and the Puritan

Dilemma (1942), although not a direct study of De Doctrina, saw

Milton's theological problem as germinating in the Puritan

emphasis upon the individual as a free moral agent.

The Arian label remained firmly attached to Milton until

William B. Hunter, Jr., and C.A. Patrides began to doubt its -14-

adequacy in the late 1950's, when Hunter's article, "Milton's

Arianism Reconsidered," appeared and drew response promptly from

Kelley and defense from Patrides. ° The Hunter-Patrides point is

that Arianism is not the most appropriate name for Milton's view

of the Son: "subordinationalism" better identifies this view.

They argue that Milton had not read Arius and that he even casti­

gates this early Christian heretic. Further, Hunter and Patrides

argue that Milton's theological method was more sophisticated than

Kelley wanted to allow, that Milton's translation of his own readings and his own inherent independence of thought would preclude a slavish adherence to any one thinker's system. On the other hand, Hunter and Patrides view the early Church as one of the greatest influences upon Milton's theology. Hunter concludes that

Milton would have been orthodox in 381 A.D., the date of the

"Nicene" Creed. In 1971, Hunter edited a volume of the collected essays written by Patrides, J.H. Adamson, and himself, entitled ?Q Bright Essence: Studies in Milton's Theology. ° Kelley served as editor of the 1973 sixth volume of the Yale Complete Prose Works ■ 29 of John Milton, and the introduction maintains Kelley's arguments.

In this work, Kelley denies that the Ante-Nicene Fathers had much, if any, influence upon Milton and says that Milton's patristic references were all general or that he had gleaned them from another thinker such as Erasmus.It was into this controversy that Woodhouse entered with the quotation referred to above.

Single-influence works have also been produced in recent years, some tracing one particular author's influence upon the -15-

eclectic Milton, others arguing that Milton assumed one person as 31 a particular source. Irene Samuel's Plato and Milton (1947), Peter

Amadeus Fiore's dissertation The Augustinianism in Milton's Paradise

Lost (1960),and Kathleen Hartwell's Lactantius and Milton (1929)33

represent the former group; Joseph Moody McDill's Milton and the

Pattern of Calvinism (1939),3^ Harry F. Robins' If This Be Heresy:

A Study of Milton and Origen (1963),33 ancj George C. Taylor's

Milton's Use of DuBartas (1934)36 characterize the latter group.

Hanford's earlier admonition still holds: Milton was an eclectic

thinker whose intellect ranged over the vast body of scholarship

with which his schooling and his extensive reading familiarized

him; at the same time, he was an independent, stubborn man who

genuinely felt that he had an obligation to report his conclusions

and their rationale to a waiting world.

Some previous scholarship had dealt with Milton's references

to the Patristics. John Paul Pritchard's Cornell thesis, "The

Influence of the Fathers Upon Milton with Especial Reference to

Augustine" (1925), laid out the scope of the references to the vast

number of early Church Fathers mentioned in Milton's works.3?

Hanford's article, "The Chronology of Milton's Private Studies"

(1921), set down the schedule of Milton's Horton reading which 38 contained numerous Fathers. Neither of the above works attempted

any sustained analysis of influence, however. Hartwell's book contains an excellent introductory appraisal of Milton's reading of and his attitude toward the Church Fathers.39 -16-

Thus, the present study results from a number of predecessors, but none of them has applied to Milton's Trinity the Ante-Nicene

Fathers whose works Milton read thoroughly over a nearly three year period and whose major concern was the development of a working concept of the Godhead. Milton's doctrine evolved because he read those Fathers, and that doctrine plays a vital role in his poetic and polemic works. This, then, is the goal of the present work.

Toward this end, the first chapter will consider the contri­ bution of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the prevailing doctrine of the Trinity and to Milton's doctrine of the Trinity. Chapter two will analyze Milton's doctrine of God as it appears to be influ­ enced by his patristic reading; chapter three will deal with his doctrine of the Son; chapter four will deal with the Holy Spirit.

These chapters will show that Milton's doctrine of the Trinity was most significantly influenced by his reading of those Church

Fathers who lived during and/or before the fourth century A.D., while the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was still in gestation. -17-

Footnotes-Introduction

1. John Milton, John Milton: Complete Poems and Major Prose, Merritt Y. Hughes, ed. (Indianapolis: Odyssey Press, 1957), p. 43.

2. John Milton, "Of Reformation Touching Church Discipline in England," in The Works of John Milton, F.A. Patterson, ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1931), III, Pt. 1, 76. This edition will be referred to henceforth as Works.

3. Works, III, Pt. 1, 146.

4. Of course, the diminutive term "less" applies only in degree, but Milton's final Trinity is one in which the Godhead is unequally weighted toward the Father.

5. William Riley Parker, Milton: A Biography (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), I, 143-82. This work serves as a general source throughout. After Milton began to speed up his reading pro­ gram, he gave a quick reading, presumably without doing thorough translations, of the later councils, the medieval period, and the Reformation. After completing his Church history, he turned to secular history, especially English.

6. Parker, p. 148.

7. William B. Hunter, Jr., "Further Definitions: Milton's Theological Vocabulary," in Bright Essence: Studies in Milton's Theology, William B. Hunter, Jr., ed. (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1971), p. 19.

8. Harris Francis Fletcher, The Intellectual Development of John Milton (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1961), II, pp. 90-91.

9. Henry Bettenson, ed., Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), pp. 33-34.

10. Documents, pp. 36-37.

11. John Milton, Complete Prose Works of John Milton, Maurice Kelley, ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973), VI, 280. This volume contains De Doctrina Christiana and all future references to this title will be to this volume.

12. Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity (New York: Harper and Row, 1953), p. 807. -18-

13. The Book of Common Prayer (New York: Church Pension Fund, 1945), p. 603.

14. A.S .P . Woodhouse, The Heavenly Muse: A Preface to Milton, Hugh MacCallum, ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972), p. 175.

15. One school has argued that Milton flirted with the Arian heresy, others that Milton was essentially orthodox. (See discussion above.) Many critics have attempted to assess sole influences upon Milton, but none of these latter critics has developed what might be called a "school" of thought. My view is that several influences affected Milton and the discerning scholar needs to discover the appropriate formula for those influences.

16. James Thorpe, ed., Milton Criticism: Selections From Four Centuries (1950; rpt. New York: Collier, 1969), p. 10.

17. Thorpe, p. 18.

18. James Holly Hanford, A Milton Handbook (New York: F.S. Crofts, 1926, p. 185.

19. Hanford, A Milton Handbook, p. 180.

20. Hanford, Handbook, p. 185.

21. Arthur Sewell, A Study of Mil ton1s Christian Doctrine (London: Oxford University Press, 1939), pp. 8-10.

22. Maurice Kelley, This Great Argument: A Study of Milton's 'De Doctrina Christiana' as £ Gloss Upon 'Paradise Lost' (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1941), pp. 69-70.

23. Kelley, This Great Argument, pp. 195-99.

24. Albert J. Th. Eisenring, Milton's 'De Doctrina Christiana': An Historical Introduction and Critical Analysis (Fribourg: Society of St. Paul, 1946), p. 115.

25. Arthur Barker, Milton and the Puritan Dilemma (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1942).

26. William B. Hunter, Jr., "Milton's Arianism Reconsidered," HTR, 52 (1959), 9-35; Maurice Kelley, "Milton's Arianism Again Reconsidered," HTR, 54 (1961), 195-205; C.A. Patrides, "Milton and Arianism," JHI, 25 (1964), 423-29.

27. Hunter, "Milton's Theological Vocabulary," p. 25. -19-

28. William B. Hunter, Jr., ed., Bright Essence: Studies in Milton's Theology (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1971). Their study has not appropriately been accepted yet, especially by Kelley who stubbornly rejects their arguments without sufficient refutation, in my judgment.

29. Kelley, Milton's Prose, VI, 71. See also C.A. Patrides's open letter responding to Kelley's edition: "An Open Letter on the Yale Edition of De Doctrina Christiana," Milton Quarterly, 7 (October, 1973), pp. 72-74. Kelley's insistence on Milton's Arianism seems to have mellowed somewhat in his Yale Intro­ duction.

30. Kelley, Milton's Prose, VI, 72.

31. Irene Samuel, Plato and Milton (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1947).

32. Peter Amadeus Fiore, The Augustinianism in Milton's Paradise Lost, Diss. London 1960.

33. Kathleen Ellen Hartwell, Lactantius and Milton (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929).

34. Joseph Moody McDill, Milton and the Pattern of Calvinism (1938; rpt. Folcroft, Pa: Folcroft Press, 1969).

35. Harry F. Robins, If This Be Heresy: A Study of Mil ton and Origen (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1963).

36. George Coffin Taylor, Milton's Use of DuBartas (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1934).

37. John Paul Pritchard, "The Influence of the Fathers Upon Milton With Especial Reference to Augustine," Diss. Cornell 1925.

38. James Holly Hanford, "The Chronology of Milton's Private Studies," PMLA, 36 (1921), 251-314.

39. Hartwell, Lactantius and Milton, pp. 3-18. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AND ITS ROLE IN MILTON'S EMERGING TRINITY

Early Development of the Trinity

The early Christian Church developed a unique concept of the inter-relationship of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. It was this unique doctrine which significantly influenced Milton's conception of the Trinity after he had spent many months reading the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Formulation of the Trinity helped the early Church understand the dynamics of its own motivating force, indeed, its very reason for existence. This inter-relationship was variously understood and this resulted in some of the gravest threats to the integrity and strength of the new body of believers left behind after Christ's resurrection. For the Church, the

Trinity doctrine became so enigmatic that it became known to later theologians as the "Sphynx of Divinitie." Despite its ambiguity, the doctrine took on significance when the Church encountered

Greek philosophy with its use of terms such as "logos," "demiurge,"

"philos," and others, as ways of understanding the origin and meaning of life. Even without the heavily philosophical influence of the Eastern Church, the doctrine of the Trinity endured tenuously because the Scriptures did not specifically mandate the Trinity as an element of the Christian faith.

The doctrine of the Trinity had to await the organization of the Church for its inception, and it had to survive the early struggles within the Church before that doctrine could become integrated into the faith of Christians.^ Consensus on doctrines, -21- i.e., orthodoxy, developed with agonizing slowness. Major debates concerning the nature of Christ, the importance of the Old Testament, the acceptability of works which came to be known as the "New

Testament," the relationship between custom and canon, the authority of the bishops, and other issues threatened periodically to tear the fledgling Church into factions. In order to avoid that pos­ sibility, the leaders of the Church, at the call of the Emperor

Constantine, met at Nicaea in 325 A.D. to reach a common position on how the Church should think about Christ since several differing notions of his composition and mission beckoned for the loyalty of

Christians. Yet not until the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 A.D. did the Church gain a degree of doctrinal harmony, and not until after the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) did a generally accepted orthodoxy prevail.

As slight as the nuance may be, two different views of the

Trinity necessitated the first two Ecumenical Councils. Nicaea resulted because the Sabellian and Arian controversies challenged

Christian consensus,^ Origen, one of the first systematic

Christian theologians, emphasized Christ's co-existence with, but separation from, God, the Creator. Yet another school of thought visualized the Son as the Logos or Word from Greek philosophy; this school made the Son-Logos co-eternal with the Father, who at the creation, had addressed the Logos: "Let us make man in our image." (Genesis 1: 26). For this school, the Son-Logos is the referent also in John's Gospel: "When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word -22-

was. The Word, then, was with God at the beginning, and through him

all things came to be, no single thing was created without him."

(John 1: 1-2 New English Bible). Yet Origen implied that Christ,

although co-eternal, was a creation of God and was the first-begotten,

a time must have existed when the Son did not exist. One of Origeh's

successors, Arius of Alexandria, stated that "The Son has a begin­

ning but that God is without beginning." Arius therefore concluded

that the Son is not a part of God.^ Sabellianism, also known as

"Patripassianism," had earlier considered that no difference

existed between and among the Trinity: when Christ died, so also

did God. Sabellius had held that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

are three modes or aspects of God, much as the sun is bright, hot,

and round.so rigid were the differences that the Emperor called

the Nicene Council in an effort to avoid a suicidal split in the

Church.

But Nicaea managed to achieve only a momentary pause in the

controversy, although it did state the Church's official theological position. At Nicaea, one young advocate of the conservative position was Athanasius, who was to survive many years of intra-

Church struggles and to write the Creed which finally settled the

Trinitarian argument. The main contribution of Nicaea was its insistence upon the separate existences of the Trinity and its description of the Son as of the same substance as the Father.

It also supplied the clause, "came down and was made flesh," which implied that Christ had been with God and was not subordinate to Him. Thus, through the incarnation of the Son in Jesus Christ, -23- men could share in his Sonship.^ Nicaea specifically anathematized those who stated that "There was a time when he, the Son of God, was not" and "He did not exist before he was begotten" and "He was made of nothing" and "He is of other substance or essence from the

Father."? Nicaea dictated as a reference for Christ the term

"homoousia" which meant "of one substance with the Father," al­ though a later minor council excluded it in favor of the Arian O term "homois," i.e., "similar to the Father."

The Second Ecumenical Council reinstituted the Nicene position, especially the concept "homoousia," and it added to the creed some wording which expanded the emphasis on the Holy Spirit when it added:

I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to corned

The entire statement, then, tended to end the controversy about the relationship of the Persons of the Trinity. The Church pro­ ceeded into a controversy about how much and what part of Jesus was God and what part was human; but the Apollinarian and Nestorian heresies lie outside the range of current concern.'*'®

This was the same tenuous,fluctuating doctrine which Milton as a young adult read in its various stages of development.

Milton and the Ante-Nicene Fathers

Milton's reading of the Ante-Nicene Fathers was far from casual; in fact, it was systematic and moderately intense. A -24-

desire for self-cultivation motivated him to undertake his Horton

reading program. He obviously did not need to work in order to maintain himself economically, so he could do as he chose. Never

one to while away precious study time, Milton undertook an ambitious reading program, since he thought

it was the part of a well-learned man to have read diligently the ancient stories of the Church, and to be no stranger in the volumes of the Fathers.H

Some confusion exists concerning his own plans for his life fol­ lowing his college education. His father seems to have expected a Church career for him, but the younger Milton, while not opposed to this suggestion, appears to have been unhurried. In the process, though, he undertook a reading program which was very influential

•I 9 later on. Young Milton began his reading program with the 1544

Greek edition of Ecclesiasticae Historiae Autores, which he read in its original language. His reading was thorough, even ex­ haustive. His intimate familiarity with Greek, Latin, and Hebrew is beyond question.^3 fhe edition which Milton read contained the Church histories of several writers, beginning with the most famous, Eusebius of Caesarea, the irenic bishop who worded the first Nicene Creed. Milton found that these tomes contained general history with occasional documentary evidence which had been available to the author. Milton's reading produced opposite reactions in him; on the one hand, he admired the pious lives of some Fathers, such as Cyprian, and he noticed in their testimony

"the remaining sparks of original truth."1^ Generally, he came to consider the period between Christ and Constantine as pure and -25- close to perfection because he called them "the ancientest and most virgin times."IOn the other hand, Milton read enough to frus­ trate and disgust him thoroughly; and he came to realize that

"those purer times were corrupt, and their books corrupted soon after." He observed "how corruption and apostasy crept in by degrees."iO His increasingly negative attitude came to expression in his question,

Who is ignorant of the foul errors, the ridiculous wresting of Scripture, the heresies, the vanities thick sown through the volumes of Justin Martyr, Clemens, Origen, Tertullian, and others of eldest times?!?

Before he started a quick reading of the rest of Church history,

Milton complemented his reading of selected Fathers who appealed to him. He apparently followed his Renaissance training, which encouraged the reading of original works from authentic texts in the writer's original language. Parker concludes that when Milton went to these individual Fathers' works, "he made discoveries that coloured his future attitudes and led to some important intellectual convictions."18 During this time, Milton read the following works:

Ignatius's Epistolae,19 Justin Martyr's Tryphon and Apologia Pro

Christianis,20 Clement of Alexandria's Stromata and Paedogogus,21

Tertullian's De Spectaculis, De Jejuniis, and Apologetica,22

Cyprian's Tractatus de Disciplina et Habitu Virginus, Epistolae, 23 De Spectaculis and De Singularitate Clericorum, Lactantius's 9 / De Ira Dei, De Opicifico Dei and Divinae Institutiones, and 2 5 Eusebius's Vita Constantini. In addition he read specific works of two other Fathers, but he did not record his exact schedule: -26- he read some of the works of Irenaeus, and he also read Origen's works because he refers to Origen five times in the anti-episcopal tracts.Thus, we can conclude that Milton did read the major works of these Ante-Nicene Fathers who contributed the most to the development of the Trinity doctrine up to Nicaea.

Milton's Trinitarian References

An examination of Milton's specific references to the Trinity will facilitate a comparison and/or contrast between Milton's

Trinity and the Nicene Trinity. As the above pages illustrated,

Milton's concept of the Trinity changed from a typical, unexamined one into one that was unique and sophisticated. An additional factor in understanding Milton's notion of the Trinity is the apparent discrepancy between his poetic and his prose references.

Nowhere in his poetry does he use the term "Trinity." Indeed, the term itself drew but infrequent use by Milton except in his 27 theological treatise. Yet another factor was the demandsoff the different literary genres, e.g., prose allows greater discourse and debate, whereas, poetry permits compact comparisons and al­ lusions. The poetic style of Paradise Lost precluded abstract, philosophical discourses; it demanded succinct, personified comparisons so that the plot structure could develop and the poetic lines and feet could be smooth and harmonious. The prose essays allowed Milton to offer his own opinions and experiences which would advance his thesis and/or defend himself from scurrilous attack. His avowed purpose in writing De Doctrina was to -27-

make people understand how much it is in the interests of the Christian religion that men should be free not only to sift and winnow any doctrine, but also openly to give their opinions of it and even to write about it, according to what each believes. ?

Milton's literary task, then, affected his Trinitarian references and we can expect more of those references in the theological treatise since "Trinity" is a term allied to theology rather than poetry.^9

In Paradise Lost, Milton uses the Persons of the Trinity separately, never employing the term itself. His references to

God are many and they are usually appositional references or are quotations which describe God's attributes: "Eternal Providence"

(I, 24), "Almighty Power"(I, 44), "Omnipotent to Arms" (I, 49),

"Eternal Justice" (I, 70), "Creator of All" (III, 98), "Parent of Good" (V, 153), "Power Divine" (V, 159), "World's Great Author"

(V, 188), "Heavenly Power" (VIII, 379), "Universal Lord" (VIII,

376). Other entries exist, but these should suffice to illustrate the general tendency that the author followed. He further elabor­ ates on God's qualities with special attention to His role as Father he conceives of God as supreme monarch (I, 43); he says that removal from God is the greatest punishment (I, 74); God is omniscient

(II, 188); God has foreknowledge (III, 113). In the "Song of

Praise of God" Milton has the Son praise God:

Thee Father first they sung Omnipotent, Immutable, Immortal, Infinite, Eternal King; thee Author of all being, Fountain of Light, Thyself invisible Amidst the glorious brightness where thou sit'st Thron'd inaccessible, but when thou shad'st The full blaze of thy beams, and through--a cloud -28-

Drawn round about thee like a radiant Shrine Dark with excessive bright thy skirts appear, Yet dazzle Heav'n, that brightest Seraphim Approach not, but with both wings veil their eyes. (Ill, 372-83)

This list covers many of God's qualities which make him supreme:

. . . who am alone From all Eternity, for none I know Second to me or like, equal much less. (VIII, 405-07)

God relates to man as Creator, having created man in His image.

Man's existence imago dei causes a separation between man and the beasts: God in speaking to Adam says:

And find thee knowing not of Beasts alone, Which thou has rightly nam'd, but of thyself, Expressing well the spirit within thee free, My Image, not imparted to the Brute, Whose fellowship therefore unmeet for thee Good reason was thou freely shouldst dislike And be so minded still. . . . (VIII, 438-44)

Milton writes further that God created the reason which should guide man and which should reach and maintain rightness:

But God left free the Will, for what obeys Reason, is free, and Reason he made right But bid her well beware, and still erect, Lest by some fair appearing good surpris'd She dictate false, and misinform the Will To do what God expressly hath forbid. (IX, 250-55)

God knows what man does and thinks, but God is not vindictive, suspicious or cunning; rather, he is wise and just:

. . . for what can scape the Eye of God all-seeing, or deceive his Heart. Omniscient, who in all things wise and just? (X, 4-6)

Milton's God is ever present with man, his progeny. God's presence should serve as a comforter and solace: -29-

Yet doubt not but in Valley and in Plain God is as here, and will be found alike Present, and of his presence many a sign Still following thee, still compassing thee round With goodness and paternal Love, his Face Express, and of his steps the track Divine. (XI, 349-54)

In Paradise Regained, as well as in the lines mentioned above from Paradise Lost, God, as a dramatic character, appears theo­ retical, somehow unconvincing, ethereal, with qualities humans find difficult to grasp. Milton's task was, indeed, a difficult one which prophets, believers, and theologians alike had approached only under strong inducement. The act of describing the Son came easier to those, including Milton, who attempted such verbal portraits.

God becomes the Father when he created Christ and sent Him to become man. It is only when Milton needs to consider God in relationship with man or other extensions of His creation that

God takes on other attributes. Then, the concept "God" becomes specific and then the other theories of the Trinity become impor­ tant. Christ is the Heir in the "Nativity Ode," in which Christ is "Son of heaven’s eternal King" (Works, I, 1). In Paradise

Lost, Milton's references to Christ, the Son, exhibit the range of Milton's definition of Christ:

. . . Son of God, In whom the fulness dwells of love divine. ... (Ill, 224-25)

God addresses the Son:

Nor shalt thou by descending to assume Man's nature, lessen or degrade thine own. Because thou hast, though thron'd in highest bliss -30-

Equal to God, and equally enjoying God-like fruition, quitted all to save A world from utter loss, and hast been found By Merit more than Birthright Son of God, Found worthiest to be so by being Good, Far more than Great or High; because in thee Love hath abounded more than Glory abounds, Therefore thy Humiliation shall exalt With thee thy Manhood also to this Throne. . . , (III, 303-14)

Christ was first Son of God before he became Son of Man. Christ is equal to God (V, 835); therefore, any disobedience to Christ serves also as disobedience to God (V, 612). God chooses His Son to judge man (X, 55), thus the Son becomes known then as "viceregent

Son" (V, 56). Christ's whole mission in the Incarnation is to restore mankind to God's grace (X, 645).

Christ as Jesus, the Incarnated Son, becomes in Paradise

Regained the "perfect Man, by merit called my Son" (I, 166).30

Satan seems confused by Christ as Son, and his confusion becomes part of Satan's sin because he refuses to recognize Christ's special status. Satan speaks to Christ in these words:

Thenceforth I thought thee worth my nearer view And narrower Scrutiny, that I might learn In what degree or meaning thou art call'd The Son of God, which bears no single sense; The Son of God I also am, or was, And if I was, I am; relation stands; All men are Sons of God; yet thee I thought In some respect for higher so declar's. (IV, 514-21)

That Milton's definition of Christ remained central to his thought can be seen in his 1647 marginal "Notes on Paul Best" from Mysteries Discovered. In this note, Milton responds to

Satan's confusion: -31-

But he is called the only-begotten Son of God, because he is manifestly the only Son of God not only because he was begotten by the Divine power of the Virgin, but still more because he surpasses all the other sons of God both in a most perfect resemblance to God, and especially in the highest degree of favor with him, so indeed that the others, when compared with Christ, scarcely deserve to be called the sons of God. (I John:l: 5) (Works, XVIII, 344)

In this same marginal note, Milton lists four reasons why Christ

is called Son of God: "The first is, because he was conceived by

the Holy Spirit, and so had no Father save God." Then Christ was

sanctified and sent into the world by the Father. God displays paternal love. Third, God raised him from the dead and begot him

a second time. "The fourth reason is, because God made him exactly

like unto himself, not only in immortality, but also in power

and authority, when he appointed him a heavenly and eternal Priest

and King" (Works, XVIII, 343). This same note, incidentally,

displays Milton's awareness of the early Church's statement of

faith:

And of such a being, indeed, God had by his prophets given the promise of old, and that such Christ was, is declared by that symbol of faith, usually called the Apostles Creed, which in common with us, all Christians receive. (Works, XVIII, 342-43. Italics mine.)

Throughout his works, Milton referred more often to Christ than to the other Persons of the Trinity, whereas Milton's age referred more often to Christ than it did to God, certainly more

than to the Holy Spirit. The Reformation generally did not consider the doctrine of the Trinity as crucial to the faith as had other periods of Christian history. References to the Holy -32-

Spirit, and generally to the three Persons as the Trinity, received

scant attention from John Calvin. Milton, however, found the

concept of the Holy Spirit useful, and his doctrine stands some­

what at variance with other theologians. For Milton, the Holy

Spirit inspires the lives of all true believers. Each must follow

the Holy Spirit's guidance (Works, VI, 141). In Paradise Lost,

Milton does not use the term "Holy Spirit"; those references to

the Spirit consider it as the extension of the Father and the Son.

As the Son goes forth from heaven to create the earth, God sends

the Spirit along:

My overshadowing Spirit and might with thee I send along, ride forth, and bid the Deep Within appointed bounds be Heav'n and Earth. (VII, 165-67)

The Spirit participated in the creation as a causative agent:

. . . Darkness profound Cover'd th' Abyss: but on the wat'ry calm His brooding wings the Spirit of God outspread, And vital virtue infus'd and vital warmth Throughout the fluid Mass, but downward purg'd The black tartareous cold Infernal dregs Adverse to life; then founded, then conglob'd Like things to like, the rest to several place Disparted, and between spun out the Air, And Earth self-balanc't on her Centre hung. (VII, 233-42)

Nearly all of Milton's references to the Spirit germinate from Matthew 3: 16-17, which describes the descent of the Spirit as a dove at Christ's baptism:

Heaven open'd, and in likeness of a Dove The Spirit descended, while the Father's voice From Heaven'n pronounc'd him his beloved Son. (Paradise Regained, I, 30-32) -33-

At the Ascension of Christ, this same Spirit becomes the Comforter

to all mankind, thus enabling mankind to learn the way to salvation:

Be sure they will, said th' Angel; buy from Heav'n Hee to his own a Comforter wil send, The promise of the Father, who shall dwell His Spirit within them, and the Law of Faith Working through love, upon their hearts shall write, To guide them in all truth, and also arm With spiritual Armor, able to resist Satan’s assaults, and quench his fiery darts, . . .

. . . For the Spirit Pour'd first on his Apostles, whom he sends To evangelize the Nations, then to all Baptiz'd, shall them with wondrous gifts endue To speak all Tongues, and do all Miracles, As did this Lord before them. . . (XII, 485-92; 497-502)

This conception of the Spirit as the continuation of the vital

inspiration used by God to address Israel through the prophets,

then to beckon man through the person of Jesus Christ, and finally

to guide man after Christ's resurrection appears to be completely

orthodox and scripturally based. Milton's doctrine of the Holy

Spirit, at least in his epics, then, is not unorthodox.

But in turning to De Doctrina, Milton's Trinity reflects his

tendency to assert his own unique theology. He was willing to risk disagreement, or to draw the label "unorthodox" if his reading of the Scriptures persuaded him that received doctrine

somehow had grown away from what he considered to be original

truth. The theological treatise allowed Milton significant and

sufficient room to expand the three doctrines which were examined above. Milton was also free of dramatic requirements or of the requirements of poetic form. In DDC he was free to write down -34-

the grounds of his faith and to justify and to defend those grounds--

much as other Renaissance Christians felt obliged to do. Milton writes in the preface of the treatise:

As it happens, however, I am one of those who recognize God's word alone as the rule of faith; so I shall state quite openly what seems to me much more clearly deducible from the text of scripture than the currently accepted doctrine. (DDC, p. 203)

This last statement suggests Milton's attitude toward doctrine: it may have been received variously since each age determines acceptable doctrine. Thus, what is "currently accepted," later may be re­ viewed or., even completely rejected. His reading of the Ante-Nicene

Fathers may have contributed to this attitude since the Apostolic period witnessed much fluctuation in accepted doctrine, and the

Church Fathers did not withhold their thinking while controversy swirled.

Eight times in the treatise (as compared with no references in the poetic works), Milton uses the word "Trinity." He implies that the doctrine can be proved in the Scriptures when he states that

"Rome denies that the doctrine of Trinity can be proved from the

Bible" (DDC, p. 203). In this regard, he elsewhere mentions that most scholars hastily adopt their whole Trinitarian doctrine from

John 8: 16-19 (DDC, p. 298). Milton had read enough Church history to understand that the foundations of the doctrine were not as solid as many others. He concludes that the sacred writers had no position on the Trinity (DDC, p. 288). He insists on separating the Persons because he objects to any effort to construe the Father as meaning the whole essence of the Trinity (DDC, p. 264), yet he -35-

candidly reports that at one time in the past, he believed that the

three Persons of the Trinity were united in one nature (DDC, p. 421).

He concludes his references by stating that "Theologians are of

the opinion that the incarnation is by far the greatest mystery

of our religion, next to that of the three persons existing in

one divine essence" (DDC, p. 420).

Yet like his poetic treatment of the Trinity, the treatise

considers the Father, Son and Spirit separately, since, as Milton

concludes, the Scriptures only imply the Trinity and the Fathers can not reach consensus. Milton uses the first four chapters to

discuss his understanding of God and uses basically a rational

approach in discussing God's existence. He carefully blends his reading of the Scriptures with his own logic and with the evidence

of Church history. Even though he states that Scripture alone

should guide the Christian and that man's reason can be erroneous,

Milton's concept of "right reason" prompted by the Spirit caused him to blend Scripture and reason (DDC, pp. 130-31). In this regard, he argues that the existence of reason also proves the existence of God: "But he has left so many signs of himself in the human mind, no sane person can fail to realize that he exists"

(DDC, p. 130). Perfection and beauty in creation further prove that God had a definite purpose in creation. God is a "supreme creative being," an "almighty power," a "true supreme power"

(DDC, pp. 130-31). Conscience or right reason further proves

God's existence: "If there were no God, there would be no dividing line between right and wrong." (DDC, p. 131). -36-

God does exist, asserts Milton, and he rules and governs

everything, and everyone must one day render a full account to God

for all actions. Furthermore, the history of the Jews proves

God's existence since the Jews have been treated as the prophets

had prophesied that they would be (DDC, p. 137). God can be under­

stood and visualized by the human mind because God "has brought

himself down to our level expressly to prevent our being carried

beyond the reach of human comprehension" (DDC, p. 133).

The attributes of God show his essential nature. First, He

is the only true God. At His most simple nature, God is a Spirit

(DDC, p. 140). God is immense, infinite, eternal, immutable,

incorruptible, omniscient, omnipotent, singular. He possesses

life, intellect, and will (DDC, pp. 142-52). In discussing God's

spirituality, Milton defines terms which have plagued the Trini­

tarian debate; and his definitions help explain his own unique

concept of the Trinity:

The word hypostasis, which is variously translated substance, subsistence, or person, is nothing but that most perfect essence by which God exists from himself, in himself and through himself. For neither substance nor subsistence can add anything to an utterly complete essence, and the word person, in its more recent use, means any individual thing gifted with intelligence, while hypostasis means not the thing itself but the essence of the thing in the abstract. (DDC, pp. 141-42)

God operates in creation with absolute wisdom and freedom.

God knows no necessity. But for the present purpose, God exists as the first person of the Trinity because he chose to become the

Father of Christ. "God could certainly have refrained from the -37-

act of generation and yet remained true to his own essence, for

he stands in no need of propagation" (DDC, p. 209). The Son exists

numerically apart from the Father; i.e., they exist separately as

completely distinguishable beings. Milton rejects the notion that

even though God and Son are numerically distinct that they were

essentially the same, hence only God. Two Gods do not exist. The

Son is distinct from God. Christ's mission on earth was to reveal

God to man, since otherwise God would be completely unknown to man.

The Son testifies that He is not God and that the one true God

created all things.

Milton doubts the Scripture which the orthodox view of the

Trinity rests upon (I John 5: 7: "there are three witnesses in

heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three

are one"). He believed that this verse does not appear in all

versions of the Scripture. Nonetheless, he argues that three Gods

do not exist as equals; therefore, he reasons, "But he who is not essentially one with God the Father cannot be the Father's equal.

The Son shares the Father's power and authority, but the Son is

subordinate to the Father even though at times the Son is called

God and even Johovah" (DDC, p. 233).

The Son was created by God before the creation of the earth.

Some had argued that the Son has eternally co-existed with the

Father. Milton argues from John I: "In the beginning was the word, and the Word was with, 'that is, 'in company with God, and the Word was God. In the beginning,' it says, not from eternity"

(DDC, pp. 238-39). The Son receives his name from the Father -38-

(p. 260). At the incarnation, the Son became fully human, yet He remained fully divine. On earth Jesus Christ had full communication with the Father and maintained, even if he did not always use, all

of his powers as the divine Son of God. In his earthly life,

Christ always acknowledged the greater power of the Father (DDC, pp. 264-75). Milton believes that when Christ had completed his mediational role as "God on earth," he could have resumed his

original glory as the only begotten Son, but even then he was

subject to the Father,(p. 278).

At the end of his chapter on the Son, Milton again acknowledges his awareness of Church Fathers and of the Church Councils when he writes: "This was the faith of the saints concerning the Son of God; this also the celebrated confession of that faith; this alone is taught, is acceptable to God, and holds promise of eternal salvation" (pp. 278-79). Then he specifically mentions the

Apostles' Creed as the most ancient and the most widely accepted creed which the Church possesses (p. 280). The Ante-Nicene Church weighed heavily upon Milton's Christological thought.

In Milton's theological treatise, the Third Person receives less attention than the first Two, largely because the Bible says little about it: "The Bible, however, says nothing about what the Holy Spirit is like, how it exists, or where it comes from--a warning to us not to be too hasty in our conclusion" (DDC, p. 281).

The term "Spirit" and/or "Holy Spirit" Milton traces in the Old

Testament, where it means the power and virtue of the Father.

Sometimes it means an angel, sometimes the spirit of truth, sometimes -39-

God’s spiritual gifts, sometimes the Father's power and might

(pp. 282-83). But according to Milton, the Third Person more often means a divine impulse, light, voice, or word sent from above, either through Christ, or through the actual person of the Holy

Spirit, or its symbol (p. 285). The Spirit was created after the

Son:

The Holy Spirit, since he is a minister of God, and therefore a creature, was created, that is produced, from the substance of God, not by natural necessity, but by the free will of the agent, maybe before the foundations of the world were laid, but after the Son to whom he is far inferior, was made. (DDC, p. 298)

Although the Spirit has some of God's powers, it is definitely inferior to the First two Persons; the Third is a vehicle, a tool, of the first Two.

Milton's Ante-Nicene Trinity

With the above extended review of Milton's utterances on the

Trinity taken alongside his earliest orthodox references quoted in the Introduction, we can observe the extent to which his doctrine grew in complexity and depth. And as his doctrine changed, so also did he draw near to heterodoxy and heresy; but Milton's doctrine was uniquely his own, drawn after close and careful reading of the Scriptures. Milton was not easily swayed toward or away from any position merely by the esteem or reputation of any scholar. He reached his own conclusions, and those conclusions often possessed apparent similarities with those termed "anti- trinitarian," i.e., positions at variance with those held by the historic, orthodox Christian Church. -40-

Was Milton an anti-trinitarian? This question has exercised

scholars for decades. Some thinkers have failed to understand that

theology oftentimes is a matter of emphasis and have blown small

discrepancies out of proportion, while others have not reacted to

the nuances which indicate a doctrinal shift. Milton wrote his

theological work as an answer to the inner compulsion to think

through those points of faith about which he cared most deeply.

If other Christians found his theology convincing, he would have

been pleased; but in the final analysis, De Doctrina Christiana was more meaningful to the author than to any reader. Milton's tempera­ ment and training uniquely prepared him for the authorship of a

systematic theology.31 His station in life and his literary

ambitions, however, prevented him from producing a magnum opus like that of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther or Calvin. His curiosity led him to analyze the Trinity, a doctrine of considerable ambiguity as we have described above; Milton's knowledge of the original languages, and his earlier reading, along with his widely respected knowledge of the Scriptures, led him into his own unique position concerning the "Triune God." Some of those positions are merely individual understandings, some are orthodox, and some are heterodox.

As the succeeding chapters shall demonstrate, his reading of the

Ante-Nicene Fathers aided him in arriving at these diverse positions.

Toward that end, some specific analyses of Milton's trinitarian idiosyncrasies will allow the possibility of a closer application of the Church Fathers. First Milton emphasizes the indivisibility -41- and the incomprehensibility of God more than he does the other attributes of God. Milton understands God as divine unity; hence, he finds it difficult to extend God into the Second and Third

Persons of the Trinity. Many theologians have emphasized various facets of God. Calvin, for instance, underscored the judgmental and the paternal attributes of God. Calvin's God, then, becomes a despot--firm, harsh, acidic. Arminius emphasized the omniscience of God, who forgives and loves all, thus cannot bear to hold sinful man accountable for his transgressions. But Milton's God possesses all attributes of deity; thus, Milton finds great difficulty in distributing all of those attributes to the other Persons. This emphasis on God's incomprehensibility impinges strongly on Milton's doctrine of the function of the Son. Next, Milton's translation of the Latin and Greek terms ousia and substratum produces con­ siderable confusion with the orthodox translations. Milton defined the Trinity as either three essences or three hypostases in one substance derived from the Father. Augustine reverses these terms: the Trinity is one essence with three substances. Milton used the terms essence and hypostasis synonymously, but Augustine made a distinction between these terms. Considerable confusion results.33

Milton, however, went back to the earliest definitions for these terms, which he found in Tertullian; consequently, Milton defined them in what, on first glance, appears as a heterodox fashion, but he used them consistently and historically.

Because of his emphasis on God's incomprehensibility and because of his re-translation of the key terms mentioned above, -M-

Milton's concept of the Son appears to many scholars as sub-

ordinationalist. Three points characterize Milton's doctrine of

the Son: first, the Son and his Apostles testify to the Oneness

of God; second, the Son shares traits with the Father because the

Father kindly granted these gifts to the Son; and third, the Son

and his Apostles testify that the Father is greater than the Son in all things (DDC, p. 223). God's unity does not allow inconsistencies to occur; the Son can do nothing which would be inconsistent with or contradictory to the Father; hence, the Son is lesser than the qt Father. J The Persons of the Trinity are numerically separate, but one writer argues that Milton's concept of the one, unipersonal

God precludes creation: the Son is second only to the Father.

Milton's treatment of the Holy Spirit has not drawn as many charges of heresy or of unique interpretation as his treatment of the other two Persons. Nonetheless, to Milton, the Spirit, because it was a creature of God and because it shared only some of God's attributes and since it has not had the relationship with the

Father which the Son did, does not deserve the allegiance from man which the Father and the Son command.

Conclusion

Milton did not believe that his Trinitarian doctrine should be ranked as heretical; after all, he did not reject the Trinity.

As a matter of course, he termed each Person God (deus) and he said that each specifically shared in the divine substance. Further, he concluded that each was one in love, communion, spirit, and glory.36 Milton re-defined the Trinity. Despite his avowals of -43- orthodoxy, Milton's doctrine did take considerable liberties with the Trinity doctrine. Yet, his liberties were only those of excess, for he intends to be a logical, honest, devout Christian.

Over-zealousness was Milton's greatest fault--one which the modern reader easily forgives.3?

Milton's doctrinal liberties can be more easily comprehended when seen in the perspective of the Ante-Nicene Fathers who influ­ enced his notion of the individual Persons who compose the "Trinal

Unity." -44-

Footnotes-Chapter One

1. Latourette, pp. 112-92.

2. Jean Danielou and Henri Marrou, The First Hundred Years, trans. Vincent Cronin, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), pp. 343-53.

3. Danielou and Marrou, pp. 249-67.

4. Latourette, pp. 152-53.

5. Latourette, p. 144.

6. Latourette, p. 155.

7. Latourette, p. 156.

8. Latourette, p. 160. Although Arius and his position had been condemned, his ideas refused to die quietly. By 357, the Arians had found support at Court and at a series of regional councils and substituted "homois." Athanasius, the leader of the anti-Arian faction, was exiled periodically. One major complication between the Arian and Nicene groups which Milton found enlightening was their attitudes toward the state: the Arians believed that the Church should submit to the Emperor, while the Nicene group insisted on the authonomy of the Church The Arian group fragmented between 357 and 381 and their influence diminished.

9. Quoted by Latourette, p. 164.

10. The Apollinarian heresy said that only the rational element of Christ's nature had been assumed by the Logos. Christ's humanity was therefore relatively untouched by the Logos and this made Christ less than fully human-fully divine. The Nestorian heresy referred to the Virgin Mary as "Mother of Christ," rather than "Mother of God." This distinction appear esoteric, except underneath the term lay the failure of the Nestorians to understand Christ as fully divine. The orthodox term, "theotokos," meant "God-bearning." The logical impli­ cation of the Nestorian term was that Christ was only a super-prophet rather than "Immanuel," i.e., "God-with-us." See Latourette, pp. 165-67.

11. Works, III, 101.

12. Parker, p. 146. -45-

13. Fletcher, chapters 14-16, pp. 199-293.

14. Works, III, 101.

15. Works, III, 357.

16. Works, III, 101.

17. Works, III, 21.

18. Parker, p. 146.

19. Hanford, "Chronology of Milton's Private Studies," p. 264. Hanford identifies the text as that of the Geneva edition, published in 1623.

20. Hanford, "Chronology," p. 265. Milton used the Cologne edition of Opera published in 1636.

21. Hanford, "Chronology," p. 264. "Milton's references to Clement all fit the edition of the Opera published by Carolus Morellus, Paris, 1629, reissued in duplicate by Mathaeus Guillemot, Paris, 1641. These editions contain annotations by Fredericus Sylburgius and materials from other commentaries.

22. Hanford, "Chronology," pp. 264-65. "Milton cites the edition of Regaltius. This would be the first Regaltius edition, published at Paris, c. 1634, presumably identical in pagination with the second."

23. Hanford, "Chronology," p. 264.

24. Hanford, "Chronology," p. 266. "Of Milton's general famil­ iarity with Lactantius and of his large indebtedness to him there can be no doubt."

25. Hanford, "Chronology," p. 261.

26. Parker, p. 805.

27. No references exist in the concordance of Milton's poetry: William Ingram and Kathleen Swaim, eds., A Concordance to Milton's English Poetry (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), p. 605. The Columbia edition index lists one reference to the "Nativity Ode," quoted above, one to "Of True Religion, Heresy, Schism, Toleration," one to "Of Reformation," quoted above, one to "Art of Logic," and eight to the Christian Doctrine, considered below.

28. Milton,-Prose Works, VI, 122. -46-

29. C.A. Patrides, "The Godhead in Paradise Lost: Dogma or Drama? in Bright Essence: Studies in Milton's Theology, ed. William B. Hunter, (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1971), PP. 71-77.

30. This and all future references to Paradise Regained are to the Hughes edition cited in note 1 of the Introduction.

31. Harris F. Fletcher, The Intellectual Development of John Milton (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1956), I, pp. 264-92.

32. Woodhouse, p. 129.

33. n William B. Hunter, "Further Definitions: Milton's Theological Vocabulary," in Bright Essence, p. 18.

34. Woodhouse, pp. 167-68.

35. Albert J. Th. Eisenring, Milton's 'De Doctrina Christiana': An Historical Introduction and Critical Analysis (Fribourg: Society of St. Paul, 1946), p. 119.

36. Patrides, "Milton on Trinity," p. 4.

37. John Reesing, "The Materiality of God in Milton's '''De Doctrina Christiana'," HTR, 50 (July 1957), p. 172. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD, THE FATHER

Nicaea reaffirmed the belief of the Christian Church in "one

God, maker of heaven and earth." The Old Testament had waged a

continuing conflict against polytheism, and throughout Hebrew

history monotheism survived intact. The early Church struggled

against different brands of polytheism, so the First Ecumenical

Council formulated a statement designed to eradicate Gnostic

emanationism and Marcionite dualism; the Second Ecumenical Council

finalized that statement. By and large, the Ante-Nicene and Nicene

Fathers emphasized the oneness, the indivisibility, the superiority

of God, so as to disprove the heresies which originated largely

in Greek philosophy and which divided or compartmentalized God.

Milton's close reading of those Church Fathers who wrestled

with this reassertation of monotheism influenced his conception

of God so that his theology maintained a similar stress upon God's

indivisibility. This in turn created the Christological problem

for Milton concerning how Christ, the Son, could originate from

an indivisible Father without somehow dividing the Father, thus creating two Gods. Generally, Milton's reading of the Ante-Nicene

Fathers allowed him to investigate the various theories which

Nicaea considered. As we know, Milton stopped his thorough and individualized reading with Nicaea, though its controversies were not finally settled until fifty-six years later (381 A.D.). Thus

Milton paid close attention to the arguments, but noticed only generally the resolution of the debate. By and large, those early -48-

arguments did not consider God as the Father, the first Person of

the Trinity. Constantinople finally codified Trinitarianism. The early Apologists (Ignatius, Justin, Polycarp, Irenaeus) were all un-Trinitarian.*- Since Milton read with particularity the Trini­ tarian dialogue, we need to examine his doctrines for noticeable traces of his awarness of that dialogue in his own Trinitarian thinking. As $ shall attempt to demonstrate, Milton was not so much anti-Trinitarian as he was un-Trinitarian or pre-Trinitarian because that reading which he had done of the Church Fathers was largely reflective of the thinking of the Church before it had formulated a discernible Trinitarian doctrine. To this end, we will examine the contributions of Justin, Irenaeus, Clement,

Origen, Lactantius, and Eusebius.

Justin Martyr (188-165 A.D.)

Theologically, Justin emphasized the oneness and thé tran­ scendence of God, whose ineffability he saw as an extension of monotheism, because Yahweh had always avoided revealing His face.3

Thus the Old Testament writers had not been able to describe or to express God's appearance. Since God was unbegotten, no one else could name Him or describe Him, and Justin reasoned, the creature receives its name and identity from its creator. Justin's theology, strongly colored by platonizing stoicism, first intro­ duced the term "Logos" with its dual meaning: "logos" meaning knowledge or word in Greek, but "Logos" meaning God, the Word, the source of all knowledge. Justin used this term to mean both -49-

"Creative Word" and "Divine Reason."^ This Father shared common positions with Tatian, Athenagorus, and Theophilus; all four developed very similar ideas. Justin's view of God as ingenerate- was influenced by Tatian, who viewed God as the sole artificer of the cosmos. Theophilus said that God created all things from nothing as He willed; God was prior to all things, hence is their source. Athenagorus distinguished God from matter since matter is originate and perishable, whereas God is unoriginate and eternal.

Justin came, however, to identify God's Word (from St. John's

Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. . with the Logos which served as God's instrument in creating and now in sustaining the universe.6

The two works of Justin which Milton read are basically apologetical, defending Christianity from Roman paganism and from

Greek philosophizing. Tryphon is a Platonic dialogue between

Justin, the philosopher, and Tryphon, a Jew of the Diaspora. Justin argues that Christ is the fulfillment of Judaic Messianism and he employs both Scripture and the reason of philosophy than the New

Testament, since the Jews, of course, did not accept this work as canon. The other work which Milton read, Apologia Pro Christ- ianis, was a defense of Christianity before the Roman Senate and its Emperor, Marcus Aurelius. In it, Justin defends Christians from the unfair attacks of their critics and provides a summary account of God's saving acts throughout history. In it, he compares Christ to Socrates and vows that Christians, like

Socrates, do not fear death. Therefore, even though the authorities -50-

continue to put Christians to death, the Christians see death as a

victory rather than a defeat. He concludes by appealing for

toleration. This work emphasized the singularity of God, who alone

is the Creator of all. The Romans had begun to worship their

Emperor as. a deity, and thus Christians had been treated severly

because they refused to worship any other deity than God. Justin returned the fledgling Church's attention to its basic Hebrew origin when he coupled "Logos" and Yahweh.

Milton's recorded references to Justin treat the Apologist rather severely. Milton says that there are "errors and heresies thick sown" in Justin'(Works, III, 21). Milton quibbles with the translater of Justin's works in "Animadversions Upon the Remon­ strant's Defence Against SMECTYMNUUS(Works, III, 125). But in other references, Milton uses Justin's works for support: in "Of

Prelaticall Episcopacy," Milton says that Justin did not define a bishop's responsibility very rigidly (Works, III, 86); in

"Tetrachordon," Milton quotes Justin as not forbidding divorce

(Works, IV, 208); in "First Defence," he quotes Justin as favoring the humble behavior of bishops and kings (Works, VII, 193); and finally in the "Commonplace Book," notes that Justin found no evidence to forbid polygamy (Works, XVII, 149). Milton's awareness of Justin is therefore neither random nor shallow.

Irenaeus (130-200 A.D.)

Irenaeus also stressed the singularity of God. He prepared a detailed attack upon Gnosticism and Montanism, both philosophical, -51-

mystical sects, highly secretive and intellectual. Their approach

to theology was dualistic. Irenaeus saw these sects therefore as

threats to orthodox Christianity, even to basic monotheism, since

Gnosticism believed in the Demiurge, a separate creator, apart

from God. Since God was supreme, said Irenaeus, then the Church

needed a Supreme head; thus Irenaeus argued for a strong, central

episcopacy in the growing organized Church. It was he who first

set down the canon of the New Testament as we know it today, and he further stressed the importance of religious and theological

tradition with his frequent reference to Polycarp, the First

Christian Martyr. Further, it was Irenaeus who evolved the "Theory of Recapitulation," which details how Christ's incarnation sum­ marized the totality of human history, because Irenaeus argues that

Christ served as the "Second Adam," i.e., Christ's sacrifice of

Himself revoked God's judgment which Adam's fall had warranted.®

Irenaeus, like Justin before him, thought of God as the "increate, unengendered, invisible, creator of the universe, the one and only

Deity." He said that that awareness should be man's first article of faith. He further argued that the very notion of God excludes plurality of Gods.®

Milton reveals his careful reading of Irenaeus throughout his works. He quotes Irenaeus as reproving Victor, Bishop of Rome, was had hastily excommunicated the Churches of Asia merely because they would not agree with Rome on the date for the celebration of

Easter (Works, III, 20). In addition to the above reference in

"Of Reformation," Milton quotes Irenaeus six times in "Of -52-

Prelaticall Episcopacy." First, he mentions the Petrine theory

that the Bishop of Rome should lead the Church, since Christ gave

Peter authority (Works, III, 88). Next, he cites Irenaeus as recording Polycarp’s stringent admonitions to all his hearers to obey the bishop in all matters. Milton openly quarrels with this advice by noting that Irenaeus must have been a very young lad when he met Polycarp, the first of the Christian martyrs who knew many of the original Apostles, especially Saint John (Works, III,

91-93). Next Milton specifically mentions Irenaeus's most widely known volume, Against Heresies, though only to charge the Lyons bishop as the "Patron of Episcopacy" and as "Patron of Idolatry to the Papist" because of his veneration of the Virgin Mary (Works,

III, 94). Last, Milton criticizes Irenaeus because he over­ emphasized, in Milton’s judgment, the position of the bishop over that of the Presyter (Works, III, 97). Why the "Commonplace Book!' fails to record Milton's reading of this volume we do not know, but by Milton's own account, he had read quite a bit of Irenaeus, enough to make him angry and suspicious. But Milton's only serious objections to this Father involve his ecclesiology, not his basic theology.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215)

Clement led the famous Alexandrian wing of the Church before

Rome asserted its eventual power. An Athenian by birth, Clement supplemented Christianity with Greek philosophy. He continued

Justin's identification of the Word from the Gospel with the Logos -53-

from philosophy. He came to equate Christ and Logos since both

were sources of human reason and interpreters of God to mankind.

Clement firmly believed that ignorance and error were greater sins

than evil was.

Like the other early Fathers, Clement emphasized the singular

nature of God. He used pagan philosophy against itself. He

mercilessly exposed "lords many and gods many." Monotheism found

a staunch intellectual defender in Clement, who labored against

Gnosticism at every turn.H His opposition to Gnosticism sought

to win fellow intellectuals to Christianity because it furnished

materials and perspectives for a true Christian philosophy. Clement

believed that philosophy served Christian faith as the Law had the

Old Testament Hebrews. He wrote to display the necessity and

value of literature and philosophic culture for the attainment of

Christian knowledge.12

In addition to the theological emphasis on God's indivisibility,

Clement thought of God as cosmic Creator. The title "Father"

resulted as much from God's role as earthly Creator as it did from

His relationship with the Son. Trinitarian relationships had, of

course, not yet become definite. Clement said that God is "Father

and creator of the entire cosmos" and that He orders and sustains

the entire cosmos.

Milton's reading of Clementfe Stromata and Paedagogus was complete by 1639. His references to Clement follow usual Miltonic practice: where Milton agrees, Clement is acceptable, but where

Milton disagrees, Clement's importance diminishes. In "Of -54-

Reformation," Milton says that "heresies are thick sown in Clement"

(■Works, III j 21). In "Of Prelaticall Episcopacy," Milton states that Clement would appropriately be called a Gnostic chiefly because of his definition of "priest" (Works, III, 86). In that same essay,

Clement’s ordination by Peter is mentioned as well as two references to specific ordinational practices (pp. 96-98). However, in

"Reason of Church Government Urg’d Against Prelaty," Milton speaks favorably of Clement as "fellow-laborer with the Apostles"; thus his epistle could be an authority on schism. Milton also calls him "worthy Clement, Paul's disciple" (Works, III, 211-21). In

"Areopagetica" Milton concludes that even Clement should be pro­ hibited because of his ideas if censorship should prevail (Works,

IV, 312). In "Pro se Defensio" Milton charges Clement with ob­ scenity (Works, IX, 111). In the "Commonplace Book" Milton notes that Clement advised truth in all situations with the only exception being for therapy "as a physician to the ill" sometimes must abate the truth (Works, XVIII, 141). Finally, Milton refers to Clement's

Stromateis on matrimony (Works, XVIII, 148), and Clement's Paedagogus on the demur dress required of women (Works, XVIII, 147). Clement's former title Milton quotes again as approving of the marriages of

Peter and Paul (Works, XVIII, 148). Milton's references to Clement reveal a specific reading rather than a casual one. Also his references maintain Milton's reputation for conveniently quoting for his own immediate purpose.

Clement's works are many; Milton read Paedagogus or "The

Instructor," a multi-volume work which set down the tenets of -55-

Christian ethical behavior. This work addressed those who had been rescued from the darkness and pollution of heathenism. Milton's

second book in De Doctrina Christiana served as the equivalent: a

guide to morals and manners for the formulation and development of

Christian character, Christ, the Logos, serves as the Instructor

throughout Clement's volume. Milton also read Stromata or "Miscel­ laneous Collections of Speculative (Gnostic) Notes Bearing on True

Philosophy." This multi-volumed, rambling, work lays out Clement's philosophy concerning Christianity's need for eclecticism. Milton must have responded favorably to Clement's ideas about the usage of intellectual and literary concepts in furthering the Christian's understanding of his faith. As we know, Milton's post-Cambridge meditation dwelt upon those tools and resources which a cleric would need to carry out successfully his ministry. Many of these concerns he verbalized in "Ad Patrem" published in 1645 (H .IS., p. 82). In addition to influencing Milton's doctrine of God, the Father, Clement served as a primary source in De Doctrina Christiana.

Origen (1857-254?)

Origen drew controversy in almost all that he did, but modern scholars conclude that Origen should not be considered quite as radical as he has been. He was the most celebrated biblical critic and expositor of the early Church; he is known today as "the Father of Interpreters."!^ Largely because of his notion of easy redemption in which even the devil, through a purgative, educative, repentive process, will be restored to God's good grace, Origen drew the -56-

anathema of regional synods in 399 at Alexandria, Jerusalem and

Cyprus, and perhaps one also from the general council in 553 held

at Constantinople. However, some doubt exists about the extent of

the last condemnation. Historically, Origen1s disciples’ and

friends' views did him as much harm as did his own.

Theologically, Origen's Trinitarianism was a brilliant re­

interpretation of orthodox triadic faith. Rhetorically even,

Origen stressed the singularity of God, the Father, who was "alto- 1 ft gether Monad, and indeed, if I may so express it, Henad."iD Origen uses the term "ingenerate" which his tutor, Clement, also used.

This Alexandrian Father pointed out also that the Son pbintedly referred to the Father as the "One True God." Origen emphasized the indivisibility and incomprehensibility of God as the reasons

for the mission of the Son, who reflected and made real the Father's attributes in ways which man could grasp. Origen's theological emphasis was on the role of Christ in the Trinity, but he did employ the term persons to distinguish Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as separate beings. Origen believed that each of the Three is a distinct hypostasis from all eternity. He pointed out that the terms hupostasis and ousia were originally synonyms, the one Stoic and the other Platonic. Although Origen did not slight the Third

Person, his emphasis was squarely on the relation’ship between

Father and Son whose wills are virtually identical as a husband 1 7 and wife could be said to be one flesh.

Milton's references to Origen rather thoroughly condemn the

Alexandrian Father, although Milton quotes him favorably when he -57-

particularly finds Origen useful. Milton's early references in

"Of Reformation" include Origen in the list of Fathers who committed

"four errors, . . . ridiculous wresting of Scriptures, . . . heresies, . . . vanities thick sown (Works, III, 21). This list

also includes Justin, Clement, Tertullian, and "others of eldest

time.” Also in this essay, Milton writes about the corrupt text of Origen's volumes which Severus had asserted; he also felt un­ comfortable about the wrangling over Origen by bishops and monks

(p. 22). Milton thinks of Origen as "erroneous Origen" although he does not catalogue those errors (p. 34). The "Commonplace Book" bears no reference to specific volumes read by Milton during his

Horton period, but from implication, Milton had to have read

"volumes" of Origen before he sat down to write "Of Reformation" which Parker assesses as the product of Milton's Horton reading, especially the first part of that tract.!8 For any person to feel as strongly as Milton did in condemning Origen's volumes, he would had to have read them rather thoroughly. The now unrecovered

"Theological Index" which accompanied the "Commonplace Book" may have furnished specific evidence of the significant theological influences upon Milton, but that journal has never been unearthed.!9

Origen's "Seventh Homily on Matthew" which testifies to the early

Church's attitude toward divorce Milton quotes in "Tetrahordon"

(Works, IV, 209). Thus, we can safely conclude that Milton pos­ sessed specific textual knowledge of Origen's works based on careful reading. Milton's other references quote Origen favorably: as support for his point against the Puritans that the Scriptures -58-

contained drama and poetry and that no disapproval of those genres

existed in the Scriptures. Milton quoted Origen's exegesis of the pastoral drama in the "Song of Solomon" (Works, III, 238). Also in

"The Reason of Church Government," Milton referred to Origen as a layman who expounded Scripture with the approval and accolades of the leaders of his Church (Works, III, 258). Also in the divorce matter, Milton quotes Grotius who quotes Origen (Works, III, 481).

In his tract, "Considerations Touching the Likeliest Means to

Remove Hirelings Out of the Church," Milton quotes Origen who said that clergy lived on gifts rather than on accummulated Church wealth (Works, VI, 86). Two or three minor references also exist in Milton's works.

Milton knew Origen well.

Lactantius (c. 240-c . 320)

Lactantius became a favorite of Milton for several reasons.

One most certainly was the excellence of Lactantius's style and the grace of his composition since he was known as the "Christian

Cicero." Even his modern editors write glowingly of his "charming rhetoric, and of the high sentiment it so nobly enforces and adorns."20 This Father was a Christian Apologist who addressed his major composition to the Roman Emperor, Constantine, who had accepted Christianity and who labored to establish it as the favored,, state religion. Lactantius reportedly served as the tutor for the Emperor's children. Clearly he lived in a different age than Justin did, but their writings have a similar purpose: -59-

to advance and defend the Christian faith before the powers of the

earth. In this mission, Lactantius succeeded; Justin became a

martyr. Lactantius, a late convert to Christianity, incorporated

the culture of Rome with his understanding of Christianity; although

he was not a theologian, he did have a popularizing ability and

a compromising spirit.

Lactantius's God becomes the Lawgiver whose word must be

obeyed and whose way of life demands daily adherence. In Clement, we saw Christ as the Instructor who dispensed lessons for human

tranquility, but Lactantius's God is a by-product of the growing tendency to conceive of God's relationship with mankind in judicial terms. Lactantius lived at a time when Christianity was the

socially accepted religion, hence Christians needed catechism and moral and ethical advice for their daily lives. His De Ira Dei or

"God's Anger" deals with God's punishment of human crime; the greatest crime, in that regard, was the creation of other gods, i.e., the failure to recognize the singularity of God:

Now the first step is to understand false religions, and to throw aside the impious worship of gods which are made by the hand of man. But the second step is to perceive with the mind that there is but one Supreme God, whose power and providence made the world from the beginning, and afterwards continues to govern it.21

The other work which Milton read, De Opificio Dei or "God's Work­ manship," displays God's creative genius in composing man's body and the earth. In this regard, Lactantius conceives of God as

Parent: -60-

For the Creator and Parent, God, has given to man perception and reason, that it might be evident from this that we are descended from Him, because He Himself is intelligence, He Himself is perception and reason.32

Lactantius's God does not bear the theological trappings which the

other Fathers employed. Lactantius's concept of the Three Persons

of the Trinity followed the orthodox view of his time, but as a philosopher he was concerned that God be indivisible and incompre- 2 3 hensible.

Milton refers often in the "Commonplace Book" to his early reading of Lactantius. He mentions specifically De Ira Dei and

De Opificio Dei each one time, but there are five citations to

Divinae Institutiones, Lactantius's seven volume "Introduction to True Religion" in which he shows the vanity of pagan philosophy, defends the faith against its adversaries, gives instructions for the true worship of God, and discusses the rewards of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked. Milton first mentions Lactantius in the 1641 essay, "Of Reformation," but Hanford asserts that

Milton may have been familiar with the Institutes at a much earlier period. Indeed, Lactantius was esteemed and studied by Colet,who prescribed the "Christian Cicero's" prose for study at St. Paul's

School. Thus, Milton's general and specific familiarity with

Lactantius and his indebtedness to him can not be doubted.2^

The prose references to Lactantius generally quote the specific source. In "Of Reformation," Milton quotes the Institutes (ii, 7-8) on the vain trust in antiquity (Works, III, 29). In "Tetrachordon," the sixth Institute on divorce is quoted to testify that divorce was -61- not forbidden for necessary causes (Works, IV, 209-210). Later,

the Institutes (iii, 29) reveals Cicero's attitude toward fortune

(Works, XI, 49). This reference was in the "Art of Logic." Several notations in the "Commonplace Book" reveal Milton's awareness of

Lactantius's meaning: philosophy should not be used to enrage a people to nationalistic belligerence or to heathen acts. Christians should cultivate mutual peace and not covet other people's goods.

Since philosophy sometimes arouses greed and lust, Lactantius assails philosophy (Works, XVIII, 165). Further, Lactantius urged restraint in Christians' appreciation for dramatic art and music

(Works, XVIII, 207). Even though Milton comments that dhTs Church

Father urged restraint, Milton did not advocate abolition of these arts. Three or four tertiary references to Lactantius were recorded also, but largely they serve as proof texts with no elaboration.

Milton added an insignificant reference to Lactantius in the margin of a book of Euripides' tragedies (Works, XVIII, 304).

But again we can conclude that Milton's reading of Lactantius made a profound impact, because he quotes Lactantius frequently and in a variety of significant and tertiary ways.

Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340)

Some scholars, led by Woodhouse, believe that Eusebius served as the greatest influence on Milton's theology; especially they believe that Milton's so-called "Arianism" was really the product of his reading of the Ante-Nicene Fathers:

On the whole, it is the Patristic period that we must look for the closest analogues, and there we shall -62-

find them not in Arius and the original Arians only, but in the doctrine of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and very markedly in the teachings of Eusebius.25

This bishop and historian wrote voluminously about the early Church; it was he who because of his friendship with the Emperor Constantine inspired and guided the First Ecumenical Council. He was unques­ tionably the most eminent of the early Church historians.26 Generally on all theological and ecclesiological points Eusebius irenically sought the middle ground. Basically he was an advocate of the

Eastern, as opposed to the Roman, position. He voted consistently against the Arians at Nicaea, and it was he who served as the primum mobile behind the wording of the first Nicene Creed.27

Like those theologians whom he recorded, Eusebius's First

Person is a transcendent God, the invisible Monad who is above and beyond reality. Eusebius's God is ineffable, the first cause of all;. He is King, Lord over all.28 Eusebius contributed nothing particularly new to the doctrine of God, the Father; rather his eclectic approach accented those elements which seemed most esteemed at the time. Since Eusebius's History influenced those of his time and untold generations later, he has contributed mightily to the development of Christian doctrine. In most ways, Eusebius serves as the generalizer and compromiser who attempted to help the squabbling elements of the Church gain a much needed consensus.

As we shall see in all three doctrines of the Trinity, Eusebius sought and gained the most Scripturally sound position which gener­ ally served as the Church's orthodox position for that age, and in most cases, for all Church history. To summarize: Eusebius's -63-

doctrine of God emphasized the incomprehensibility, the ineffability,

the "mystery" of God. This impenetrability served as the chief

motivating force behind the Son's mission on earth, to make compre­ hensible to man the will and way of God, i.e., to justify the ways

of God to man.

No doubt exists that Eusebius's Historia Ecclesiastica served

Milton as a text book during his Horton reading. It was from this work that Milton's reading branched out into later histories and which inspired Milton to read the Fathers' primary texts.®® He expressed his respect for Eusebius when he called him "the ancientest writer extant of Church-history" (Works, III, 85). All of Milton's 31 references to Eusebius result from his Horton reading. The

"Commonplace Book" notes four references to Eusebius's Church history and two to his Vita Constantini

For those Fathers whose specific works Milton did not read,

Eusebius's Church history and its extensions served as Milton's primary source. Throughout his writings, Milton's nearly thirty references to Eusebius cover a range of concerns. In "Of Reformation, he testified that heresies were rife in Asia during the Apostolic

Age (Works, III, 20). Later, he writes about the importance of unwritten traditions (p. 30). In ecclesiology, Eusebius wrote that the process of selecting bishops was difficult (Works, III, 85).

Later, Eusebius writes that emperors supplied clerical appointments

(Works, VI, 64). He, like Justin, gave Polycarp much deference

(Works, III, 91). Milton makes little comment on Eusebius's Vita

Constantini; yet throughout his writings, Milton refers to -64-

Constantine several dozen times (Works, I, 356-57). His attitude was

generally quite unfavorable toward the first Christian Emperor pri­

marily because of Constantine's intrusion of civil power into sacred

matters. Of course, it was Constantine who institutionalized the

Church and who gave it what Milton--and most other Protestants--

regarded as inordinate power. Constantine went so far as to imbue

bishops with civil power, an action which Milton rejected out of

hand (Works, III, 26).

Eusebius produced a profound impact upon Milton.

Conclusion

Milton's Trinity displays a noticeable impact of his Horton reading of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. As indicated above, those

Fathers whom he read were all concerned with defending monotheism,

and some even felt it necessary to defend theism. Milton, in both his poetry and prose felt obliged to do the same. Some of the

Fathers emphasized the absolute Oneness of God; others called God

"Father" primarily because of His role as Creator rather than as

Father of Christ, the Son. Others dealt with the relationship between Father and Son and saw the latter as equal to the former, but as being subordinate to the Father since the Son was a creation.

Although the concept of God which Milton held resulted from other influences more contemporary to Milton, his reading of these Fathers served as a primary foundation. One can hardly imagine a scholar such as Milton spending two or three years of his lifetime in serious reading and then not exhibiting any influence in his later life as a result of that reading. -65-

The three doctrinal elements mentioned above require separate

examination so that we can better see Milton's indebtedness to

them.

In his chapter, "On God," Milton first argues for the existence

of God and implies that those who argue against God's existence do

so because they believe in many gods:

That there is a God, many deny: for the fool says in his heart, There is no God, Psal. xiv. 1. But he has left so many signs of himself in the human mind, so many traces of his presence through the whole of nature, that no sane person can fail to realize that he exists. (DDCp. 130)

Then, those who argue that nature created itself would have

to inject chance into life:

Moreover, those who want to prove that all things are created by nature, have to introduce the concept of chance, as well, to share godhead with nature. What then, do they gain by their theory? In place of one God, whom they find intolerable, they are forced to set up as universal rulers two goddesses who are almost always at odds with each other. (DDC) p. 131. Italics mine.)

He concludes that good must be prior to evil, since singularity predates multiplicity.

As we have observed, Justin, Clement, Irenaeus, and Origen each argue God's singularity as a defense against Gnosticism,

Montanism, Marcionism or Arianism. Each of these movements in­ volved a multiple system of gods. But the Fathers argued that

God must be indivisible, since he is unbegotten; God is no creation,

He always has been from eternity. Clement and Irenaeus especially struggled against "lords many and gods many." Milton, in his discussion of God's attributes, quotes several passages of the Old -66-

Testament, ascribing singularity to God. These passages end with

the following verse from Isaiah 45: 22:

'I am God and there is none besides,' that is, no spirit, no person, no being besides him is God, for "none" is a negative of general application: Isa. xlvi. 9: 'that I am God and that there is no God besides me, and that no one is like me.' What could be more plain and straightforward? What could be better adapted to the average intel­ ligence, what more in keeping with everyday speech, so that God's people should understand that there is numerically one God and one Spirit, just as they understand that there is numerically one of anything else. (DDC, p. 147)

Milton also quotes the New Testament passages which display God's

singularity, beginning with the greatest commandment which Christ quoted to the Pharisees from Deuteronomy 6: 4: "Hear, Israel,

the Lord our God is one Lord"(DDC, p. 148). All of these passages logically convinced Milton that God's singularity did not permit any form of division. He had earlier made the point that one attribute of God was His steadfastness, He could not abide a contradiction. Hence, any attempt to divide God would be a con­ tradiction:

But, as I pointed out earlier, everyone agrees that an exception must be made to God's omnipotence, namely that he cannot do things, which, as it is put, imply a contradiction. Accordingly, we must remember here that nothing can be said of the one God that is inconsistent with his unity, and which makes him both one and not one. (DDC, p. 148)

God as "Father" created all things. Although Christian doctrine usually considers God as appropriately earning his name as Father when he sent Christ into the world, yet as we saw, the early Fathers -67-

did consider God as Christ's Father and as mankind's; more exactly,

the reverse, first as mankind's, then as Christ's--but not to the

extent that orthodox doctrine was to come to consider it. Irenaeus's

theory of recapitualation in which Christ served as the Archetype

for all mankind only gradually gained recognition. Before this

theory achieved general acceptance, the Church tended to consider

God as Father first of mankind, then of Christ; in this regard,

the early Fathers only reflected the theological view of their time.

Milton's chapter on God spends thirty-five pages discussing God

apart from his relationship with the Son. At the very end of the

chapter, he mentions that the most excellent special decree of

God concerns the Son:

. . . primarily by virtue of this, he is called Father, Psal. ii. 7: 'I shall declare the decree: Jehovah said to me; You are my son, I have begotten you today' Heb. i. 5: for to which of the angels did he ever say, 'You are my son, I have begotten you today?' And again, ’’I shall be a Father to him and he shall be a son to me'; I Pet. i. 19, 20: Of Christ who was foreknown before the foundations of the world were laid; >Isa. xlii, i: my chosen one whom my soul cherishes; I Pet. ii. 14: elect and precious in the sight of God. From all these quot­ ations it appears that the Son of God was begotten by a decree of the Father. (DDC, pp. 166-67)

The changing emphasis upon Christ which in the early Fathers resulted in Subordinationalism (especially strong in Justin) which

the theory of recapitulation corrected to some extent, produced a similar uncertainty about Christ's relationship with God in Milton's theology. The notion that Christ was the result of a special decree of God would deny the orthodox view of Christ's eternal generation and would result in a brand of subordinationalism which we shall -68- examine in the next chapter; but for our purposes here, this

Christological aberration resulted from Milton's doctrine of God as Father of all things—Christ being a Special thing, the first begotten. Milton's concept of the Oneness of God was so universal that little, if any, distribution of God could result in the other

Persons of the Trinity. Milton's doctrine of God emphasized God's singularity, his universality, his incomprehensibility, his in- effability, and his indivisibility. His God was logically con­ sistent; it seemed to make sense to him as he read the Scriptures, yet in its essence, Milton's doctrine of God did not allow that the other two Persons of the Trinity equally share God's attributes.

They shared many of those attributes with the Father, but not equally. The extent of that inequality is the subject of the re­ maining chapters. -69-

Footnotes-Chapter Two

1. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: Harper, 1958), p. 100. This volume will hereafter be referred to as Early Doctrines. The Apologistss helped create the theological climate which needed a firm statement of faith, but it took years for the widely distributed Church, comprised of people from a variety of cultures, countries, and conditions, to reach any sort of consensus. That the Church did reach any consensus is truly remarkable.

2. F.L. Cross, ed,, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (London: Oxford University Press, 1958), p. 756. This volume will hereafter be referred to as ODCC. Justin, the first Apologist, was educated in Greek philosophy and sought to reconcile faith and reason. He argued that traces of truth could be found in pagan philosophy. Medieval phil­ osophers were especially quick to use Justin as an expert witness to claim special status for Aristotle and Plato.

3. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (1885; rpt. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1969), I, 193. This edition will hereafter be referred to as A-N Fathers. Justin did not follow the Hebrew custom that one's name contains his identity: Yahweh often changed the name of a special agent, e.g., "Jacob" to "Israel." Had Justin done so, the point undoubtedly would have received even greater emphasis than it did.

4. J.A. Dorner, History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1861) I, 264.

5. Early Doctrines, p. 85.

6. Early Doctrines, p. 84.

7. A-N Fathers, I, 188-93.

8. ODCC, p. 678. As one can readily see, Augustine's development of the sin of the first parents which led to a common condition of sinfulness, or susceptibility to sin, in all mankind, had its predecessors also. Augustine drew out the details and implications beyond any of his antecedents. Although Milton did read some Augustine, I fail to see specific influence, despite Fiore. Augustine's antecedents influenced Milton more than did the Hippo bishop. -70-

9. Early Doctrines, p. 86. Again, Milton’s Ramistic logic applies since single works logically defied division.

10. ODCC, p. 300. Clement hit upon a theological point which has raged ever since. Evil implies a force applied to man from outside of the ordinary way of life. Ignorance implies that more thinking and learning could solve man's problems.

11. A-N Fathers, II, 165.

12. A-N Fathers, II, 165-66.

13. Early Doctrines, p. 83.

14. A-N Fathers, IV, 235. Origen's reputation grew steadily more radical as his disciples wrote more heretical views. His friends were much more radical and the combined weight of their views eventually redounded to Origen.

15. Latourette, p. 151.

16. Quoted in Early Doctrines, p. 128.

17. Early Doctrines, p. 129.

18. Parker, p. 146.

19. Hanford, "Chronology," p. 256. See also Ruth Mohl, John Milton and His Commonplace Book (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1969).

20. A-N Fathers, VII, v.

21. A-N Fathers, VII, 259.

22• A-N Fathers, VII, 282.

23. A-N Fathers, VII, 104.

24. Hanford, "Chronology," p. 266n. Since Lactantius was not a "profound" theologian, Milton found his works refreshing as a change from all of the other utilitarian churchmen.

25. Woodhouse, p. 175. Italics mine.

26. Early Doctrines, p. 225. Eusebius is far from an "objective historian" which moderns have come to expect. Difficult communications and travel prevented ready access to others in those days. Eusebius lived in an area which placed him at the center of Church activity. His history contains doc­ uments and stories to which he had access. Sometimes they were unreliable. -71-

27. Latourette, pp. 91-92.

28. Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine (New York: New York Univ. Press, 1965), p. 33.

29. Eusebius, pp. 21-29.

30. Parker, p. 146.

31. Parker, p. 804.

32. Hanford, "Chronology," p. 261. THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST, THE SON

The doctrine of Christ which Milton developed was heavily in­

fluenced by the various concepts of Christ which he read in the

Ante-Nicene Fathers. As the preceding chapter shows, Milton’s

Christology derives its unique imbalance from his emphasis upon

the oneness, indivisibility, and omnipotence of God. Milton's

logic insisted that the ultimate could not be superseded, the

indivisible could not be divided, the all-powerful could not be

equaled in power. But central as his logic was to his mode of

thought, it did not determine his theology or preclude other con­

tributions to his thinking. His widely acknowledged tendency to

select concepts or authorities or methods with which he agreed operates in his Christology. Milton was a Ramistic logician, and

one of the Ramist principles was that contradictions can not be

valid. His logic helped determine his doctrine of God and that doctrine then impinged upon his doctrine of Christ. Yet another

significant determinant, equally as important as his logic, was his reading of the early Church Fathers, particularly Ignatius,

Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius. The several definitions of Christ which Milton read in the pages of these

Fathers' volumes helped him formulate his own concept of Christ whom he used as the central figure in both of his epics.

Before the Church Fathers' contributions to Milton's Chris­ tology can be assessed, a brief summary of Milton's unique view of Christ will permit a closer assessment later. Earlier chapters in this study established that Milton continued to mold his view -73-

of the Trinity as a unit (Father-Son-Holy Spirit) and at the same

time, his notions about the individual persons of the Trinity were

also changing. His earliest references to Christ were drawn to

Jesus as son of man more than to Christ, the theologically consistent balance between humanity and divinity. Two of his early poems reflect his perplexity over the most appropriate understanding of

Jesus Christ. The subordination of Jesus to the Father appears even in Milton's earliest work.'’" In his "On the Morning of Christ’s

Nativity," we witness the birth of Jesus as a babe and although the babe has mysterious, perhaps metaphysical, powers, Milton’s understanding of Jesus Christ emphasizes his humanity, his birth and his personality. This ode portrays the infant Christ, who

"chose with us a darksome House of mortal clay" (line 13), who became

"the Heav'n born child,/All meanly wrapt in the rude manger" (lines

30-31). And yet Christ did forsake "Heaven's high council-Table,

To sit the midst of Triunal Unity" (lines 10-11) to become "Heaven's new-born Heir" (line 115). Even though Milton had no difficulty in writing about Christ's Incarnation, when he attempted to write about the Crucifixion and Resurrection, the task overwhelmed him because his Christology remained underdeveloped. His poetic pro­ duction suffers from lack of vitality and perception; thus, he left the "Passion Ode" unfinished with this note:

This Subject the Author finding to be above the years he had, when he wrote it, and nothing satisfied with what was begun, left it unfinisht.

This youthful hestitancy in realizing or in stating fully the nature of Christ vanished before Milton wrote either of his epics -74-

and before he finally edited the De Doctrina manuscripts. In

these works, Christ receives complete theological development. In

the epics, Christ as the major character serves as cosmic hero

because his Sonship enables Him to combine the Divine and the human

in one fully mature person, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of Man.

In De Doctrina, Christ receives a rather thorough biblical and

theological analysis. Milton had no difficulty in finishing any

of these latter works; the major reason is that in between his

youthful, incomplete view of Christ and the adult, developed view,

Milton read the several Church Fathers' definitions of Christ which

allowed him to complete his own thinking on this subject.^

Ignatius (c. 35-c. 108 A.D.)

Ignatius asserted vigorously the humanity and divinity of

Christ. Ignatius was the earliest Father whom Milton read; and he

laid considerable stress upon Christ's dual role, as a counter­

balance against docetism, a heresy widespread in the early Church.^

This heresy regarded the sufferings, and to some extent, the life

of Jesus as just an appearance since Christ was really a spirit that

inhabited a man's body. Throughout all of Christian history, this

tendency (in varying degrees) has appealed to some Christians. The early Church had to struggle against docetism and gnosticism which

substituted mind in place of spirit, but both heresies deprecated

Christ's humanity.

Ignatius's "Letter to the Ephesians" pointedly refers to

Jesus's humanity: -75-

For our God, Jesus the Christ was conceived by Mary by the dispensation of God, as well as the 'seed of David' as of the Holy Spirit: He was born, and was baptized, that by himself submitting he might purify the water. (Lake, p. 193)

Ignatius often refers to the manifestation of Christ as necessary

so that man's sin and death could be removed:

By this all magic was dissolved and every bond of wickedness vanished away, ignorance was removed, and the old kingdom was destroyed, for God was manifest as man for the 'newness' of eternal life, and that which had been prepared by God received its beginning. (Lake, p. 193)

In his "Letter to the Trallians," Ignatius used rhetorical repetition

to lay heavy stress upon Christ's humanity:

Be deaf therefore when anyone speaks to you apart from Jesus Christ, who was of the family of David, and of Mary, who was truly born, both ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth; who also was truly raised from the dead, when his Father raised him up, as in the same manner his Father shall raise up in Christ Jesus us who believe in him, without whom we have no true life. (Lake, p. 221)

According to Ignatius, Christ's fully human and fully divine nature was necessary so that mankind could be rescued from mortality and evil. If Christ were only spirit, He could not genuinely share the tribulations of men; if He were only human, He would be trapped by His humanity and could not compensate for man's shortcomings.

Ignatius viewed his own impending martyrdom as his final sharing of

Christ's humanity. In his "Letter to the Romans," he urges the

Romans not to interfere with his martyrdom: -76-

Suffer me to be eaten by the beasts, through whom I can attain to God.

Than shall I be truly a disciple of Jesus Christ, when the world shall not even see my body. Beseech Christ on my behalf, that I may be found a sacrifice through these instruments. (Lake, p. 231)

In his "Letter to Polycarp," Ignatius coins the term "God's

athlete" for which he became known, but in that same letter, Ignatius

reveals what mankind gained because of Christ's mission to earth as

fully human-fully divine:

The time calls on you to attain unto God, just as pilots require wind, and the storm-tossed sailor a harbour. Be sober as God's athlete. The prize is immortality and eternal life, of which you have been persuaded. (Lake, p. 271)

Ignatius thought of Christ as a separate entity, but he also

thought of Christ as being in relationship with God and the Holy

Spirit» In the previously quoted lines from his HLetter to the

Magnesians," Ignatius reveals his awareness of the prior existence

of the Son, whom he addresses as 'Jesus Christ, who was from eternity with the Father and was made manifest at the end of time" (Lake, p.

203). Later, he refers to the oneness of the Father and Son:

"Hasten all to come together as to one temple of God, as to one

altar, to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from the one Father, and

is with one, and departed to one" (Lake, p. 203). Ignatius's

Letters express a vague awareness of the Holy Spirit, and since that doctrine remains unformulated, there is no exact wording of

a relationship between the Son and the Spirit. Ignatius definitely was a pre-Trinitarian. -77-

Milton was easily antagonized by Ignatius's ecclesiology.

Ignatius considered the Church the body of Christ, with the bishop

as its head. In each of his letters he urged strict adherence to

the local Church's bishop. Although Milton did not approve of

Ignatius's advice that the Churches obey their bishops in all mat­

ters, he did approve of the close affection between the Churches

and their leaders. When the bishop left his congregational orient­

ation and became an administrator of several organized Churches,

then Milton felt that the "pristine ways" of Apostolic times had

been vulgarized. Milton did not share this view of Christ which

Ignatius avowed.

Milton's reading of Ignatius was close and thorough. He read

the Epistolae^ and his literary productions reveal the extent of

his reading. Milton concludes from the manuscript that five of the

Epistles were spurious and could not be relied upon; these five

Epistles were those most often quoted as evidence that bishops held

dictatorial power in the early Church (Milton-Works, III, 88).

Elsewhere Milton referred to Ignatius as the "oldest of the Fathers"

(Works, III, 15), and said that "we dare not deny what Ignatius

says"(Works, III, 102). This was not a total endorsement, because he also referred to Ignatius as "specious" (Works, III, 82). Milton

does appeal to the Antioch Father as the first to have antiphonal singing and to report that both Peter and Paul were married (Works,

III, 140-,• 148). Milton had earlier quoted Ignatius's advice to the

Churches to depend upon the Scriptures (Works, III, 20). Although

Milton's references to Ignatius were mixed in the enthusiasm with -78- which Milton quoted him, Milton's primary objection seems to be the use of Ignatius's writings by Milton's opponents. Milton's readings went beyond this primary level down to the ideas and the theology expressed therein, i.e., Milton read Ignatius for more reasons than merely to find minutiae which could serve as points in a hasty refutation in the heat of polemical disputation. Milton had read Ignatius, along with the other Fathers, during his Horton retirement. Years later, when Milton had occasion to write polemical tracts, he used his knowledge of Ignatius, since it had also earlier influenced his theology.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-c, 165)

The first Christian Apologist advanced the subordinationalism of Christ to God in order to safeguard monotheism. Justin, of course, sought to reconcile the claims of faith and reason, and he argued that reason prompted the conclusion that any being created by another and which carried out the wishes and orders of that creator had to be somewhat inferior to that creator. Justin spoke of Christ as a "Second God" who should be worshipped "in a secondary rank." The Apologists, beginning with Justin, stressed the generation of the Son by a special decree of the.Father, but that emphasis was not to denigrate the Son, rather it was designed to protect the oneness of God. This emphasis on monotheism they believed was indispensable in their struggle against dualistic

Gnosticism.?

By Justin's time, the Hellenic and Judaic elements within

Christianity had begun to blend, and the Creator-Word concepts from -79-

the Gospels had come to accept the Hellenic concept of Logos as

interchangeable with "word" as a means of understanding the higher

nature of Christ.& Justin believed that the term Son was an earned

title which did not originate because of the eternal relationship

of Father-Son, but rather because Christ earned that title by being

obedient to the Father's will through creation, revelation, and 9 redemption. Justin believed that God was so incomprehensible that

man could only know the Father through the Son-Logos which had

previously been only one of God's attributes which God generated

by a special decree into human form as Jesus, the Christ. Justin

believed that Jesus's nature as Son-Logos allowed man to regain the

reason (logos) which sin had obliterated. Justin could therefore

couple philosophy and faith by claiming that the philosophers had

been inspired by the Logos and had used Moses as their chief source.IO

Justin further attributed the conception of Jesus to the Logos. He

believed that the Logos and the Holy Spirit were not interrelated;

the Holy Spirit had no part in the Incarnation, since according to

Justin, the "power of the Most High" in Luke 1: 35 was the Logos, which he envisioned as entering the womb of the Blessed Virgin and as acting as God's agent in the Son-Logos's Incarnation.!-’' Tatian,

Justin's disciple, interpreted Justin as saying that the Logos was an inferior person to God as a consequence of this generation as man, 12 although Justin had not set the Son in a Trinitarian context.

Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200)

Irenaeus shared Justin's identification of the Son as Logos, but went beyond Justin in emphasizing the implication of the Son's -80-

Incarnation.13 To irenaeus, the generation of the Son constituted

an insurmountable barrier; no one could understand it precisely,

argued Irenaeus, since God's power and wisdom surpass man's meager

capacities. Irenaeus did argue that the Son differed from the

Father, because the Father sends, whereas the Son is sent; the

Father commands, whereas the Son is commanded. However, Irenaeus

stops short of complete subordinationalism when he says:

Christians believe that there is one sole God, but subject to the following qualification, . . . that of the sole God there is also a Son.l^

Irenaeus thought that those qualities God possessed were also held

by the other Persons of the Trinity in whom they are all present in

different degrees and forms and aspects. Irenaeus's doctrine of

the Holy Spirit was very thorough and well developed, as we shall observe in the next chapter, but all ofeethe worth, substance, and mystery involved in God also was available in the Second and Third

Persons.15

Irenaeus's most profound contribution to Christology was his

"Theory of Recapitulation," which held that the Logos which became incarnate in Jesus was the Son of God, the Mind of God, and in a curious way, was God Himself, or a part of Him. Irenaeus, arguing against the Gnostics and Marcionites, said that Jesus was both man and God. In Jesus, God suffered for man who deserved nothing at all from God; but in Jesus, a fully human person, mankind reached its ultimate possibility. Jesus, at every stage of His life, fulfilled what God had intended man and creation to be all along. Jesus, by

His incarnation and resurrection, won for all men the recognition -81-

by God as having been freed from God's prior judgment. Jesus summed

up all of human history and potential. ° When Christ became the

"Second Adam," He compensated for the first Adam's disobedience.

Irenaeus emphasized that Christ's obedience in the incarnation

rescued all mankind from perdition.*-?

Tertullian (160-220 A.D.)

Tertullian, the greatest western theologian before Augustine,

first used the term "Trinity" and introduced the basic vocabulary

used in the eventual Trinitarian formulations. Of all the Fathers

(next to Eusebius), Tertullian influenced Milton the most because

Tertullian was systematic in his approach to theology, whereas the

other Fathers wrote for particular occasions or against particular 18 issues. Like the earlier Apologists, Tertullian wrote against

Gnosticism, but unlike them, he thought that Christianity and Greek

philosophy had little in common. As a consequence, he based his

theology upon the Scriptures which had gained Church-wide acceptance

since Irenaeus had earlier urged the canonical formula of Apostolic

authorship. Tertullian believed that nothing existed without or 1 Q beyond God, Who is a rational being.

Tertullian espoused a subordinationalist view of Christ, but he arrived at that position by his own thinking process rather than

being compelled to that position by logos philosophy. Tertullian

first used the terms substance and essence in reference to the

Father and Son. He said that Christ was composed of "two substances."

Substance he defined as "physical composition." To Tertullian, the

Word has existed alongside the Father from all eternity as a distinct -82-

person and the Word shared the same essence with the Father.

Person here means a "separate, numerically distinguishable identity."

Essence here means "common traits or characteristics." For Tertullian,

as well as for the earlier Fathers, Christ's manhood was absolutely

necessary since only as man could He accomplish His work on our

behalf. Christ received his humanity from Mary, His divinity he

already possessed as the Word. He was really born of Mary, not

merely through her as the Gnostics had claimed. Christ received

all human characteristics in the process: flesh, personality, 20 mentality, soul. Man can not fathom the act of generation; it

is beyond his comprehension.

Nevertheless, Tertullian does deal with the product of that

generation. He thought about the relationship of Christ’s two

substances as did many theologians since. He believed that the Word

clothed itself in man's flesh. Both substances continue unaltered

and unimpaired after the union. Each substance preserves its

peculiar qualities and activities, with the Spirit performing the

miracles and the humanity enduring the suffering. Yet Christ was

one, His two substances did not cause a compartmentalization or

split, since the two substances were interchangeable and comple­ mentary. 21 Christ's divine substance had derived from God and

although it was a portion of the whole, it was a product.

Tertullian thus arrived at the subordination of the Son and phrased that relationship in words which summarize the views of

all subordinationalists: "Pater enim tota substantia est: Filius ?? vero derivatio totus est portio." Tertullian derived both the -83-

Second and Third Persons of the Trinity from the substance of the

Father, a concept which Milton also used. Tertullian, who wrote

in Latin, translated some of the Greek terms, such as hypostasis

and ousia, as substantia or substance. Three possible meanings

circulated in the third century and those meanings have resulted

in manifold confusion. Aristotle's first definition of ousia

meant "individual." (Milton translated this term as "essence.")

Aristotle's second definition meant genus or type. Augustine

translated this second definition as essence and used it to show

unity. (Milton never used this definition.) The third possibility

came from stoic philosophy, which used ousia to mean substratum.

Tertullian (and Milton) translated this as "substance." Tertullian's

view continues in the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D., which anathematizes

all who "assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or

ousia."24- Different translaters applied their own equivalent terms

for hypostasis or ousia so as to remain compliant to the Creed.

Origen (185-254)

Origen extended Tertullian's concept of Christ as possessing

a soul. Christ's human soul serves as the seat of his divinity,

said Origen, who believed that in the Incarnation the Logos inti­ mately united with the human soul, so that no distinction between the two could be made. This resulted in the deification of humanity.

Origen first uses the term God-man in reference to Christ. The

Word became for Christ the governing principle. This tendency, however, produced a slight shift in favor of Christ's spiritual -84-

nature because, argued Origen, only the simple minded were really

impressed by Christ's manhood and, since Christ's soul was the

Word, He could alter His body at will.25

Origen otherwise followed the orthodox view of Christ, and in

his concept of the Trinity suggested that men derive their existences

from the Father, their rational nature from Christ, and their holi­

ness from the Holy Spirit, who is a separate Person uncreated from 26 eternity. For Origen, Christ, the God-man, was the self-revelation

of the Father. Father and Son share the same essence, but without

Christ, God would have remained incomprehensible.

Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340)

Eusebius possessed an assimilative tendency in theology which

induced him to reject radical views and to steer a middle course

in disputes, all the while attempting to remain consistent with

his understanding of the Scriptures. To Eusebius, Christ was

different from all other creatures, but He was nonetheless a

creature, because the Father, the invisible Monad, was prior to the

Son. Christ was not co-eternal with the Father, in Eusebius's

view. Further, the Son does carry within Him the Image of the

Godhead; and it was the Son, i.e., the Word, who had appeared to

the prophets of old. Eusebius disputed Origen's claim that the

Father and Son share the same substance; he argued that the Son's

existence depends upon a specific act of the Father's will, since

the Son is not co-eternal.2?

Eusebius's assertion that the Spirit who inspired the prophets

(and who later became the Son) correlated the new Christianity with -85-

the history of Israel. The Son was the long awaited Messiah.

Eusebius quotes the theophany to Abraham in which God appeared in

human form:

The Lord God is stated to have appeared as an ordinary human being to Abraham as he sat by the oak of Mamre. Abraham fell down at once, and though he saw a human being with his eyes, he worshipped Him as God, besought Him as Lord, and owned that he knew who He was; for these were his very words: '0 Lord, the Judge of all the world, wilt Thou not do justice?’(Gen. 18: 1-2, 25)^8

Eusebius followed the notion that the Word and the Logos were

identical and sought to show Christ's place in the scheme of prophecy:

Then at last, when all mankind and every race throughout the world had already received help and by now were fitted to receive knowledge of the Father, once again that same Teacher of virtue, the Father's Minister in all that is good, the divine and heavenly Word of God, in a human body which in all essentials shared our own nature, appeared in the early years of the Roman Empire. What He did and what He suffered accorded with the prophecies, which foretold that a man who was also God would live in the world as a worker of miracles and would be revealed to all nations as a teacher of the worship due to the Father.29

Eusebius accepted the subordinationalist view of Christ which we have seen developing in the earlier Fathers. This Church his­

torian was more of an assimilator than an originator. It was his

understanding of the other views which Milton read and which had

influenced subsequent Church history.

Conclusion

If the apparently lost notebook in which Milton recorded his reading notes, impressions, and judgments would suddenly reappear, -86-

scholars would find much less difficult the task of reconstructing

the exact influences which set the tone of his theology. But as yet, that journal remains shrouded in the centuries. Thus we have to re-build the shape of the development of Milton's theology from that literary and historical evidence which has survived. Certainly the author's own statements serve as primary evidence. In De Doctrina, we find Milton's systematic statements about theology which he sifted and winnowed from a variety of sources, using his own "right reason" and concept of the Scriptures as the sieve and flail. Milton separates three distinct concepts about the Trinity which he uses as the plumb-line for the remainder of his Trinitarian constructs.

First, Milton writes that the oneness of God serves as the foundation of his thought. He quotes the Apostles as witnessing to God's one­ ness, but more important, the Son always testifies that God is One; the Son denies that He Himself is equal to God. Second, Milton thinks that those traits which the Son shares with the Father are only possible by virtue of a peculiar gift and kindness of the

Father. Third, Milton understands the Son and His Apostles as testifying that in all ways the Father is greater than the Son.

Milton emphasizes that the Son understood his own inferiority to the Father (DDC, p. 223). Milton quotes Christ's answer to the lawyer's question about the prime commandment: "The Lord our God is One Lord." Milton then concludes: "Christ therefore agrees with all God's people that the Father is that one and only God."

And then Milton asks rhetorically: "If the Father is Christ's God and our God, and if there is only one God, who can be God except -87-

the Father?" (DDC, pp. 214-15). Milton argues further that if one receives everything from another, the former must be less than the

latter. Thus, since Christ received from God everything, including

those powers which belong to Him as mediator and as Son, Christ is

thereby less than God—the Son even received His name from the Father

(DDC, p. 260). Milton was also puzzled by Christ's behavior while

on earth, especially his prayer habits:

If he prays for all these things only in his human capacity (which is the usual explanation), why does he pray to the Father alone, rather than to himself, if he is himself really God? If he is himself both man and supreme God, why does he pray at all for something which is in his own power? What was the point of combining divine and human nature in one person, if that person, although equal to the Father, has given back to the Father everything he received from him? (DDC, p. 229)

Milton understands Christ as necessary to the work of God. The

Creation was possible only through the Son and Milton believes that all things were created through the Son: i.e., Christ served as

God's enabling agent, as the vehicle, the tool, the actor of God's decision to create the earth and man imago dei. Milton says that in that capacity, Christ is therefore the less principal cause of

Creation (DDC, p. 302).

God alone existed from all eternity, writes Milton, and the

Son resulted only from a special decree (before the beginning of time, possibly.) Since this event was noteworthy, the notion of 28 time could be traced then to the Son's generation.

Milton does not desire to destroy the integrity of Christ.

His motivation in emphasizing Christ's secondary role is to elevate

God, to provide the Father with the recognition due Him. Milton -88- lists at least fifteen attributes of the Father possessed by the

Son also.29 But he makes it clear that these gifts or powers were delegated to Him, rather than inherently possessed. Milton's view of Christ logically follows if one really believes the attributes ascribed to God, hence his Christology should be termed "Son second because Father first." In this doctrine, Milton follows the view of Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius, who each held to a similar ranking of Father and Son so as to elevate

God, to clarify His centrality, His individuality. Milton read these Fathers' Christology and consciously and unconsciously adopted many of their points for his own doctrine of Christ, the first of which was their heavy emphasis upon God's individualism necessitating

Christ's secondary role.

The means of the Son's generation produce another influence upon Milton's views from the Ante-Nicene Fathers. The generation of the Son was a voluntary act of submission on the Son's part and was not forced upon Him. The special decree by which the Son was generated as man may have been an eternal decree; nevertheless, the Son was free to decline the mission, but out of love and grati­ tude, He submitted. As Justin and Clement had written, Christ was generated, whereas God is ungenerated. Christ possessed the same substance, but was of another essence than the Father; i.e., Milton believed that the Father and Son possess the same ingredients, but are numerically distinct: they are distinguishable entities.

Tracing some of the specific points made by both the Fathers and Milton may be inconclusive because the points made by the early -89-

Fathers entered into the entire stream of Christian thought and have lost their unique identification. For instance, the concept of the human and divine nature of Christ has blended into Christian history so thoroughly that proving that Milton followed Ignatius on this point would be fruitless; the only way of justifying such a claim would be through specific attribution by Milton, and he was one author who was very reticent about revealing his sources. Such a revelation would do violence to his repeated claim of using only the Scriptures and in being faithful only to them. But Milton did use sources other than Scripture and did not feel the need to foot­ note his references. This practice was far from unusual, since classical rhetoric trained the disputant to hyperbolically assert his own position in as crisp and precise a fashion possible. The appearance of original thought, if not its reality, was a necessary 30 pre-requisite for the Renaissance author.

The conclusion that Milton followed the Irenaean "Theory of

Recapitulation" can not be doubted. The entire mission of Christ to earth is necessary so that as the "Second Adam," Christ, may compensate for the first Adam's disobedience, as the vision shown to Adam in Book XI of Paradise Lost reveals:

So both ascend In the Visions of God: It was a Hill Of Paradise the highest, from whose top The Hemisphere of Earth is clearest Ken Stretcht out to the amplest reach or prospect lay. Not higher that Hill nor wider looking round, Whereon for the different cause the tempter set Our second Adam in the wilderness, To show him all Earth's Kingdom and their glory. His Eye might there command wherever stood City of old or modern Fame, the Seat of mightiest Empire, .... (lines 376-87) -90-

Milton followed Irenaeus's concept of recapitulation which

depended heavily upon the concept that each person possesses within

him one image of God:

Th' Image of God in man created once So goodly and erect, though faulty since, To such unsightly sufferings be debas't Under human pains? Why should not Man Retaining still Divine similitude In part, from such deformities be free, And for his Maker's Image sake exempt? Thir Maker's Image, answer'd Michael, then Forsook them, when themselves they vilifi'd To serve ungovern'd appetite, and took His Image whom they served, a brutish vice, Inductive mainly to the sin of Eve. Therefore so abject is thir punishment, Disfiguring not God's likeness, but thir own, Or if his likeness, by themselves defac't While they pervert pure Nature's healthful rules To loathsome sickness, worthily, since they God's Image did not reverence in themselves. (XI, 507-25)

In De Doctrina, Milton refers to Christ as the "Image of God"

(DDC, p. 278) and then he says that the aim of the mediatorial ministry of Christ is to shape man into "Christ's Image" (DDC, p.

450). It is the Image of God which Christ's ministry restored in

each person so that the free will and the reason could again

function unfettered. Irenaeus's concept of recapitulation and

Imago Dei were subsumed by Augustine who set these concepts into his own notion of "original sin," but Milton does not follow these elaborate applications. He tends to follow the less complicated original of Irenaeus. Although both Milton and Augustine use the term "original sin," Milton nowhere in his chapter xi, "Of the Fall of Our First Parents, and of Sin," refers to Irenaeus or to Imago

Dei. Although Milton accepts the notion of universal sin transmitted -91- by humanness, he emphasizes the perils of individual sin; Augustine had listed sins in the opposite order. Milton emphasizes man's restoration, whereas Augustine stresses man's fall. Irenaeus was a convincing source for the same emphasis which Milton felt was most descriptive of the human condition.

Tertullian enabled Milton to develop the linguistic and theological perspective which he had been developing in his previous patristic reading. Tertullian was trained as a lawyer and thus understood the laws of evidence and knew the need for consistent definitions in an argument. Tertullian's definitions of hypostasis and ousia, which he translated as substantia (substance), and his application of the term "persona" to the Trinity helped Milton grasp the intricate nuances of Trinitarianism which the intervening years between Tertullian and Milton had beclouded. The notion of

"persona" or personality made it difficult for Tertullian and

Milton to conceive of a complete humanity deprived of personality or unique individual characteristics. Thus Milton developed the notion that the Incarnation formed a union between the person of the Logos and the person of man; hence, the Incarnation formed a

Christ in Whom the Logos and man "congealed." After his resur­ rection, Christ remains locked into His dual nature at the right hand of God. Milton believed that once the Incarnation had occurred the two essences became inseparable. Christian theology went beyond Tertullian's definition, although the Creed of 325 A.D. accepted Tertullian's terms. Augustine later introduced the notion that a common substratum underlies both the Father and the Son, -92-

whereas Tertullian and Milton said that the Secondhand Third--

Persons derive from the substance of the Father. This view was

necessary because they both believed that Christ was not co-eternal.

Augustine believed that Christ was co-eternal; therefore a separate

derivation for Christ was unnecessary. Augustine's view became

the commonly accepted view for the fourth century Church and beyond,

but Milton adhered to his third-century definition which he believed

9 9 was a more adequate expression of Christ's nature.

Tertullian held the Traducian view of the origin of the soul.

Milton also accepted this notion because it fitted together with his view of Christ's mission on earth. As was previously noted,

Milton believed that after Christ's Incarnation He remained for all time fully human and fully divine. Christ's divinity was possible because of His soul which became the seat of the Logos as Tertullian had indicated. Milton identifies the three theories about the origin of the soul, but chooses the one espoused by Tertullian. Plato,

Philo and Origen argued that the soul was pre-existent in some in­ comprehensible reservoir from which God sent forth the soul into the individual's body. Aristotle, Lactantius, Pelagius, and Calvin believed in "creationism," i.e., that man's soul is newly created by God, who joins the soul to the body Si or near conception.

Stoicism and Tertullian espoused Traducianism, which held that souls are recycled generation by generation and that the parents transmit the soul to the child (DDC, pp. 316-17 n). Milton's reading of Tertullian left a profound impression.

From Eusebius, Milton found reinforcement for notions that the

Son is not co-eternal; hence the Son's existence depends upon a -93-

specific act of the Father's will. Eusebius believed that Christ

carries within Him the Image of the Godhead. As has been previously

noted, Eusebius assimilated his Christology from preceding thinkers;

hence his Church History served Milton as a composite of the Fathers

best thinking.

Milton's Christology developed into a uniquely heterodox view

of the Second Person which was significantly shaped by his reading

of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Milton realized that his Christology might be somewhat at variance with established doctrine because he prefaced his De Doctrina chapter, "Of the Son of God," with these placatory words:

I do not see how anyone who calls himself A Protestant or a member of the Reformed Church, and who acknowledges the same rule of faith as myself, could be offended with me for this, especially as I am not trying to browbeat any­ one, but am merely pointing out what I consider the more credible doctrine. This one thing I beg of my reader: that he will weigh each statement and evaluate it with a mind innocent of prejudice and eager only for the truth. (DDC, p. 203) -94-

Footnotes-Chapter Three

1. Hughes, p. 42. Hughes reveals that Sypher had labeled this poem as "Mannerist" while other critics condemned it as "metaphysical" and as "dissonant." Hughes argues, however, that Milton's theology helps explain some of the poem's seeming ambiguities: "The charge of discontinuity really roots into the theological objection that 'the Person of Christ' is subordinated to a 'series of separate symbolic zations of the might and goodness of God."’

2. Hughes, p. 63.

3. The Nativity Ode was composed in 1629 (Hughes, p. 42) and "The Passion" in March, 1630 (Hughes, p. 63). Particularly in the latter, part of Milton's problem with the poem seems to be his attempt to combine classical mythology and form with the scriptural account. The "metephysical" elements, apparent in lines such as "Erewhile of Music and Ethereal mirth,/ Wherewith the stage of Air and Earth did ring. . ." (lines 1-2), "Befriend me Night, best Patroness of grief, . . . (lines 29), and "Mine eye hath found the sad Sepulchral rock/ That was the Casket of Heavn's richest store, . . . ." (lines 44-45) entangled the Author in fanciful usages which beclouded his over-all purpose. He worked through these problems in later poems. Milton's Horton reading, of course, occurred between 1632-38; Paradise Lost was published in 1667, Paradise Regain'd in 1671. De Doctrina Christinana was finished between 1658- 1660. (Hughes, pp. xiii-xiv). Thus Milton's Hammersmith- Horton reading was set in a strategic location in the chronology of Milton's development.

4. PCDP, pp. 676-77. Eusebius's Church History reports the essential chronology of Ignatius's life and includes several of his letters. This Church Father built the Church at Antioch which Saint Peter had founded. Ignatius served as the Bishop of Antioch and in that capacity wrote numerous pastoral letters which caused his fame to spread throughout the Church. His works are noted for their depiction of Ignatius's consuming desire for martyrdom and he was devoured by the lions in the Roman ampitheatre in 108 after he had spent a casual trip to Rome meeting with fellow Christians and encouraging Churches along the way.

5. Kirsopp Lake, trans., The Apostolic Fathers (Cambridge: Harvard Press, 1949), I, 167. -95-

6. Hanford, "Chronology," p. 264. "Milton's references fit the Geneva edition of Ignatius published in 1623." Hanford identifies Milton's reading as having been completed before 1639. Since Eusebius's references to Ignatius appear early in the Church History, we can assume that Milton began his specific reading with Ignatius.

7. DDC, p. 101.

8. Dorner, "History of the Person of Christ," I, 289.

9. DDC, pp. 100-01.

10. Harry F. Robins, If This Be Heresy: A Study of Milton and Origen (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1963), p. 20.

11. DDC, p. 103.

12. Robins, p. 20.

13. In this connection nearly all of the early Fathers paid more attention to Christ's Incarnation than to His Resurrection. Later Fathers, especially Augustine, shifted the Church's attention to the benefits of the Resurrection. Milton's inability to deal significantly with the Resurrection may be derived from his patristic reading or from his awareness of the patristics.

14. A-N Fathers, I, 362.

15. G.L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London: SPCK, 1952), p. 101.

16. Latourette, p. 143.

17. Robins, p. 21. Notice here again the emphasis upon the Incarnation as opposed to the Crucifixion. The usual refer­ ence is to Christ's "obedience unto death," but Irenaeus, reflecting his theological period, changes that reference to "Obedience unto birth."

18. Milton read three of Tertullian’s works,(Hanford, "Chronology," pp. 264-65). These works are De Spectaculis, De Jejuniia, and Apologetica. "Milton cites the edition of Rigaltus first edited in Paris, 1634."

19. Robins, p. 23.

2®« Early Doctrines, pp. 150-51. Tertullian also espoused Traduc- ianism which held that the individual's soul was transmitted to him by his parents. There was a real sense, then, in which -96-

all souls, actual or potential, were contained in Adam since they are detached portions of an original soul breathed upon by God. This belief was not necessarily contained in his view that Christ possessed a soul, but the two beliefs were not incompatible.

2!• Early Doctrines, p. 151.

22. The Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole.

23. William B. Hunter,"Further Definitions," p. 23.

24. Hunter, pp. 20-23.

25. Early Doctrines, p. 151.

26. Latourette, p. 150.

27. Early Doctrines, pp. 225-26.

28. Laurence Stapleton, "Milton's Conception of Time in The Christian Doctrine," HTR, 57 (1964), 12. Stapleton sees Milton making a distinction between "eternity" and "time," the latter ferm implying a beginning with consequent measurable duration. The generation of the Son in heaven before recorded history resulted in the creation of earth and the rest of the drama which Milton wrote about in Paradise Lost. Without the Son's generation, time may not have ever begun.

29. DDC, p. 264. Milton lists omnipresence, omniscience, authority, omnipotence, works, creation, remission of sin, preservation of life, renovation, conferring of gifts, judging, power over death, divine honor, baptism, and divine glory.

30. Fletcher, "Intellectual Development," II, 214-15.

31. William B. Hunter, "Milton on the Incarnation," Bright Essence, ed. William B. Hunter, (Salt Lake City':' Uhiv. of Utah Press, 1971), p. 135.

32. Hunter, "Further Definitions," p. 23. 11

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Milton ranked the concept of the Holy Spirit third in importance,

less important than the Son Who was less significant than the Father.

To Milton, the Holy Spirit existed by implication, since precious

little scriptural evidence established the Spirit's existence or

described Its characteristics. Milton found that this Person had

evoked considerable ambiguity and misunderstanding throughout

Christian history. The ambivalence surrounding the Holy Spirit

doctrine began with the Ante-Nicene Fathers who were mostly either

vague, puzzled, or incomplete in their doctrinal thought. No valid

reason exists why Trinitarian thought should have been completely

formulated and widely accepted in the Ante-Nicene period--or in the

mid-seventeenth century for that matter, but the ambivalence which

existed in the Fathers helped Milton formulate his own Trinitarian

position which was heavily weighted toward the Father and progres­

sively away from the Son and the Spirit. Although Milton saw Them

as definitely interconnected and as possessing a common purpose,

he has an unbalanced Trinity. The influence of the Ante-Nicene

Fathers upon Milton's notion of the Holy Spirit will be examined

in this chapter.

Milton's early references to the Holy Spirit quote faithfully

the Biblical passages which reveal the Spirit's activity, and yet

as Milton thought more about the theological nature of the Spirit, his references became more precise. Milton never denied the exist­

ence of the Spirit; as a matter of faith, he understands that the

Spirit's activity in the world after Christ's Ascension became -98-

man's sole contact with God, and God's with man. His early references

speak of the Spirit's activity within the individual believer as an

"authorative illuminator," as a "guide," as a "presence."! The

Spirit's mission within the individual is to quicken his mind, enkindle his heart, and to inspire his life toward God's goal for that person. This Spirit, Christ had released into the world when he "breathed his Spirit" upon the Disciples at Pentecost. It was this Spirit Who had appeared as a dove at Christ's baptism. But in

this connection, Milton used and read the same Scriptural references available to the Patristics.

In his poetry, Milton does not use the term "Holy Spirit," just as he did not use "Trinity." The absence of these two terms illus­ trates Milton's Trinitarian perplexity. He does use the term "Spirit of God," all in connection with the creating dove in Genesis or as the dove at the Baptism, or as the tongue of flame which appeared at Pentecost. The "Spirit of God" which at the creation covered the abyss with brooding wings in Paradise Lost, Book VII, Milton does not identify as the Holy Spirit. Some Fathers had identified this Spirit as the Logos-Son, or as the Third Person, but Milton says in the Christian Doctrine that this brooding spirit was either the Son or some "subordinate minister," (DDC, p. 282). Milton argues that the former theory is more nearly accurate:

It seems more likely, however, that we should here interpret the word as a reference to the Son, through whom, as we are constantly told, the Father created all things.

The "subordinate minister" might have been an antecedent of the

Holy Spirit which Milton identifies as existing only after Pentecost -99-

(DDC, p. 281). The reference in Paradise Lost (XII: 514) and

Paradise Regained (I: 31, 282) constitutes straight recordings of the gospel accounts of Matthew 3: 16-17. Milton seems more at ease with his use of the term "Holy Ghost" which appears once in Para­ dise Regained (but not at all in Paradise Lost), eleven times in the short prose, and twice in De Doctrina. Milton seems to use

"Holy Ghost" to mean the "comforter of man," the explicator of the mysteries of reality, as the link between God and man. His use of

"Holy Spirit" by comparison seems theoretical, abstract, somewhat sterile. Milton refers to the Holy Ghost as the third member of the Trinity and as "divine similitude, illuminating Spirit, the joy of created things" in "Of Reformation" (Works, III, 76). This reference to the "third member" is a very rare referenceeeven to the Trinity.

Milton's treatment of the Holy Spirit in De Doctrina reflects the relative freedom which he felt in developing an independent doctrine since the Scriptures were relatively vague concerning the

Third Person:

The Bible, however, says nothing about what the Holy Spirit is like, how it exists or where it comes from--a warning to us not to be too hasty in our conclusions. (DDC, p. 281)

He did not feel uneasy nor did he appeal for toleration as he had with his doctrine of Christ. He narrows the application to those

Scriptural references which have been applied to the Holy Spirit traditionally. He argued that the Old Testament's use of "Spirit of God" and other like terms either applied to God, the power of the Father, an angel, Christ, the voice of God, the light of truth, -100-

or God's spiritual gifts depending upon the context of the particular reference. These references were all extensions of the virtue and power of God the Father (DDC, pp. 282-83). Likewise, the New

Testament applies the term similarly as the Father's power. But many of the New Testament references apply to Christ, the Word of

Gbd (p. 285). All New Testament quotations which can be validly applied to the "Holy Spirit" occur after Christ's baptism.

His final application of the term means the actual person

(intelligent substance) of the Holy Spirit which descended in bodily shape like a dove at the baptism (Luke 3: 22) and which

Christ conveyed to His disciples when He breathed upon them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 16: 7-13). Two terms could describe the Holy Spirit for Milton, "person" or "symbol"; i.e., a "sure pledge" of the promises of God. These terms belie a hesitancy on Milton's part to positively name or to describe, since the "Spirit" has either appeared in so many different ways and/or has been understood in a variety of ways. Met by so much ambiguous evidence, Milton,like a good exegete, relies upon the Scriptures and studies Christ's testimony regarding the Spirit. He quotes several passages in which Christ speaks hbout the Holy Spirit, including Matthew 10: 20, "It is the Spirit of your Father that speaks to you" and Acts 2: 32, "we are witnesses for him of these things which we say; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who are obedient to his work" and Romans 15: 13, "Now the

God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope through the strength of the Holy Spirit" (DDC, p. 286). -101-

That the Holy Spirit is less than the Son, Who is less than

the Father, Milton seeks to establish primarily through logic. He

argues that since the Spirit is the Spirit of God and is numerically

distinct, "it cannot possibly be essentially one God with him whose

Spirit ife is" (p. 288). Here we see Milton's refusal to divide the

indivisible which he also had applied in his Christology. Milton

argues further that the Spirit is not described as being under

obligation to God as the Son pledges His obedience to the Father.

The Spirit is sent and given; He does not speak independently.

Milton even mentions that technically the Spirit's divinity is never established, although he does not deny the Spirit's divinity.

The ultimate testimony, however, belongs to Christ Who acknowledges

only the Father as the one true God (pp. 288-89). Further, the

Spirit clearly serves as a messenger or agent possessing none of

the powers or attributes of the Father or of the Son (pp. 291-95).

The Spirit possesses uniqueness only by the free will of God:

The Holy Spirit, since he is a minister of God, and therefore a creature, was created, that is produced, from the substance of God, not be natural necessity, but by the free will of the agent, maybe before the foundations of the world were laid, but after the Son, to whom he is far inferior, was made. (DDC, p. 298)

Milton understood the Holy Spirit as being a separate Person as God and Christ were separate Persons; but to Milton, the Spirit was third in rank, third in power, dependent upon God and developing from the Son.

To what extent had Milton's doctrine been influenced by his reading of the Fathers? Once again, a review of those Fathers whom -102-

Milton read will reveal that Milton's doctrine of the Third Person

bears some remarkably close similarities, too close to be coincidental.

First of all, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit did not reach any

noticeable development until after the Church's perspective of Jesus

Christ became clear and after consensus had been achieved generally.

Specifically the period between the Nicaea and Constantinople

Councils developed a new awareness of the importance of the Spirit

and not until St. Augustine's De Trinitate, written between 399 and

419, did the Church hold a clear notion of the Holy Spirit as a

fully developed Person, theologically and Scripturally based.2

Second, since the early Fathers directed their attention toward the

relationship between God and Christ, their thoughts concerning the

Spirit were embryonic; although the Fathers did recognize the exist­

ence of the Holy Spirit largely because the Scriptures mentioned

Him, their thinking remained puzzled and vague.® Milton sensed

this uncertainty and felt compelled to provide his own solution to

this enigma which had pervaded Christian history. Third, the

Fathers realized that the Scriptures referred to the Holy Spirit

equivocally and then usually as an empowering of Christians. Milton

comes to a similar conclusion about the restricted application of

the Spirit.

Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.)

The earliest Fathers used the Holy Spirit usually in a liturgical

formula, especially for baptisms: "I baptize you in the name of the

Father, Son and Holy Ghost." This triadic formula was also used in catechism, ordination, and other liturgies. Justin referred to -103-

the Holy Spirit as the "prophetic Spirit." He also believed that

the Spirit played no part in the Incarnation since he identified

the "power of the Most High" which caused Mary to conceive to be

the Logos which acted as the agent for His own incarnation.^ By

and large, Justin did not seek purposely to erode the position of

the Spirit, but rather to show the nature of the Son as Logos:

Our teacher of these.things /’faifch7 is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was cruci­ fied under Pontius Pilate, precurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove.5

Justin mentioned the Triadic formula which the early Church

used in public worship. After the Eucharist, the Church continued

in worship:

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost.

Justin often had occasion to employ or to invoke the Holy

Spirit, for he writes about God's continuing care for man even after Christ's death. But Justin reflected the view of the Apostolic church that the "Second Coming of Christ" and the consequent estab­ lishment of the "New Jerusalem" was daily imminent. Thus the early

Christian felt no need for a comforter or continuator, no need for planning and guidance, since all the Christian needed was the courage to withstand his immediate conditions until Christ would return again. Justin looked to Christ as his sustainer and to the

Word's promise to return and to reign a thousand years.? -104-

Justin sees the Holy Spirit's greatest service as testifying

to Christ's Sonship, because when Jesus went into the water of the

Jordan He was Jesus, the carpenter, son of Joseph, but when He came

out He was Jesus, the Christ, Son of God:

. . . but then the Holy Ghost, and for man's sake, as I formerly stated, lighted on Him in the form of a dove, and there came at the same instant from the heaven's a voice which was uttered also by David when he spoke, personating Christ, what the Father would say to Him: 'Thou art My Son: this day have I begotten Thee; . . . .'®

Justin emphasized the nature of Christ as the Word so much that

the need for a separate person who would continue the Father's com­

munication to his children after the Word's earthly life never

really occurred to him. Thus Justin's acknowledgement of the Holy

Spirit was limited to those meager scriptural glimpses which provide

little tangible evidence of the Holy Spirit's nature, purpose, or

relationships.

Irenaeus (130-200)

Of the Fathers read by Milton, Irenaeus developed the most

complete doctrine of the Holy Spirit. He understood the Son and

the Spirit as manifestations of the Father's creative and redemptive plan. Irenaeus calls the Son and the Spirit the "hands" of God's

self-revelation. They are the vehicles or forms by which God chose to reveal Himself to his creation. Irenaeus wrote that the

Wisdom (Logos) was co-eternal with the Father, and he quotes

Proverbs 3: 19 as support: "By Wisdom God established the earth."

The Lyons bishop differentiated Wisdom from Word. To him, Wisdom Q was Logos, whereas the Word meant the pre-existent Son. Irenaeus -105- asserted that at the creation God addressed the Word and Wisdom in the first person plural: "Let us make man in our own Image."

Irenaeus believed that it was through Spirit:

The prophets prophesied, and the fathers learned the things of God, and the righteous were led into the way of righteousness, and who at the end of the age was poured out in a new way. . .renewing man unto God.

In Irenaeus's view, the Spirit was an absolutely essential part of God's plan:

Without the Spirit it is impossible to behold the Word of God. . .since the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and the knowledge of the Son of God can only be obtained through the Spirit; and according to the Father's good pleasure the Son ministers and dispenses the Spirit to whomsoever the Father wills, and as He wills.*-®

To Irenaeus, the Spirit was the comforter who purifies and raises man from sin to life with God. Of course, Irenaeus lived in the western part of the world where apostasy threatened to over­ whelm the faith. The western Church tended to institutionalize until Christ's Second Coming, whereas the eastern Church (in which

Justin worked) believed that permanent structures for the Church were signs of little faith in the immenent return of the Savior.

To Irenaeus, the Father was the Godhead (he used the term "Triad" since "Trinity" had not yet reached common acceptance). This

Godhead was a single personage, with mind, rationality, and wisdom.

Theology has attached the term "economic Trinitarianism" to this view which defended monotheism, and accented the position of the

Father, which in turn made the Son and Spirit less important, or

"economical." The emphatic Father obscured the less important Son -106-

and Spirit. It did not deny them, but it delineated and restricted

their roles so that they did not impinge upon the Father.

Origen (185-254)

From Tertullian, Origen borrowed the concept of the Father, Son,

and Holy Spirit as "three Persons." Origen asserted that each of

the Three is a distinct hypostasis from all eternity. Modalism was

a heresy that failed to distinguish the Three as separate entities.

Origen tended toward the opposite view, asserting the independence

of the Three Persons. The Three Persons were "other in subsistence

than the Father. . .but one in unanimity, harmony and identity of

will." Although Origen understood the Three Persons as distinct, he tended to conceive of Father and Son as one God. The Son and

the Spirit are divine, but the Godhead which They possess, and

which constitutes their essence, wells up and is derived from the

Father's Being.2

Lactantius (c. 240-c. 320)

Nowhere in the writings of Lactantius which Milton read is

there a reference to the Holy Spirit. Lactantius neither affirms

nor denies the existence of the Holy Spirit, but his concept of

the care and cure for man's disobedience was sufficiently provided

by the powers of God and by belief in Christ. In De Ira Dei,

Lactantius affirms that since God can be pleased with man's actions,

He can also be angered by disobedience, but Christ's sacrifice

earned man the forgiveness of God. Man's disobedience, if prolonged

and unrepented, can be punished by torment of the soul after death. -107-

Lactantius argued that since God created man with such grace, majesty, and inexplicable precision that man need only consider God's loving kindness. Lactantius felt no need for the Holy Spirit; he could organize a fairly consistent theological system without It.

Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 A.D.)

Once again Eusebius provided his reader with a compilation of previous thinkers' views concerning the Holy Spirit. His writings on the Third Person while not extensive follow the subordinationalist implication: if Christ were less than God, then the Spirit must be less than Christ. Although Eusebius does recognize the Spirit as a separate person, the Spirit exists "in the third rank" as a "third power" and as "third from the Supreme Cause." Like Origen, who heavily influenced Eusebius, the latter concludes that the Spirit is "one of the things which come into existence through the Son," and although the Spirit is a created being, It transcends other created things because of Its close affinity to the Son. Eusebius uses the term "Triad" here also in reference to the "Trinity." Thus

Eusebius rejects the notion that the Holy Spirit is merely the "noblest of creatures produced by the Son at the Father's bidding."'’^

Since Eusebius wrote a church history rather than a systematic theology, his references to the Spirit are interspersed throughout his writings; thus Milton, if he traced the developing doctrines through his readings would have found no ready and immediate place where Eusebius centralized his doctrinal writings. If Milton had followed such a plan, that section of Eusebius's composition would -108- have been brief because Eusebius reflects the Nicene lack of emphasis upon the Holy Spirit as a fully integrated Trinitarian element.

Conclusion

Thus we can conclude that as Milton thought about the Third

Person of the Trinity, he recalled that the Church Fathers had reached little consensus about the Holy Spirit and that their atti­ tudes toward it ranged from moderately well-developed (Irenaeus), to vague (Justin), to puzzled (Eusebius), to completely oblivious

(Lactantius). He felt free of either scriptural mandate or of Church tradition to develop his own concept of the Holy Spirit as a doc­ trine. Yet, as he sat down to finalize on paper his own doctrine, his previous reading swayed the outcome of this process. His reading convinced him that the Holy Spirit really existed as a separate substance or person from God and Christ; his reading convinced him that the Spirit was an integral part of God's communication with man; his reading convinced him that the Spirit existed only after

Its release by Christ at Pentecost; his reading convinced him that the Spirit comforts, inspires, enkindles, sensitizes, clarifies man today as Christ did while He was alive. Had Milton not read the specific Ante-Nicene Fathers who were analyzed above, his

Christology would have been quite different from what it was; at the same time, his doctrine of the Holy Spirit would also have been considerably different than it is throughout his writings. -109-

Footnotes-Chapter Four

1. His first references are in "A Treatise on Civil Power" in which his references are very ordinary: he says that the Holy Spirit is "within us" (Works, VI, 5); that the individual has "no authority within but the illumination of the Holy Spirit" (p. 6); that the Holy Spirit was promised in every true Christian (p. 7); that the Spirit is "in each a guide to the Scriptures" (p. 13). His other "ordinary" references appear in "Consideration Touching the Likeliest Means to Remove Hirelings from the Church," "The Ready and Easy Way to Establish Free Commonwealth," "Of True Religion, Heresy, Schism, Toleration." Milton saw the need for the guiding spirit especially in matters involving ecclesiological and political policy.

2. Early Doctrines, pp. 255-79.

3. Early Doctrines, pp. 101-02. "What the Apologists had to say about the Holy Spirit was much more meagre, scarcely deserving the name of scientific theology. This is under­ standable, for the problem which principally exercised them was the relation of Christ to the Godhead."

4. Early Doctrines, p. 103.

5. A-N Fathers, I, 166-67.

6. A-N Fathers, I, 185-86.

7. A-N Fathers, I, 239.

8. A-N Fathers, I, 244.

9. Early Doctrines, p. 105.

10. Quoted in Early Doctrines, p. 107.

11. Early Doctrines, p. 108.

12. Early Doctrines, pp. 128-32

13. Early Doctrines, p. 255.

14. Early Doctrines, p. 256. CONCLUSION

Milton revealed throughout his works the extent to which his

Trinity had been molded by his reading of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

That Milton lived in an age which somewhat venerated the Patristics

needs no further argument, but only re-statement. The Reformation

found the Patristics vitally important because of its desire to

reorganize the Church in accordance with the earliest records and

examples of those people who were closest to Christ and to His

Apostles. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries witnessed the

employment of the Church Fathers as expert witnesses to substantiate

all sorts of divergent positions in theology and ecclesiology. All

disputants displayed some familiarity with the early Christian

leaders. Then also, the Renaissance impulse to analyze original

manuscripts and to translate these works afresh redirected the

attention of scholars to the early Church Fathers. Milton had

learned Latin and Greek by employing the works of several Fathers

in his language exercises. Milton learned his lessons well, according

to later biographers who saw him as a rather celebrated prodigy by

modern standards. St. Paul's School progressively tutored its

students in the Patristics, and Milton developed a keen awareness

of the Early Fathers there, only to find that the Cambridge cur­

riculum to which he graduated followed the medieval Scholastic

scheme and did not allow for individual desires or tastes. Milton

nonetheless maintained his intense interest in the Renaissance

Christian Church and wrestled with the decision to enter its ministry while developing and expanding his talent for poetry and the literary

arts. This process continued after Milton graduated and returned to -111- his family's estate in Horton, where he was to follow his own agenda in filling the gaps which he felt still existed in his own learning. There he spent between two and two and a half years reading systematically, beginning with Church hisotry, but then progressing to several works of the Church Fathers who had contributed to the development of Christian theology. His early reading was intense as he translated the works from their original languages; but after a period of time, he speeded up his reading but stopped reading so intensely. Finally, he switched to secular history.

But for a young man full of impressions and ideas, searching for his own understanding of Christ theology, that process had been en­ lightening. Nearly every young idealistic theologian responds to the general scope of his early work; indeed, some mature churchmen reflect throughout their lives their seminary's theological bias or approach; some never grow beyond it. Milton responded variously to his self-imposed theological curriculum, and although he rejected individual Church Fathers as heretics and displayed his eventual displeasure at the volume and ambiguity of the Patristics, he never­ theless found their individual and collective Trinitarian theology persuasive in his own developing notion of the Trinity. Had Milton t not read the Ante-Nicene Fathers as thoroughly as he did, his

Trinity would have taken a less heterodox shape.

Milton developed a doctrine of God and Godhead which determined the rest of his Trinity. Not surprisingly, individual points of

Milton's doctrine originated from his reading of Ante-Nicene Fathers who had agonized through those points in Church history. First, he -112-

accepted the view that the Godhead was a unit consisting of God,

the Father, and encompassing the other two portions of the Godhead.

Milton referred to the Trinity unit as Deus, i.e., God. While in

heaven, Deus exists as a unified whole, but when He deals with

His creation (the angels, Pandemonium, and later earth and man), He

separates and the Son becomes the visible, created agent: Immanuel,

i.e., "God-with-us." Second, Milton emphasized the indivisibility

and the inscrutibility of God. Milton did not need to emphasize

these traits of God as early thinkers had done in order to protect

monotheism and to insure God's integrity as the single creative

force in all of creation. Milton was not threatened, nor was his

generation, with dualism or with atheism. Apparently, he had been

impressed by the inscrutable Yahweh of the Old Testament who did

not show His face, appeared in strange theophanies, and bore a name

unlike other names, viz., "I am who I am." But Christian theology

had gone beyond this relatively unspecific notion of God, not

denigrating the amount of awe and wonder which still surrounded

God, but coming to more definite concepts about God's nature and

purposes. Third, Milton's concept of "Godhead" tended to build up

the role of God, and at least by implication, to de-emphasize the

other two Persons. Fourth, Milton understood God as the only

eternal, unengendered, uncreated Being unimpaired by human beings!

ways of conceptualizing life. God existed before time, before

Creation, before necessity. These qualities in God, then, made

the other Persons of the Godhead as His extensions, His agents,

His creation. Fifth, Milton's God was gracious and loving and -113- desired the best for His creation; thus, the Son and the Spirit were created not by necessity, but by love- and by a desire to save mankind. This concept of a gracious God, the Father, although He needed to deal sternly with man sometimes, confronts a Calvinistic

God who demands man's allegiance as a test of wayward man's obedience.

Milton's God, although inaccessible in Himself, chose to become accessible through other Persons of the Godhead. The concept of

Godhead as a unit developed by the Ante-Nicene Fathers bore heavily upon Milton's Trinity.

He did differentiate the Persons of the Trinity, however. To

Milton, and the Ante-Nicene Fathers, God was the Father, first of all, because He was creator of all life, then second, because He was Father of the Son. Gnosticism had attempted to create a sharp distinction between Father and Son, and it also sought to build up the Son's position, so it emphasized the Father's role in the creation of the pre-existent Son. The Ante-Nicenes believed that this created too great a division and introduced the possibility of an eventual separation into two Gods. Thus the early Fathers labored to reverse that emphasis and to reassert the Father's role in creation of all life and to see the generation of the Son as a timely creation for a specific purpose: to recall sinful man to relationship with

God, the Father. Again, Milton had no apparent reason to espouse these particular components of the controversy, but he did so after reading the Ante-Nicene Fathers, who caused him to think about God, the Father, as they did. The only possible reason why Milton developed this concept of God was that it fitted fairly well into -114-

the Arminian notion of the "soft repentance" which God demanded from man. Be that as it may, Milton's concept of God protected the

integrity of God as sole creator of all, and at the same time, it

initiated the possibility of a close relationship between God and

His creation, at least as the relationship ran from God toward creation; the reverse was much more difficult since God was ultimately unknownable, all-powerful, all knowing, and man could not grasp the ultimate finality and scope of God. This notion also created the possibility for God to either be totally dictatorial and harsh with creation, or be benign and beneficent. God chose the latter.

Milton's Ante-Nicene concept of God determined in large part his Christology. Since God is indivisible, uncreated, ungenerated, nothing else could possess those characteristics. Milton's Trinity bears its Ante-Nicene "watermarks" because it did not contain those

Trinitarian developments which occurred after Nicaea. In his Chris­ tology this is especially true. Although Milton did not emphasize the importance of the Greek concept of Logos as Son since that con­ cept was not so crucial to the culture of England as it had been in the second and third centuries and because Milton possessed a strong

Hebraic bias, he did understand that the Son was almost co-eternal with the Father. To Milton, Christ or the Son was the "first begotten of the Father." The Son was the agent for the remainder of creation, but he could not conceive of Father and Son as co-eternal if God alone is One. Milton had drawn attention to the Oneness of God as the first commandment, and he recorded Christ's testimony of God's

Oneness. Christ was the first begotten and Milton did not believe -115-

that this recognition belittled Christ, but gave due respect to

Christ's special status as having only one antecedent, God. As the

preceding chapters have illustrated, the Ante-Nicene Fathers empha­

sized these same points as no other theologians before them or after

them did. Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin and others mentioned some of

these attributes, but they did not centralize these Nicene concepts

of Christ and His relationship with God as did the Fathers considered

above who influenced Milton.

Nearly all of the Ante-Nicene Fathers were subordinationalists.

They emphasized Christ's second place behind God, the Father. This ranking protected not only monotheism, but also the integrity of

the Judeo-Christian Church. Some early believers wanted to forget

the Hebraic origins of Christianity and highlighted the contributions

to the new religion of Greek logos philosophy. The Ante-Nicene

Fathers understood their religion as originating equally from Peter as well as Paul. It had Jewish as well as Gentile application. Thus the early Fathers, especially Irenaeus, sought to show how God had been at work in the history of Israel and how that work had been crowned by the person and work of Jesus Christ. To them and to

Milton, God was the First Cause, the Creator of all life, and the

Father of all beings, as well as the Father of Christ.

The subordinationalism of the Fathers sought to understand the appropriate formula for the Son who, although He pre-existed creation, elected to become a creature in the man Jesus. The first six hundred years of the Church developed a more and more intricate way of grasping the significance of Jesus as Christ. The post-Nicene -116-

Ghurch proceeded to develop a notion of the Trinity which emphasized

the separate, but equal status of the Three Persons and to under­

stand the Trinity as the "Three-in-One." The post-Nicene Church was

to understand Christ as being co-equal with the Father, likewise

the Spirit; but Milton did not espouse these doctrines with those

understandings. The reason for Milton’s reticence to accept these

orthodox notions serves as the thesis for the present study: the

Ante-Nicene Fathers whom he had studied so carefully held a view of

the Trinity which stressed the imbalance of the Trinity heavily

weighted toward God, the Father, and a progressively lighter emphasis

from God to the Son to the Holy Spirit. The most appropriate formula

for understanding Christ for the Ante-Nicene Church was one which

made Christ neither all deity nor all man, neither half deity and

half man. But following Tertullian, the early Church saw Christ

as fully a human being with a fully divine soul: no less man

because of His divinity, and no less Son of God because He was also

son of man. The Ante-Nicene Fathers sought the middle ground

between Sabellianism, a heresy which saw Christ as more divine than

human, and Arianism, which understood Christ as more human than

divine. This latter belief necessitated the Council of Nicaea which mandated a middle ground which said that Father and Son were

of one substance, that They were not completely separate persons.

It declared the true and full divinity of Christ and the sameness

of His substance with the Father. Tertullian and Milton could have

agreed on the use of the term "consubstantial" to describe this relationship, had they thought of it. Milton's view is ante-Nicene -117-

rather than post-Nicene, and the most significant reason for this

lies in the reading schedule Milton followed at Horton. This period

of time, 1635-1638, coming after his formal education and before

his involvement in the political turmoil of his generation, must

have been a crucial one for Milton’s academic and theological

development. We know from his own testimony that he stopped his

intense reading with Constantine (ca. 325), thus he knew only in a

general fashion about Athanatius, the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil,

Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianus), Jerome, John Chrysostom,

and others who contributed to the final development of the orthodox

view of the Trinity. Indeed, Milton's reading of St. Augustine was

only generalized also. Certainly Milton's theology would have

taken different proportions than it did had he read these post-Nicene

Fathers as intensely as he did the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Milton's brand of Trinitarianism should be termed "pre-Trinitarian" therefore

since his own concept of the Trinity bears the traces of his Ante-

Nicene reading. The arguments concerning Milton's so-called anti-

Trinitarianism should more appropriately focus on his ante-Trinitar­ ianism. Milton did indeed hold to a Trinity, but one which leaned heavily upon God. Milton did use the Persons as separate Beings, especially is this clear in the events in heaven before Christ's generation as Jesus. The Son is a separate Person when God must deal with creation, otherwise the Son blends into the Godhead.

Milton was a Trinitarian, but he employed his own definition of the term.

The Third Person received but scant attention as compared with the first Two Persons. Milton felt the need to call upon his -118- readers for toleration as they read his Christology, but no such appeal exists in the chapter on the Spirit. To Milton, the Spirit continues as a messenger agent in the world after Its transmission to the Dis­ ciples at Pentecost. Since the Ante-Nicene Fathers held divergent views concerning the Spirit, and since the Scriptures spoke but little about the Spirit's nature and powers, Milton felt free to derive his own doctrine of the Third Person. Because of the heavy emphasis upon

God and since Christ, Who released the Spirit, was secondary to God, therefore, the Third Person had to come in a weak third by comparison.

Milton neither affirms nor denies the Spirit's divinity, but It must be divine to be sent on such important missions by the Son of God.

But Milton felt that the Spirit was an enigma since even the Fathers could not reach any sort of consensus about It as they basically had done regarding Father and Son.

Thus the Ante-Nicene Fathers, especially Justin, Irenaeus, and

Tertullian, produced a definite impression on Milton's Trinity with the historian Eusebius serving as tutor, and although Milton did not specifically acknowledge his indebtedness to them, his Trinity and theirs show remarkable similarities. In all areas, Milton felt free to sift and winnow the doctrines of faith and to produce his own which he felt was sound according to both reason and Scripture. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Robert Martin. Ikon: John Milton and the Modern Critics. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1955.

Adamson, Jack Hale. "Milton's Arianism." HTR, LIII (1960), 269-76.

______. "The Creation." Bright Essence: Studies in Milton's Theology. William B. Hunter, ed. Salt Lake City: Univ. of Utah Press, 1971, pp. 81-102

Aquinas. The Summa Theologica. Trans, by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benzinger Brothers, 1947.

Arnold, Marilyn. "Milton's Accessible God: The Role of the Son in Paradise Lost." Milton Quarterly, VII (1973), 65-72.

Augustine. City of God. Trans, by Gerald G. Welsh et al. New York Image, 1958.

______. On Christian Doctrine. Trans, by D. W. Robertson, Jr. New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1958.

______. The Confessions of Saint Augustine. Trans, by John K. Ryan. New York: Image, 1960.

Barker, Arthur. Milton and the Puritan Dilemma. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1942.

______. "Milton's Schoolmasters." MLR, XXXII (1937), 517-36.

. "Structural Pattern in Paradise Lost." PQ, XXVIII (1949), 16-30.

Barnes, Timothy David. Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.

Bartholomew, Ruth L. "Some Sources of Milton's Doctrine of Free Will." Diss. Western Reserve, 1945.

Battenhouse, Row W., ed. A Companion to the Study of St. Augustine. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1955.

Bettenson, Henry, ed. Documents of the Christian Church. 2nd ed. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1963.

Blackborn, Thomas. "Uncloister'd Virtue: Adam and Eve in Milton's Paradise." Milton Studies, III (1971), 119-38. -120-

Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church. New York: The Church Pension Fund, 1945.

Broadbent, John B. "Milton's Rhetoric." MP, LVI (1959), 224-42.

______. Paradise Lost: Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1972.

______. Some Grave Subject: An Essay on Paradise Lost. London: Chatto and Windus, 1960.

Bush, Douglas. John Milton. New York: MacMillan, 1964.

English Literature in the Earlier Seventeenth Century. 2nd ed. rev. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.

Paradise Lost in Our Time. 1945; rpt. Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1957.

The Renaissance and English Humanism. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1939.

Cairns, Douglas. "The Theology of Paradise Lost." Bibleoteca Sacra, CII (1948), 478-91.

Cassirer, Ernest, Paul Oskar Kristeller and John Herman Randall, Jr., eds. The Renaissance Philosophy of Man. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1948.

Clair, John A. "A Note On Milton's Arianism.""Essays and Studies in Language and Literature." Duquesne Studies: Philological Series Herbert H. Petit, ed. Pittsburgh: Duquesne Univ. Press, 1964. pp. 44-48.

Clark, Donald Lemen. John Milton at St. Paul's School. New York: Columbis Univ. Press, 1948.

Clement I, II Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas. The Apostolic Fathers. Trans, by Kirsopp Lake. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1912.

Coffin, Charles. "Creation and the Self in Paradise Lost." ELH, XXIX (1962), 1-18.

Conklin, George N. Biblical Criticism and Heresy in Milton. New York: King's Crown Press, 1949.

Cross, F. L. ed. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1958. —121 —

Curry, Walter C. Milton's Ontology, Cosmology, and Physics. Lexington: Univ. of Kentucky Press, 1957.

Cyprian. The Writings of Cyprian. Trans, by Robert Ernest Wallis. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1868.

Daiches, David. Milton. London: Hutchinson's Universal Library, 1957.

Danielou, Jean and Henri Marrou. The First Six Hundred Years. Trans, by Vincent Cronin. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Davidson, Anne. "Innocence Regained: Seventeenth Centruy Reinter­ pretation of the Fall of Man." Diss. Columbia, 1956.

Diekhoff, John S., ed. Milton On Himself: Milton's Utterances Upon Himself and His Work. New York: Humanities Press, 1965.

Dorner, J. A. History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ. 2 vols. Vol. I trans, by William Lindsay Alexander, 1861; Vol. II trans, by D. W. Simon, 1862. Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1861-1862.

Duncan, Joseph E. Milton's Earthly Paradise. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1972.

Eisenring, Albert J. Th. Milton's 'De Doctrina Christiana' An Historical Introduction and Gritical Analysis. Fribourg: Society of St. Paul, 1946.

Empson, William. Milton's God. London: Chatto and Windus, 1961.

Eusebius of Caesarea. The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine. Trans, by G. A. Williamson. New York: New York Univ. Press, 1966.

Evans, J. M. Paradise Lost and the Genesis Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.

Fields, Albert W. "Milton and Self Knowledge." PMLA, LXXXIII, (1968), 392-99.

Fiore, Peter Amadeus. The Augustinianism in Milton's Paradise Lost. Diss. Univ. of London, 1960.

______. "The Problem of Seventeenth Century Soteriology in Reference to Milton." Franciscan Studies, XV (March, 1955), 48-59, 257-83.

Fisher, Peter F. "Milton's Theodicy." JHI, XVII (1956), 28-53. -122 —

Fixler, Michael. Milton and the Kingdoms of God. London: Faber and Faber, 1964.

Fletcher, Harris Francis. Milton's Rabbinical Readings. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1930.

______. Milton's Semitic Studies and Some Manifestations of Them in His Poetry. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1926.

______. The Intellectual Development of John Milton. 2 vols. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1956.

Frye, Roland M. God, Man, and Satan: Patterns of Christian Thought and Life in Paradise Lost, Pilgrim's Progress, and the Great Theologians. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1960.

Gibbs, Paul T. "Milton's Use of the Law of Nature." Diss. Univ. of Washington, 1938.

Gilson, Etienne, Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1938.

______. The Christian Philosophy of Saint Augustine. Trans. by L. E. M. Lynch. New York: Random House, 1960.

Goguel, Maurice. The Primitive Church. Trans, by H. C. Snape. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1964.

Grace, William J. Ideas in Milton. Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1968.

Green, Clarence. "The Paradox of the Fall in Paradise Lost." MLN, LIII (1938), 557-71.

Greenlaw, Edwin. "A Better Teacher Than Aquinas." SP, XIV (April, 1917), 196-217.

Hales, John. The Works of John Hales. 3 vols. Glascow: Robert and Andrew Foulis, 1765.

Hall, Amy Violet. "Milton and the City of God." Diss. Univ. of Washington, 1940.

Haller, William. "Milton and the Protestant Ethic." Journal of British Studies, No. 1. (1961), pp. 52-57.

. The Rise of Puritanism. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957.

Hanford, James Holly. A Milton Handbook. 4th ed. New York: Appleton -Century-'Crof ts, 1954. -123-

______. "The Chronology of Milton's Private Studies." PMLA, XXXVI (1921), 251-314.

. "Milton and the Return to Humanism." SP, XVI (1919), 126-47.

Hardy, Edward Rochie, ed. Christology of the Later Fathers,. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954.

Hartwell, Kathleen. Lactantius and Milton. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1929.

Haydn, Hiram. The Counter-Renaissance. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950.

Highet, Gilbert. The Classical Tradition: Greek and Roman Influences on Western Literature. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1949.

Hoopes, Robert. Right Reason in the English Renaissance. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1962.

Hunter, William B., ed. Bright Essence: Studies in Milton's Theology. Salt Lake City: Univ. of Utah Press, 1971.

______. "Further Definitions: Milton's Theological Vocabulary." Bright Essence: Studies in Milton's Theology. William B. Hunter, ed. Salt Lake City: Univ. of Utah Press, 1971, pp. 15-25.

______. "Milton on the Incarnation." Bright Essence: Studies in Milton's Theology. William B. Hunter, ed. Salt Lake City: Univ. of Utah Press, 1971, pp. 131-48.

______. "Milton's Arianism Reconsidered." HTR, LII (1959), 9-35.

Ingram, William and Kathleen Swaim, eds. A Concordance to Milton's English Poetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

Irenaeus. The Writings of Irenaeus. Trans, by Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaut. Vol. I. of Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. 5 vols. Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1868.

Jacobus, Lee A. "Self-Knowledge in Paradise Lost: Conscience and Contemplation." Milton Studies, III (1971), 103-18.

Kelley, Maurice. "Milton and the Trinity." HLQ, XXXIII (1970), 315-20.

______. "Milton's Arianism Again Considered." HTR, LIV, (1961), 195-205. -124-

______. This Great Argument: A Study of Milton's De Doctrina Christiana as a Gloss upon Paradise Lost. 1941; rpt. Gloucester Peter Smith, 1962.

Kelley, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958.

Kivette, Ruth Montgomery. "Milton on the Trinity." Diss. Columbia University, 1960.

Kristeller, Paul Oskar. The Classics and Renaissance Thought. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1955.

Kurth, Burton 0. Milton and Christian Heroism: Biblical Epic Themes and Forms in Seventeenth Century England. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1929.

Larson, Martin. "Milton and Servetus: A Study in the Sources of Milton's Theology." PMLA, XLI (1926), 891-934.

______. "Milton's Essential Relationship to Puritanism and Stoicism." P£, VI (1927), 201-20.

Lawry, Jon S. The Shadow of Heaven. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1968.

Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity. New York: Harper and Row, 1953.

Leach, A. F. "Milton as Schoolboy and Schoolmaster." Proceedings of the British Academy, 1907-08. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1908.

LeComte, Edward S. A Milton Dictionary. New York: AMS Press, 1961.

Lewis, C. S. A Preface to Paradise Lost. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967.

Lovejoy, Arthur 0. "Milton and the Paradox of the Fortunate Fall." ELH, IV (1937), 161-79.

Lumpkin, Ben W. "Fate in Paradise Lost." SP, XLIV (1947), 56-68.

McColley, Grant. Paradise Lost: An Account of Its Growth and Major Origins, with £ Discussion of Milton's Use of Sources and Literary Patterns. Chicago: Packard, 1940.

McDill, Joseph Moody. Milton and the Pattern of Calvinism. 1938; rpt. Folcroft, Pa: Folcroft Press, 1964. -125-

Madsen, William G. "The Idea of Nature in Milton's Poetry." Three Studies in the Renaissance (Yale Studies in English, CXXXVIII /1958J), 180-283.

______. From Shadowy Types to Truth: Studies in Milton's Symbolism. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1968.

Mahood, M. M. Poetry and Human!sm. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1950.

Martz, Louis L. The Poetry of Meditation: A Study in English Religious Literature of the Seventeenth Century. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1954.

Milton, John. Complete Prose Works of John Milton. Vol. 6 of 8 vols. Maurice Kelley, et al, ed. Trans, by John Carey, New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1973.

______. John Milton: Complete Poems and Major Prose. Merritt Y. Hughes, ed. Indianapolis: Odyssey Press, 1957.

______. The Works of John Milton. F. A. Patterson, et al, eds. 18 vols. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1931-1940.

Mohl, Ruth. John Milton and His Commonplace Book. New York : Frederick Ungar, 1969.

Nicholson, Marjorie Hope. A Reader's Guide to John Milton. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1963.

______. "Milton and Hobbes." Sp, XXIII (1926), 405-33.

______. The Breaking of the Circle. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1960.

. "The Spirit World of Milton and More." SP, XXII (1925), 433-52.

Ogden, H. V. S. "The Crisis of Paradise Lost Reconsidered." PQ, XXXVI (1957), 1-19.

Parish, John E. "Milton and an Anthropomorohic God." SP, LVI, (1959), 619-25.

______. "Milton and God's Curse on the Serpent." JEGP, LVIII (1959), 241-47.

Parker, William Riley. Milton: A Biography. 2 vols Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. -126-

Patrides, C. A. "An Open Letter on the Yale Edition of De Doctrina Christiana." Milton Quarterly, VII (October, 1973), 72-74.

______. Approaches to Paradise Lost. London: Edward Arnold, 1968.

Milton and the Christian Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966.

______. "Milton and Arianism." JHI, XXV (1964), 423-29.

______. "Milton and the Protestant Theory of the Atonement." PMLA, LXXIV (1959), 7-13.

______. "Milton on the Trinity: The Use of Antecedents." Bright Essence: Studies in Milton’s Theology. William B. Hunter, ed. Salt Lake City: Univ. of Utah Press, 1971, pp. 3-13.

______. The Phoenix and the Ladder: The Rise and Decline of the Christian View of History. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1964.

. "Renaissance and Modern Views of Hell." HTR, (1964), 217-36.

Prendergast, Guy Lushington. A Complete Concordance to the Poetical Works of Milton. Madras: Pharoah and Company, 1857.

Prestige, G. L. Fathers and Heretics. London: SPCK, 1948.

______. God in Patristic Thought. London: SPCK, 1952.

Pritchard, John Paul. "The Influence of the Fathers Upon Milton with Especial Reference to Augustine." Thesis. Cornell University, 1925.

Rajan, B. Paradise Lost and the Seventeenth Century Reader. London: Chatto and Windus, 1947.

Ransom, John Crowe. God Without Thunder. New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1930.

Reesing, John. "The Materiality of God in Milton's De Doctrina Christiana." HTR, L (July, 1957), 159-73.

Rice, Eugene F. The Renaissance Idea of Wisdom. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1958.

Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers : Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. 10 vols. 1885; rpt. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1969. -127-

Robins, Harry F. If This Be Heresy: A Study of Milton and Origen. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1963.

Roskoski, Stanley John. "No New Device: Milton’s PR in the Light of his DDC." Diss. Indiana University, 1972.

Samuel, Irene. Plato and Milton. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1947.

Sasek, Laurence A. The Literary Temper of the English Puritans. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Univ. Press, 1961.

Saurat, Denis. Milton, Man and Thinker. New York: The Dial Press, 1925.

Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace, eds. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1952.

Sewell, Arthur. A Study in Milton's Christian Doctrine. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1939.

Sims, James H. The Bible in Milton's Epics. Gainesville: Univ. of Florida Press, 1962.

Stacy, Gerald J. "The Influence of Senecan Stoicism on Milton's Paradise Lost." Diss. Bowling Green State University, 1972.

Stapleton, Laurence. "Milton's Conception of Time in the Christian Doctrine." HTR, LVII, (1964), 9-21.

Steadman, John N. "Adam and the Prophesied Redeemer (Paradise Lost XII, 359-623)." SjP, LVI, (1959), 214-25.

______. "'Man's First Disobedience': The Causal Structure of the Fall." JHI,-XXI (I960), 180-97.

______. "Milton and St. Basil: The Genesis of Sin and Death." MLN, LXXIII (February, 1958), 83-84.

______. "Milton and the Patristic Tradition: Quality of Hell- Fire." Anglia, CXVI (1958), 116-28.

Summers, Joseph. The Muse's Method. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1962.

Swardson, Harold Roland. Poetry and the Fountain of Light: Observations on the Conflict between Christian and Classical Traditions in Seventeenth-Century Poetry. London: Allen and Unwin, 1962. -128-

Sypher, Wylie. Four Stages of Renaissance Style. Garden City: Doubleday, 1955.

Taylor, Dick, Jr. "Grace as a Means of Poetry: Milton's Pattern for Salvation." Tulane Studies in English, IV (1954), 57-90.

______. "Milton and the Paradox of the Fortunate Fall Once More." Tulane Studies in English, IX, (1959), 35-51.

______. "Milton's Treatment of the Judgment and the Expulsion in Paradise Lost." Tulane Studies in English, X, (1960), 51-82.

Taylor, George Coffin. Milton's Use of Du Bartas. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1934.

Tertullian (Quintas Septimus Florens). Apology and De Spectaculis. Trans, by T. R. Glover. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1931.

Thorpe, James, ed. Milton Criticism: Selections from Four Cent­ uries . 1950; rpt. New York: Collier Books, 1969.

Tung, Masson. "The Search for Perfection in John Milton." Diss. Stanford University, 1962.

Waldock, A. J. A. Paradise Lost and Its Critics. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1961.

Watson, Foster. The English Grammar Schools to 1660: Their Curriculum and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1908.

West, Robert H. Milton and the Angels. Athens: Univ. of Georgia Press, 1955.

Willey, Basil. The Seventeenth Century Background: Studies in the Thought of the Age in Relation to Poetry and Religion. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1965.

Williamson, George. "Milton and the Mortalist Heresy." SP, XXXII, (1935), 553-79.

. The Senecan Amble. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1951.

Wolfson, Harry Austryn. "The Meaning of Ex Nihilo in the Church Fathers, Arabic and Hebrew Philosophy, and St. Thomas." Medieval Studies in Honor of J. M. D. Ford. U. T. Holmes and A. J. Denomy, eds. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1948. pp. 355-67.

______. The Philosophy of the Church Fathers. 3rd ed. rev. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1970. -129-

Woodhouse, A. S. P. "Milton, Puritanism, and Liberty." UTQ, IV (1935), 483-513.

. "Notes on Milton's Early Development." UTQ, XIII (1943), 66-101.

______. The Heavenly Muse: A Preface to Milton. Hugh MacCallum, ed. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1972.