CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

THE HERMENEUTICS OF JOHN MILTON

A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English by Kurt Lynn Hild

r~ay, 1983 The Thesis of Kurt Lynn Hild is approved:

Professor Catherine M. Dunn, Chairperson

California State University, Northridge DEDI CATION

To Tammi My wife, my soul mate, and my best friend whose mind is knit with mine as we walk together in Christ. Her constant love, faith and encouragement cannot be measured in the completion of this work.

' d iii ACKNOWLE DGt~ENTS

It has been said that if a student is fortunate, he encounters two or at most three teachers who truly touch his life. For me, one of those teachers is Dr. Catherine Dunn. Her enthusiasm for learning, her command of her subject matter, and her encouragement to me as a student have provided me with inspiration in no small degree, and I count it a privilege to have studied under her guidance and direc­ tion. A "thank you" is insufficient to acknowledge what she has meant to me in my academic training.

I also wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Thomas Wright for his time and willingness to serve as one of my readers and to Dr. Elaine Plasberg for her time and her helpful suggestions as a reader of my thesis.

• j) iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION • • . • • iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv TABLE OF CONTENTS • • • • • • • v ABSTRACT •• • • vi INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTERS I History of Interpretation • • • • • • 5 II - The Antiprelatical Tracts • . 29 III - The Divorce Controversy • . 44 IV - Christian Doctrine • 70 CONCLUSION • . 87 NOTES • • • 98 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 103

v ABSTRACT

THE HERMENEUTICS OF JOHN MILTON by Kurt Lynn Hild Master of Arts in English

John Milton•s hermeneutics developed over a period of years. He embraced the Protestant position that accepted the Bible as the sole arbiter in issues affecting man•s relationship to God and other men.

However~ a study of Milton•s Biblical interpretation reveals a changing development as he practiced his hermeneutics in his prose writings. He devoted his early tracts to the antiprelatical controversy, the conflict concerning ecclesiastical a-uthority. As a Puritan, Milton believed that the Scriptures clearly taught a presbyterian church government structure or rule by the assembly rather than the episcopacy of the Anglican Church, which imposed a hierarchy of bishops on people regardless of those bishops• qualifications. In these tracts Milton held that Scriptures were clear and could be understood by anyone who read with an open heart and mind. A few years after the ant ipre 1at i ca 1 tracts, Mil ton wrote a series of tracts discussing divorce. He believed that men should be allowed the right and responsibility to divorce if they found that

vi their minds were incompatible with that of their marriage partner's. He believed that God desired a mutual communion of reason for a proper marriage between a man and a woman. Incompatibility of minds could be grounds for divorce. In these tracts Milton saw himself as the sole advocate for a discountenanced truth and as one who had the proper medicine to heal men's eyes so that they could see the truth clearly. In the divorce tracts Milton's ·hermeneutics changed from holding to a literal interpretation to an interpretation that needs to be made by someone enlightened with the proper understanding. He believed that he was so enlightened. Milton's theological compendium, De Doctrina Christiana, or, Christian Doctrine, summarizes his years of Biblical studies; and this work shows clearly yet another development in his hermeneutics. Milton said that the rule and canon of faith are the Scriptures. He sounded like an orthodox Protestant in this statement, but he believed that Scripture was two-fold: the external record of the written Scriptures and, almost more significantly, the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, the inner Scripture. Milton thought the external Scriptures had suffered corruption, but the inner Spirit could not. Therefore, a man was to accept the witness of the inner Scripture above all outside human sources since the Spirit would teach the truth to the believing heart. The position that Milton presented in his Christian Doctrine is the underlying premise of his three major poetic works: Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained, and Samson Agonistes. His inner Scripture ·principle affects his view of God, Christ, and man, since he sought to justify the ways of God to man. He said that he depended upon the Spirit to teach him as he wrote so that God might be seen more clearly. His last two major poems give a different picture of their subjects, Christ and Samson, than the Scriptures portray; but Milton depended upon his inner light to conclude that man was to obey as he was taught from Scripture.

vii; INTRODUCTION

John Milton is perhaps better known as a poet than he is as a prose writer. However, he poured a great deal of his energy and learning into his work as a pamphleteer for the Protestant cause in seventeenth century England. Much of the work Milton produced cen­ tered around his vast knowledge of the Bible and his understanding of how sacred Scripture should be interpreted, since his view of its teaching would affect how he governed himself and, in a larger sense, how society governed itself. Milton generally believed in a kind of liberty for the self, a belief carried over into his interpretation of the Scriptures; and he entered the religious controversy of his day with a great deal of Protestant zeal and patriotic intensity. Milton's belief that man should be free to make decisions inde­ pendent of any religious authority came from his understanding of the Bible's teachings. "Sola fidei regula" summarized the Protes­ tant Reformation position that the Bible is the only authoritative voice of God to man. The sixteenth century reformers, whose posi­ tion Milton embraced a century later, had rejected the "prima fideo regula" of the Roman Catholic Church which regarded the Bible as first among such other authorities as the moral unanimity of the Fathers, ancient creeds, decisions of ecumenical councils, and oral tradition. The reformers' position which Milton followed said that there were no secondary means of making clear the meaning of the

1 2

Bible. As Milton is very much a product of the Reformation, he fol­ lowed, at least in the earlier years of his prose work, the Protestant position of a literal, historical, grammatical interpre­ tation of the Bible. He had prepared for his close literal and grammatical reading by mastering the languages used in the Scriptures, Greek, and Hebrew, as well as the Latin translation. He had further steeped himself in the theological works of the Church Fathers--Augustine, Tertullian, Origen, and Clement--and was aware of their practice in interpreting Scripture. Milton had access for comparison to all versions of the Bible then existing. His English Bibles were probably the Authorized Version of 1611 and the Geneva Bible, a Bible with Calvinistic anno­ tations and marginal notes by the Swiss theologian Zwingli, widely used in England. The Vulgate, Jerome's Latin version of 385 A.D., as well as the Greek New Testament and Septuagint provided him with the two languages for studies. In 1624 Milton owned a copy of Buxtorf•s rabbinical Tenach, the Hebrew Scriptures; and he occa­ sionally referred to it in later years. The Tenach included the Hebrew text paralleled by the Targums in Aramaic, the paraphrased renderings of Scriptures of the Jews. All this indicates that Milton had access to the greatest of all Hebrew texts before he ever moved to Cambridge for his university education.1 The Protestant reformers rejected the long standing practice of an allegorical interpretation of the Bible. As will be seen in the first chapter, the Jews had for years before Christ been influenced by Greek allegorists. Furthermore, an allegorical interpretation also generally dominated Biblical exegesis in the Catholic Church until the Reformation came in the sixteenth century. However, not all exegetical practice was allegorical, as some devout Jews and later Christian expositers held to a more literal, historical interpretation of the Bible. Milton would almost certainly have been familiar with some of the allegorists since his education would have exposed him to their commentary; however, he chose to align himself with those who interpreted the Bible literally since it is the only authoritative voice of God to man. The intent of the present study is to show that John Milton went through a progressive development in his practice of interpreting the Scripture, as may be seen by an examination of several of his prose writings which appeared over a period of approximately twenty years from 1641 to 1660. An analysis of Milton's use of the Bible is valuable in recalling how important a thorough knowledge of it· and the attendant theology was at the time, not only to the trained scholar but even to undergraduates, for whom it was an integral part of their education. Going beyond this, Milton had as much training in theology as those students who later took ecclesiastical orders.2 Closely examining Milton's use of the Bible provides a valuable insight into his major prose as well as some suggestions about his application of Scripture to his poetry, in addition to providing a type of measuring rod of his general education. Before an analysis can be made of Milton's interpretation of the 4

Bible and its application to his poetry, a brief survey of the history of hermeneutical practice is necessary to show the source and development of the Protestant practice of Milton and the theolo­ gians of his day. The survey will begin with some definitions and assumptions that are made by Protestant interpreters which evolved from fifteen hundred years of hermeneutical practice. The practice of hermeneutics gives the rules of interpretation of the books of the Bible; exegesis. is the application of the rules to the interpre­ tation of the books which results in Biblical theology. It is important to observe as Chapter One unfolds that, although allegorism dominated as the accepted mode of interpretation for Biblical scholars, the thread of literalism was woven into the very fabric of Scriptural interpretation. Milton represents a major figure in the historical tradition, but he was not at first an inno­ vator. The dilemma of the Reformation of church reform and indivi­ dual liberty led Milton to exercise his freedom to interpret the Bible as he felt was necessary, and he moved away from the purely literal stance considered orthodox by other Protestant reformers. As his interpretation developed, Milton came to believe that the inner illumination of the individual believer was the sole authority in the matters of conscience and interpretation. It will be seen that Milton became a kind of capstone for the Protestant movement in England in Biblical interpretation. CHAPTER I HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION

The word "hermeneutics•• is derived from Hermes, the Greek god who brought the messages of the gods to mortals and was the god of science, invention, eloquence, speed, writing, and art. The word is from the Greek word "hermeneutike," derived from the verb, "hermeneuo." "Hermeneutike" is, properly, the art of "to her­ meneuein," but now designates the theory of that art. Hermeneutics is the science and the art of biblical interpretation. It is a science guided by rules within a system and an art where the appli­ cation of rules is by skill, not by mechanical imitation. It is a special application of the general science of linguistics and meaning which seeks to formulate those particular rules which per­ tain to the special factors connected with the Bible. It stands in a similar relationship to exegesis that a rule book stands to a game. The rules are not the game, but the game is meaningless without rules. The special task of the biblical interpreter is to point out the way in which the differences or distances between an author and his readers may be removed.l Hermeneutical practice in western culture can be said to have begun with the Greeks who had two traditions, the religious heritage of Homer and Hesiod, and the philosophical and historical tradition of Thucydides and Herodotus, who developed the principles of logic, criticism, religion, and science. In Greek culture the religious

5 6

elements were often fanciful, grotesque, absurd or immoral. Because of these problematical elements, philosophy and history could not accept much of the religious tradition. Therefore, much of the ten­ sion was relieved by allegorizing the religious heritage. The stories of the gods were not taken literally; the secret or real meaning was underneath the story. Obviously, the Greeks were interested in their own writings, not in the Judea-Christian Scriptures; however, their allegorical methods were applied by the Jews to their own sacred writings.2 One of the major centers of Greek culture was Alexandria in Egypt, named for the great emperor-general Alexander. Here lived a large segment of Jewish people who were influenced rather signifi­ cantly by Greek culture and philosophy, especially Plato. The ten­ sion between their Mosaic tradition and the Greek philosophical literature led the Alexandrian Jew to a solution identical to the Greek's solution to his problem. They adopted a fundamental prin­ ciple of Plato that one should not believe anything that is unworthy of God. Whenever they found things in Scripture that did not agree with their philosophy or offended their sense of propriety, they resorted to allegorical interpretation. A whole body of pre-Christian literature serves to illustrate the looseness of Haggadian principles in homiletic interpretation, clearly indicating the freedom with which many of the learned Jews of those days added philosophy, fiction, and highly colorful legend to their acceptance of genuine ancient Scriptures. All formal attempts among Alexandrian Jews to expound Scripture seem to have 7

looked for hidden and mysterious meanings. Allegorical interpreta­ tions came into existence among a people possessed of sacred books and only at a time when spokesmen and leaders among the Jews had already chosen for their possession another philosophy than that presented by the literal meaning of their written Scripture. The outstanding Jewish allegorist was Philo Judaeus (c.B.C. 20 - c.54 A.D.), founder of an eclectic philosophy, mingling Judaism and Hellenism. He thought that the Hebrew Scriptures were superior to Plato and Greek philosophy, and he taught a dictation theory of inspiration, that the prophet was passively recording what came to him from God. However, Philo had a great fondness for Plato and Pythagoras. He allowed or assumed a literal sense of Scripture, but he felt the great aim was to exhibit the mystical depths of the significance which lies concealed beneath the sacred words. He thought Hellinistic philosophy was assumed to be a natural and necessary part of the law of Moses. He seemed to reject the historical standpoint by an author and to accept no realistic or historical sense of truthfulness or accuracy in the statements of Moses. He showed little regard for the connection and scope of a passage of Scripture, or for the integrity of Scripture as a trust­ worthy record of facts; yet, he treated the law as the divinely inspired Word of God. His elaborate system of allegorizing was able to reconcile for him his loyalty to the Hebrew faith and his love for Greek philosophy. He saw the literal sense as an immature level of understanding. The literal sense was the body of Scripture; the allegorical sense was its soul. 8

The mystical and allegorical fancies which distinguished Philo were due to a great extent to the peculiar Alexandrian culture and the spirit of eclectic philosophy in the midst of which he was trained. His work led to three canons which determined if a passage was to be allegorically interpreted: if a statement said anything unworthy of God; if a statement is contradictory with some other statement or in any other way presents the interpreter with a difficulty; and, if the record itself is allegorical in nature. Such a tendency to allegorize Scripture and load it with legend, proverb, and parable became common wherever Judaism had planted a synagogue and maintained a rabbi. There was not nor could not be a clear, consistent exegesis of the Jewish Scriptures when the Jewish interpreters did not find the Messianic prophecies fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. Consequently, the allegorical system largely dominated exegesis throughout the fifteen hundred years from Christ's time until the Reformation. The mystic Cabbalists in the twelfth century studied under the assumption that the whole Massorah (the writings accumulated in the Hebrew canon), even down to verses, words, letters, vowel-points and accents, had been delivered to Moses on Mt. Sinai and that the num­ bers of the letters had a special, even supernatural power.3 From the work of Philo and for more than a thousand years, Jewish alle- gorism developed several sub-canonical rules. First, grammatical peculiarities hint at deeper spiritual truth. Second, stylistic elements such as synonyms or repetition indicate deeper truth. Third, manipulation of punctuation, words, and new combinations of

• d 9

words are allowed to extract new and deeper truth from a passage. Fourth, symbols were to be understood figuratively. Fifth, spiri­ tual truths could be etymologies of names; and sixth, the law of double application was needed to show that natural objects signify spiritual things. The wide and long-ranging influence of Jewish allegorism had its impact upon Christian Patristic allegorism, for after the apostolic age the widely prevalent Hellenistic habit of allegorizing what seemed offensive to philosophic taste carried many of the Christian writers in its tide. With the exception of the school of Antioch and the Victorines of the Middle Ages, the allegorical system domi­ nated exegesis until the Reformation. Since there was no settled or uniform hermeneutics in the second century, numerous difficulties arose when Christian hermeneutics began to employ Greek and Jewish hermeneutical practices. The Christian faith made the Hebrew Scripture a Christian document saying that Jesus of Nazareth was the fulfillment of the Messianic promise. One difficulty in such exege­ sis arose from not seeing a genuine historical sense, so that the historical connection of a passage was ignored. A second problem developed from a lack of understanding of the progress of biblical revelation when citing the Old Testament. A third area of dif­ ficulty, which led allegorists to say that only their method of interpretation could determine meaning, was that the Old and New Testaments were filled with parables, enigmas and riddles. Thus, they confused allegory with typology which blurred the distinction between a legitimate and an improper interpretation of the Old IU

Testament.4 A fifth problem was the belief that Greek philosophy was in the Old Testament, and it was only the allegorical method which could discover it. The sixth problem, one which ultimately was confronted in the Reformation, was that the method was highly arbitrary and fostered a dogmatic interpretation of Scripture. It introduced church authority under the guise of tradition as the norm for interpretation. The true meaning would be obscured where different doctrinal systems emerged within the framework of allego­ rical hermeneutics. No way would exist to determine which doctrines were true. Three basic schools of hermeneutics developed during this Patristic period: the Alexandrian School of Clement and Origen; the Antioch School of Diodorus, Lucius and John Chrysostom; and for lack of a better identifiable term, the Western Type of Exegesis of Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine. Alexandria in the third century A.D. was still an important seat of learning where Jewish religion and Greek philosophy met and influenced each other. The two greatest of the Christian interpre­ ters, Clement and Origen, regarded the Bible as the inspired Word of God, but believed that only the allegorical interpretation contri­ buted to real knowledge. Clement, a philosophical allegorist, saw five possible meanings to Scripture: the historical sense; the doctrinal sense, which is the obvious moral, religious and theo­ logical; the prophetic sense of predictive prophecy and typology; and the mystical sense of the deeper moral, spiritual and religious truth. Clement believed that all Scripture must be understood ll

allegorically. The literal sense of Scripture could lead only to a simple faith; the allegorical sense led to true knowledge. Origen was probably the greatest biblical exegete and critic of ancient Church who understood all the sects of philosophy. He was a rigid ascetic who emasculated himself for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He is acknowledged as the originator of biblical science and one of the greatest prodigies of learning and industry among men with a real zeal for God. He wanted to eliminate absurdities or apparent contradictions in Scripture and make Scripture acceptable to the philosophically minded. For him the meaning of the Holy Spirit is always clear and simple and worthy of God. All that seemed dark and immoral and unbecoming in the Bible simply served as an incentive to transcend or pass beyond the literal sense. For example, he asked how it could possibly profit any one to read about the drunkenness of Noah, or about Jacob, his wives and his con­ cubines, or about the horrible incest of Lot, or about the foul story of Judah and Tamar. All these, he said, could be nothing but mystical allegories. Origen held a Platonic view of history which he reinterpreted by means of Christian theology. The symbolization of history does not deny the actual historicity of a story. He said, "Passages that are true in their historical sense are much more numerous than those which have a purely spiritual significa­ tion" (Terry, p. 641). His hermeneutical practice can be summarized in four basic statements. The literal meaning is the preliminary level of

Scripture. It is the 11 body 11 not the "soul 11 (moral sense) nor 12

"spirit" (allegorical sense) of the Bible. The literal sense is the meaning for laymen who took everything symbolic, metaphorical, or poetic literally. The literal is a sign of the mysteries and an image of things divine to provoke us to a deeper, more spiritual study of the Bible. History, then, would be seen symbolically. Secondly, to understand the Bible, the interpreter must have grace given to him by Christ. Christ is the inner principle of Scripture, and only those with the Spirit of Christ can understand it. Third, the true exegesis of the Bible is spiritual exegesis. The Bible is one vast allegory where every detail is symbolic. Meaning can only be found in spiritualizing it. Finally, the Old Testament is pre­ paration for the New. The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed. If the New fulfills the Old, the Old is super­ seded. One brief example of Origen•s method will suffice. In Genesis 24, the Scriptures record that Rebecca comes to draw water at the well and so meets the servant of Abraham. The meaning is, according to Origen, that believers must come daily to the wells ·of Scripture in order to meet with Christ. The second school to influence hermeneutics appeared about the fourth century A.D.; known as the Antioch School in Syria, it employed a more scientific system of biblical study. Those asso­ ciated with the Antioch School worked to determine the original sense of the Bible and defended the grammatico-historical interpre­ tation. They had very little sympathy with the allegorical schools of Alexandria but at the same time made few inroads into the western school of Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, and Hilary. 13

The man considered the founder of the Antioch School was Lucian, an eloquent man so laborious in his critical study that copies of Scripture edited by him were known as Lucianean. He fostered prin­ ciples of free grammatical interpretation, which encouraged an i.nde­ pendent and fearless tendency that led to extremes. The stress was laid on the particulars and not on seeing them in the context of the whole. Others followed Lucian in holding to the historical sense of Scripture. Diodorus authored many treatises using the literal sense of Scripture without attempting to explain that which was mystical. Theodore of Mopseustia (c.390 A.D.), Bishop of Cilicia and a man of acute intellect and strong character, wrote abundant commentaries on Scripture that showed him an independent critic and an historical interpreter. His insights and interpretations won him acknowledge­ ment as "Master of the Orient." John of Chrysostom exhibited the Antioch school's more conser­ vative and practical tendency. He based his method on logical and grammatical principles which he used as a homiletic for sermons. His pious feeling inclined him to asceticism and the self­ mortification of monastic life. Among the early Church fathers he is considered one of the greatest commentators. Generally speaking, the Antioch School rejected allegorism, turning instead to the literal interpretation of the Scriptures. It laid a foundation which would not be picked up again until it was more fully developed in the Reformation. The third movement in the Patristic period was called the West­ ern School of exegesis. Simply, these men accepted the authority 14

of tradition and of the Church in biblical interpretation. The fathers of the Western church were, as a class, much inferior to the Antioch school in the exposition of Scripture, chiefly because of their comparative ignorance of the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. For example, Augustine did not know Hebrew and had an imperfect knowledge of Greek. He based some of his exposi­ tions on erroneous interpretations of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. Several figures play a prominent role in the Western School. In the third century Tertullian wrote vigorous denunciations of Gnostic heresies. He embraced an historic-theological school of exposition of Scripture following a "rule of faith," supposedly transferred from the apostles to all the Churches. The rule-of-faith notion began to be recognized as a legitimate, viable tradition for the accepted interpretation of the Bible; however, the consensus rule was never really settled so that the hermeneutic practice led to a single, accepted interpretation. Ambrose {374 to 397), the influen­ tial Bishop of Milan, treated the historical sense of Scripture as of no account, allegorizing the Genesis account of Noah's ark as a mystical representation of the human body. In the latter fourth and early fifth centuries, Jerome assisted the Western School by translating the Scriptures into Latin, known as the Vulgate version. A scholar proficient in both Hebrew and Greek, he tried to seek a balance between the literal and the alle­ gorical, but under the influence of the Antioch School he generally gave a literal sense of Scripture when he commented. His 15

translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew proved to be more faithful to the original language than was the Septuagint (Terry, p. 656).

The most prominent theologian-scholar of this period was th~ Bishop of Hippo, Augustine, whose originality of genius and power of thought shaped theological studies and speculations for more than a thousand years. Augustine used four kinds of hermeneutics in a handbook called De Doctrina Christiana: historical, etiological, analogical and allegorical. In his work he endeavored to develop a theory of signs, defining sign as a thing apart from the impression it presents to the senses that causes some other thing to enter our thoughts. For example, in Genesis 3 in the record of the Fall, the fig-leaves become hypocrisy, the coats of skins become mortality, and the four rivers of Eden become the four cardinal virtues. In the story of the Deluge the Ark is covered within and without with pitch to show the safety of the Church from inward and outward here­ sies. The drunkenness of Noah is a figure of the death and passion of Christ. From these examples Augustine believed that God's method of communication to men came through speech, and speech is incarnate in the written Scripture. Augustine presented twelve hermeneutic principles, all of which he broke at one time or another. He assumed that the interpreter must be a genuine Christian to understand Scripture; and the interpreter's responsibility was to draw meaning from the Scripture, not bring meaning to it. The original writer's thoughts must be accurately expressed. Augustine was further convinced that the Holy 16

Spirit was not to be the expositor's substitute for learning in order to understand Scripture; rather, the interpreter needs thorough preparation in Hebrew, Greek, geography, natural history, music, chronology, numbers, history, dialectics, natural science and ancient philosophy. The two primary controlling principles of Augustine's her­ meneutics were love and the "analogy of faith," or true orthodoxy. He meant that the expositor could not make Scripture go contrary to orthodoxy since orthodoxy was based on Scripture. Added to that principle was the attitude of love controlling the interpreter since he sought to foster and enhance love for God and man. If any interpretation were insecure or unclear, nothing in the passage could be made part of orthodoxy because the obscure must yield to the clear, those statements of Scripture already made part of orthodoxy. His actual expositional practice followed something of a pattern under the two controlling principles. Augustine believed literal and historical meanings must be held in high regard though not as ends in themselves. Not all the Bible is allegorical but much is both literal and allegorical, which meant that Scripture has more than one meaning. He made the allegorical method proper and accept­ able. The supreme test to determine if the allegorical method should be used was love. If the literal sense of Scripture created or aroused dissension, then the passage was to be allegorized although it was to be built upon the literal and historical meaning of a text. He further added that no verse was to be studied as an II

autonomous unit. What the context of the verse is, what the Bible says elsewhere on the same subject, and what orthodox creed says will keep the interpreter from studying a verse by itself. Also, no Scripture was to be interpreted so as to conflict with any other. The expositor must "distinguish the times," that is, he must take into account that the Bible is progressive revelation. Since Scripture came progressively, the Old Testament is seen as Christian document because it is a Christological document; the figures of Christ developed from a typological view of Old Testament prophe­ cies. Augustine also believed the entire system of logic and numbers should be regarded as eternal truth since he thought numbers

played a special role in human knowledge. By allegorizing numbers, - I Biblical numbers become significant since they will lead to truth. Although Augustine broke most of his own rules, he compensated with a literal understanding of Scripture even though such a prin­ ciple was not fully developed, and with his great theological genius he could not help but see the theological grandeur of Scripture. His best expositions are those passages on his own rich experience and profound acquaintance with the operations of the human heart which enabled him to comment with great practical force. The Patristic exegesis progressed from two operative tendencies, the allegorism associated with Judaism and followed by the Alexandrian school, and the Antioch school of literal, historical interpretation. Generally speaking, the allegorical principles dominated hermeneutics into the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages monasteries were the principle seats of learning, and it was not an 18

age of original exegesis but of compilation and appropriation of the interpretations of the past. Monastic scholars, known as Catenists, compiled the exposition of the ancient fathes; and they separated the meaning of the Bible into literal and spiritual or mystical. Their belief that the spirit is more central to human personality than the body led them to accept the spiritual-mystical meaning of the Bible as the most important. Three divisions made up the spiritual-mystical interpretation: allegorical, or what passes as a combination of typology and allegorism; tropological, or moral interpretation; and the analogical, or how the church "now•• antici­ pates the church glorified in an eschatological sense. The Roman Catholic Church for most of the Middle Ages maintained the authority of the allegorical interpretation or the spiritual method of interpretation, and several principles emerged from the Catholic expositors. They accepted the Latin Vulgate of Jerome as the authentic version of Scripture for public lectures, disputa­ tions, sermons, and expositions, including Apocryphal books. In obedience to the Church, they accepted whatever the Church had spe­ cifically said about matters of Bible introduction and authorship of books of the Bible. Furthermore, interpreters accepted all verses which the Church had officially interpreted in the sense in which they had been interpreted. Also, they saw the literal and histori­ cal interpretation of Scripture as the foundation of Bible study. Thomas Aquinas, emphasizing the importance of the literal, stated that no doctrine could be erected on spiritual exegesis alone. Scripture does, however, possess a spiritual or mystical meaning 19

which is beyond the literal. Aquinas also said that Scripture may have more than one sense because the author is God. Scripture is not only literal and historical but also spiritual and figurative truth. Therefore, it is not proper to limit the meaning of Scripture to the literal sense. The spiritual mystical interpretation was an outgrowth of the allegorizing of the early church which became codified in the Middle Ages: allegorical meaning or typological; analogical meaning or eschatological; and the tropological, that is, teaching a "tropes," a way of life which would be the moral significance of a passage. With this principle in mind, the Catholic Church became the official interpreter of Scripture because it believed the Scriptures were deposited in the Church, not the world. Acting as custodian and the depository, the Church protected Scripture in its written and oral form. The average man was not competent to interpret Scripture because the task was beyond his ability. Christianity is "The Deposit of Faith," and the Church which bears the true Tradition (oral and written) was the official interpreter. No passage can be interpreted to conflict with the Roman Catholic doctrinal system. Councils, commissions, and congregations are not infallible but enjoy a high degree of authority. The Catholic Fathers acted in interpretation according to three principles: interpretation was solely about faith and morals; science and history statements in Scripture were not binding. They contended that the Fathers must be bearing witness of the Catholic tradition, what was believed every where, always, by everyone and without personal opinion. Also, the 20

Fathers must have unanimous witness to the given interpretation. Obscure and partial teaching of Scripture was to be explained by the fuller teaching in the unwritten tradition of the Church, and not limited to Scripture since the unwritten tradition may then be used to fill out what was deficient in written form of Scripture. The Bible was to be understood in terms of the principle of develop­ ment, justified by the principle of implication (what could be properly deduced) and the principle of epigenesis (the "seeds" of the early church having grown and changed). These principles soli­ dified especially about the time of the Reformation when Protestants began doing a great deal of exegetical work. The encyclical "Provi­ dentissimus Deus" of Pope Leo XIII said that the "sense of Holy Scripture could not be found in Protestant writers, who being without true faith, only gnaw the bark of Sacred Scripture and never ·attain its pith" (Ramm, p. 45). Not all the Biblical interpretation of the Middle Ages was alle­ gorical. The influence of the Syrian School of Antioch of the early Christian Church was picked up by the medieval scholars in Paris in the Abby of St. Victor. These men developed a strong historical, literal school which came to be known as the Victorines. Hugo, Richard, and Andrew were outstanding men influenced by Jewish literalism. The Victorines insisted that liberal arts, history, and geography were basic to exegesis. History and geography form a natural background for literal exegesis. Literal exegesis gave rise to doctrine, and doctrine was a natural for allegorization. They also insisted that the mystical or spiritual sense could not be 21

truly known until the Bible had been literally interpreted. It was not letterism, that is, not literally "the eye of the Lord," but the true and proper meaning of a sentence syntax, grammar, and meaning. The true interpretation of the Bible was exegesis, not eisegesis of reading one's own interpretation into it. Although the Victorines held partially to a literal sense of Scripture, it was not until the Reformation that the full development of the literal interpretation of Scripture came about. The tradition of the Syrian school was reflected among the Victorines but became essential hermeneutic theory of the Reformers. Before Luther nailed his theses to the Wittenburg Church door, John Wycliffe translated the Bible into English from the Latin Vulgate. John Huss, influenced by Wycliffe and martyred in 1415, followed a grammatical sense but aimed to bring out the doctrinal and moral lessons of a text. John Wessel, a precursor of the Reformation, held Scripture up as the final appeal in matters of faith, following the historico-theological method and maintaining the simple obvious sense of the text. About the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the Renaissance had called attention to the necessity of going back to original languages. Erasmus and Reuchlin, "the two eyes of Europe," began studying the original languages; and the four-fold sense of Scripture was abandoned, establishing the principle that the Bible has but one sense. Erasmus studied Greek, translating classic works, and became interested in Biblical studies. He wrote annota­ tions to the New Testament which were highly esteemed in England, an 22

English translation being required in every parish Church. He also ·published an edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516 which went far toward supplanting the previous scholasticism by better methods of theological study. He edited the Church fathers and helped break down extravagant belief in their authority by pointing out the linguistic mistakes in their works. Erasmus never hesitated to reject a so-called "Scripture proof" when it seemed to him that the passage might be misapplied or unte­ nable. Nor did he retain a Scripture phrase even though it might seem liable to abuse. He possessed a high order of philological merits and gave important notes on rare words and phrases in the Greek New Testament. He became regarded as the chief founder of modern textual and biblical criticism. He aimed to clarify the meaning of words which had been overused, contributing to a fami- . liarity distorted partly by mistaken applications. His Greek New Testament was the first to apply critical principles to I John 5:7 about the three witnesses in heaven which supports the Trinity of God: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one." Erasmus' study of the earliest manuscripts available led him to reject this verse as spurious or a much later addition to the Johanine epistle. His work on this led many scholars to agree generally that the passage had no manuscript authority and had been a letter insertion. Such was the nature of his work, a close examination of a text to gather the philological basis of the words of Scripture leading to a more literal examination of a text. He described the general characteristics of Hellenistic Greek and the peculiarities of the apostle Paul•s style. He also con­ tended that there were trivial errors and discrepancies in the sacred writers, and he attempted not to confuse inspiration with supernatural infallibility in expressions and details. He said,

"Christ alone is called Truth; He alone ~as free from error." This he felt allowed for the human element in Scripture. Even though he presented new studies into the words of Scripture themselves, he was not ready to break with the past. He felt that he laid an important foundation in his studies, as he said, 11 We have swept away the impe~ diments, and opened the field wherein they who may hereafter wish to explain the secrets of Scripture may either play together with greater freedom or join battle with more convenience" (Farrar, p. 322). Erasmus becomes very much a forerunner to the Reformation, and his Greek Testament as well as his wish to see Christ honored in all languages provided important impetus to Martin Luther who would translate the Bible into German. The actual Reformation was preceded by an hermeneutical refor­ mation prepared for by two factors. The first was the renewed study of Greek and Hebrew. The second was a reaction to the philosophical system of Occam, a nominalist who separated revelation from human reason. Human reason dealt with the level of nature, philosophy, and science. Revelation (through faith) concerned salvation and theology. Grace and nature were separated by Occam who said that God was known by revelation, not human reason. Aquinas had not made 24

such a separation, but had said that reason dealt with philosophy and natural religion which provided a natural link between revela­ tion and philosophy. Martin Luther was trained in the philosophy of Occam and said the Bible was to be magnified above philosophy. His defense was Scripture and reason (logical deductions from Scrip­ ture), and it was this principle which led to the ecclesiastical reformation. The Reformers believed the Bible to be the inspired Word of God. Inspiration was understood to be organic rather than mechanical, but they preferred the infallibility of the Word over the infallibility of the Church. The Church did not determine what Scripture taught, but Scripture determined what the Church ought to teach under two basic premises: Scripture interprets Scripture, and all under­ standing and exposition of Scripture was to be in conformity with the uniform teaching of Scripture (the analogy of faith). Luther published a German New Testament in 1522 which enabled people to read the teachings of Christ and the apostles for them­ selves. In 1534 he completed the whole Bible, trying to make it as accurate as possible, while laying the groundwork for establishing sound methods of criticism and exegesis. He developed six major principles of hermeneutics beginning with the psychological prin­ ciple where faith and· illumination were personal and spiritual requisites for the interpreter. Luther believed that the Bible is the supreme and final authority in theological matters and is, therefore, above all ecclesiastical authority. Its teaching can not be countermanded not qualified nor subordinated to any 25

ecclesiastical authorities. Luther stressed that preaching should be grounded on the literal word, since "The literal sense of Scripture alone is the essence of faith and Christian theology. Every word should be allowed to stand in its natural meaning, and should not be abandoned unless faith forces us to it" (Ramm, p. 54). Tbis literal principle had three aspects to it: allegory was to be rejected, especially if it came from papal authority; the primacy of the original languages was to be accepted to defend his teaching against heretics; this indispensable knowledge and the historical­ grammatical principle were inseparable from the literal. The interpreter gives attention to grammar, times, circumstances, and conditions of the writer of the biblical book as well as the context of the passage. Luther maintained that a devout, competent Christian can under­ stand the true meaning of Scripture without official guides to interpretation offered by the Roman Catholic Church. The perspe­ cuity of the Bible coupled with the priesthood of all believers made the Bible the property of all Christians. A competent Christian is sufficient to interpret the Bible, and the Bible is sufficiently clear in context to yield its meaning to a believer. Luther insisted on the "organic," theological unity of the Bible. Called the "analogy of fait~," all relevant material to be collected would be apparent on a given subject in a pattern of divine revelation. This material would lead to the Christological principle where the interpreter finds Christ in the Old Testament. Luther also saw the Law-Gospel principle which says that a man 26

is justified before God on the basis of faith, not of any good deeds he does. Therefore, the interpreter must be careful to distinguish between Law and Gospel since any fusion of the two would be wrong. The Law is God's Word about human sin and imperfection; its purpose is to drive man to his knees under a burden of guilt. The Gospel is God's grace and power to save. Therefore, the interpreter must never confuse the two activities of God when interpreting Scripture. Luther defended the right of private judgment, emphasized the necessity of taking context and historical circumstance into account, demanded faith and spiritual insight in the interpreter, and desired to find Christ everywhere in Scripture. Philip Melanchthon surpassed Luther in scholarship and learning. Having every advantage of education, including classical and Biblical languages, he made careful revisions in Luther's German translation. Melanchthon followed the grammatico-historical method, being careful to trace the connection and course of thought aimed to ascertain the mind of the Spirit in the written Word. Luther's influence spread to Switzerland to John Calvin who ranks in first place among Reformation exegetes. His commentaries exhibit a ready grasp of the more obvious meaning of words and a regard to the context, scope, and plan of the author. He was generally free from the mystical, allegorical methods of interpreta­ tion. He made his practice square with his theory. Considered as the first scientific interpreter in history of the Christian Church, Calvin insisted that the illumination of the Spirit was necessary spiritual preparation for the interpreter of God's Word. He 27

rejected allegorical interpretation because he thought it led man away from Scripture. For him the inexhaustibility of Scripture was not in its so-called fertility of meanings. Most important to Calvin's hermeneutics was that Scripture interprets Scripture. He accepted literalism in exegesis and rejected the four-fold meaning of the medieval system. He strongly emphasized grammatical exege­ sis, philology, necessity of examining context, and the necessity of comparing Scripture which treated common subjects. He rejected arguments for very orthodox doctrines if the exegesis involved was unsubstantial, and he showed caution with reference to interpreta­ tion of Messianic prophecy. He stated that the exegete ought to investigate historical settings of all prophetic and Messianic Scripture. Martin Bucer, famous as a teacher and preacher throughout Germany, was a student of Luther's teaching. He was invited to England in 1549 and appointed professor of theology at Cambridge. A voluminous author, Bucer maintained the grammatico-historical sense of Scripture. It would be reasonable to assume that Bucer•s refor­ mation ideas might have given impetus to the continued schism England underwent from the papacy. The preceding background provides a framework from which to develop a discussion about John Milton's hermeneutics. By the time the seventeenth century arrived, the Reformation had a strong foothold in Northern Europe as well as England; and Milton lived through the middle of this age. Scripture underwent many transla­ tions in numerous languages, and former translations were carefully 28

revised. Critical and philological pursuits engaged most of the ·distinguished scholars of Europe. All the theological pursuits of Milton's day were saturated with Scripture because most scholarship of the seventeenth century centered on Biblical studies. An age that began with almost no exact knowledge of the Bible except the accumulated tradition of the ages rose to the heights of some of the most complicated and elaborate scholarship ever known to the western mind. CHAPTER II THE ANTIPRELATICAL TRACTS

When Erasmus translated the Greek word LOGOS as "sermo•• (speech)

rather than as "verbum" (reason) in his 151~ edition of the New Testament, he prepared the way for Martin Luther to cast aside an entire philosophical tradition in which the eternal Son was under­ stood as the mind and instrument of God. Erasmus• influence upon the usage of Luther and John Calvin ultimately affected the piety of the English puritans, for Puritan spirituality took God•s Word on a matter and proceeded on the assumption that God•s actions could not be properly understood without the reportorial powers of language. They believed that the mysterious reach of language could connect a grand historical deed, the God who performed it, and the motions of a human heart.l The Scripture became the ultimate authority for all questions that governed man•s relationship to God and his fellow man, and Milton insisted on the right and duty of every Christian to study the Bible for himself. For Milton the Bible was the source of all wisdom; and since he saw the Bible as the Word of God, everything in it must be respected since the Word was the message to man from God.2 He saw the language of the Bible as simple, plain, and perspicuous just as Christianity was simple and plain. Acting upon the Puritan belief in the unique authority of Scripture, Milton used the Bible as his dialectical repository.3

29 30

Part of the religio-political conflict of early seventeenth cen­ tury England centered on the structure of church government. Until May of 1641, Milton took no public part in the rising dispute over the reform of the Church but proceeded with his ambition to produce a poem, a drama or an epic. The Anglican Archbishop William Laud's repressive political and ecclesiastical system had driven Milton from the ministry as a vocational choice. However, his conscience and the thought of God's demands in requiring the use of his talents compelled him to take a hand in a violent assault on the bishops and to lash the opponents of the Reformation with righteous zea1.4 Milton attacked the bishops for their aristocratic hierarchical organization as "insolent preferring of yourselves above your brethren," a church government antagonistic both to the Gospel and to primitive church government.5 His criticism centered around his Episcopal adversaries' exploitation of the ambiguous and the obscure which he thought built a barrier between Christian laymen and an understanding of the "all sufficient Scripture." He ridiculed ecclesiastical corruption because he felt it endangered the moral and spiritual health of the individual Christian and of the Common­ wealth. He felt that he must help rid England of its prelatical episcopacy to make possible individual and national reformation and regeneration.6 Two tracts which first appeared from Milton in the Spring of 1641, ''Of Reformation and the Cawses That Hitherto Have Hindered It" (hereafter referred to as "Of Reformation") and "Of Prelatical Episcopacy," demonstrate that he followed the Puritan position in 31

his opinion of a "correct" interpretation of Scripture concerning

church ~overnment which did not allow for an episcopal form but rather a presbyterian governmental church structure. In Milton's mind both the Roman Catholic and the Anglican churches had main­ tained the sensory symbols of the Christian faith, not its essence of searching the Scripture as the basis of faith and conduct. Milton's hermeneutic practice demanded that the Scriptures be interpreted literally, and in both pamphlets he goes to great lengths to give a "correct" interpretation based on the literalness of Scripture as it speaks about Church officers. In "Of Reformation•• Milton declared that Reformation in England would occur only when the "sacred Bible was sought out of the dusty corners where prophane Falsehood and Neglect had throwne it, Schooles opened, Divine and Human Learning rak't out of the embers of forgotten Tongues, the Princes and Cities trooping apace to the new erected Banner of Salvation, ••• "7 In entering the eccle­ siastical controversy he believed he would lay open the faults of the ecclesiastical authority by a straightforward interpretation of Scripture and that action in turn would vindicate the "spotlesse Truth," the Bible. He thought the rise of episcopacy came about as an abuse of Christ's gospel, and he saw that the abuse began with Constantine, who declared Christianity the legal religion of Rome in 313 A.D. Constantine developed icons such as the recovered cross of Christ which Milton saw as idolatry when compared to I Corinthians 6:9,10 and 10:14,32: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the 32

kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, • shall inherit the kingdom of God. Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.8 Milton saw the work of antiquity (Constantine) as trifling with St. Paul's clear statement that such an act would be idolatry to establish icons. Since Christ and his apostles saw no spiritual value in retaining the Cross, the work of the church to retain such supposed relics would lead men astray from the truth into idolatry. Continuing with Constantine as the focal point of abuses, Milton said that Constantine used his wealth to dress up the church. He "thought the plain and homespun verity of Christ's Gospell unfit any longer to hold their Lordship's acquaintance, unless the poor thred- bare Matron were put into better clothes, ••• over laid with wanton tresses and in a flairing tire bespecckl'd her with all the gaudy allurements of a whore" (I, 551). All the "decoration" the church had received over the years was based upon the support of custom, tradition, and patristic authority. Milton appealed to the Fathers, who referred all decision of controversy to the Scriptures, as the all-sufficient to direct, to resolve and to determine. He pointed to Ignatius, who, as he went to martyrdom, told the church to adhere to the written doctrine of the Apostles. Milton quoted him saying, "If we shall return to the head and beginning of divine tradition, which (we all know he [Ignatius] means the Bible) human error ceases, and the reason of heavenly misteries unfolded, whatso- ever was obscure, becomes clear" (I, 563). 33

Milton also cites Athanasius, who saw the Scriptures to be suf­ ficient of themselves for the declaration of Truth, and Basil, who, in the fourth century, had fought against church abuses. Basil said that the commandments of the Lord were faithful and sure forever: "It is a plain falling from the Faith, and a high pride either to make void any thing therein, or to introduce anything there not to

be found" (I, 564). Basil quoted John 10:27 saying 11 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me." He cites earlier

statements by Christ saying, 11 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from

him, for they know not the voice of strangers 11 (John 10:4,5) (I, 565). Milton concurs with these statements and argues that the church of his day had obscured the clearness of Christ's statements. Although he granted that some passages of Scripture were obscure or difficult to interpret, Milton countered 11 that which is most neces­ sary to be known is most easy; and that which is most difficult, ·so farre expounds it selfe even, as to tell as how little it imports our saving knowledge • • • The very essence of Truth is plain­ nesse, and brightnes; the darkness and crookedness is our own • If our understanding have a film of ignorance over it, or be blear with glozing on other false glisterings, what is that to Truth? 11 (I, 566). Milton believed that Scripture was clear and that there were voices of Antiquity which held to the authority and integrity of the written word. He rejected the church which appealed to tradition and opinions of fathers who did not use the Bible as their source 34

of Wisdom. Milton continued in 11 0f Reformation .. by saying, If we will but purge with sovrain eyesalve that intel­ lectual ray which God hath planted in us, then we would believe the Scriptures protesting their plainnes, and per­ spicuity, calling them to be instructed and by the Spirit discerning that which is good; and as the Scriptures them­ selves pronounce their own plainnes, so doe the Fathers testifie of them (I, 566). Probably, he had in mind the statement of Paul to the Corinthians when he wrote in his first epistle: For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence (I Cor. 1:26-29). Milton asserted that reformation in England suffered hindrance and corruption by the same forces which had originally corrupted the purity of the early apostolic church. He desired the church led by the Episcopal bishops to see the Word of God as the only valid voice on matters of church government. He continues having Paul's state- ment in mind where Paul says, But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God ••• Now we have received, not the Spirit of this world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things freely given us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiri­ tual (I Cor. 2:10-13). The concern Milton demonstrated in "Of Reformation" comes from his interpretation of passages such as the Corinthian epistle states. The Spirit of God is given to a believing people who then have only 35

to read for themselves to see what has always existed in the Gospel. The papacy and prelacy had obscured the light now being restored in the Reformation, and as a consequence the prelates and a misguided King had abused the liberties of England.9 · Recognizing that prelates leaned on Church fathers for their authority, Milton further stated that if a man cannot understand the plain style of Scripture, that man will be even further hampered by the complex, intricate, involved style of the Fathers' writings. Therefore, he concluded that the Scriptures spoke for Reformation since they spoke clearly to redeem man from the strictures of any man-imposed system of church hierarchy. Milton continued to develop his argument in "Of Reformation" that Scripture spoke clearly and plainly to men about their own reformation and that several important church fathers had cerro- borated the integrity of the written word. He then turned his pen to the question of Prelacy as the only church government agreeable to monarchy. Again it appears that this position is understood from Paul's first Corinthian letter where he says: But not are they many members, yet but one body ••• That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular (I Cor. 12:20,24-27). The "stature of the honest man" refers to Paul's address to the Ephesians where he spoke concerning the gifts Christ gave to His Church "for the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come 36

in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the 'stature' of the fulness of Christ" (4:13,14). Since the monarchy is to follow the revealed will of God as stated in Scripture ("to rule by God's Laws, the sta­ tutes of God for no reason we may reject"), Milton was concerned that there were those who feared the Protestant Episcopacy in England as much as those who had feared the papacy nearly a century before. He saw the episcopacy seeking to bind England with ritual rather than following the Scripture. Ritual led to corruption because men practiced the form and missed the content of true reli- gion, which Milton showed from Scripture. The prophet Isaiah said, Wherefore the Lord said; Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear is taught by precept of men (Isaiah 29:13). The ritualism of episcopacy was a fear induced by human precept rather than the Word of God. Hence the result was a people whose heart was not motivated by desire to do God's will. If the monarchy ruled a people who were ruled by prelatical episcopacy, there would be questions about the real control of the nation, the bishops or the king. Milton observed of the bishops: Their (eyes) were ever imminent upon worldly matters, their desires ever thirsting after worldly employments in stead of diligent and fervent studie of the Bible (I, 593). Milton concluded that the prelates were fearful that the discipline of Reformation would not be safe for the king to which he answered, that if the episcopacy were reduced to what it should be, the pre­ sent tyranny of the prelates would end. Believers would have no

' & 37

objection to the name "bishop" since every minister of the gospel would be a bishop, just as the apostles were called ministers. The office of bishop contained no level of superiority in an hier­ archical structure of church government. The Puritan demand for church government after the manner of other reformed churches and above all by the Word of God led Milton to compose his attacks on episcopacy because it suggested "that men were in the right way to liberty." If discipline originating in religion continued its course to the morals and institutions of the commonwealth, they were proceeding to the deliverance of the whole life of mortal man from slavery. Reform in church government would serve to keep intact the purity of doctrine achieved by the original reformation which episcopacy had not. Milton accepted the Puritan position that the pattern of church government was immutably laid down in Scripture. "(We) may securely • affirm (presbyters) to be because we find it so ordained and set out to us by the appointment of God in the Scriptures" he said in the tract ''Reason of Church Government."lO -However, he articu­ lated the pattern of church government by an exegesis of the passage about church officials in "Of Prelatical Episcopacy." The primacy of Scripture controlling his opinion, Milton detailed an explanation of passages speaking of those who hold church office. As stated earlier, he attacked the bishops for their aristocra­ tic hierarchical organization as "an insolent preferrent of your­ selves above your brethren, a church government antagonistic both to the Gospel and to primitive church government."!! The crux of the 38

issue revolved around the episcopacy or the presbytery as the pro­ per, biblical form of government, and Milton argued for the latter. If it (episcopacy) be of Divine constitution, to satis­ fie us fully in that, the Scripture onely is able, it being the onely Book left us of Divine authority, not in anything more Divine than in the all-sufficiency it hath to furnish us, as with all other spirituall know­ ledge, so with this in particular, setting out to us a perfect man of God accomplish't to all the good workes of his charge (I, 624-25).12 Milton used the apostle Paul's second letter to Timothy as the statement of premise upon which he built his argument. Paul says: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (II Tim. 3:16,17). The Scriptures alone give a man the necessary teaching that will produce the "perfect" man, or more accurately, the mature, complete man. Having once again asserted the supremacy of Scripture as the only valid source upon which to build his argument, he makes refer- ence to the places in the Bible which discuss the nature of Bish~ps. Milton asserted that it cannot be shown either by the plain text or by solid reasoning that there is any difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter but that rather they are two names to signify the same order. The clearness of Scripture and the evidence of argument convinced Milton that "Timothy and Titus (whom our Prelates claim to imitate onely in the controuling part of their office) had rather the vicegerency of an Apostleship committed to them, then the ordi- nary charge of a Bishoprick, as being men of extraordinary calling, " (I, 625-26). A study of the Greek words translated as 39

"bishop" around which the controversy revolved indicates that Milton•s hermeneutics follow the literal statement of Scripture. Four places in the New Testament use the word "EPISI

Timothy 3:2 "A bishop then must be blameless •• II The "EPISKOPOS" in I Peter 2:25 is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself who is called 11 the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.nl3

The word 11 PRESBUTEROS" appears also in several New Testament passages and is translated "elders." Acts 14:23 reads "And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." Acts 20:17 reads "And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the •elders• of the church." In Titus 1:5 Paul says, "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain •elders• in every city, as I had appointed thee." The epistle of James records these words: "Is any sick among you? Let him call for the •elders• of the church; and 40

let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord ... These Scripture statements, when seen in corresponding rela­ tionship, appear to validate what Milton says that the term 11 elder 11 translated from 11 PRESBUTEROS 11 is another term for the same person as

11 bishop 11 or 11 0verseer 11 translated from 11 EPISKOPOS ... l4

11 PRESBUTER0 11 is the adjective translated as 11 elder 11 which is used of rank or position of responsibility in Christian churches of those who, being raised up and qualified by the work of the Holy Spirit, were appointed to have the spiritual care of and exercise over the churches. Those who exercised spiritual care were called bishops (EPISKOPOI) or overseers, so the term indicates the nature of their work; PRESBUTEROI points to their maturity of spiritual experience. The divine arrangement seen in the New Testament was for a plurality of these to be appointed in each church, as was pointed out above in Acts 14:23, Acts 20:17 and Titus 1:5. The duty of the elders is described by the verb 11 EPISKOPE0, 11 and they were appointed according as they had given evidence of fulfilling the divine qualification. 11 PRESBUTERION 11 is the word for an assembly of aged men and denotes the elders or bishops in a local church as is used in I Timothy 4:14, 11 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the •presbytery• .n15 When the two references from Acts 20 are seen in context, verse

17 calls for the 11 elders 11 of the church (PRESBUTEROS) and verse 20,

11 overseers 11 (EPISKOPOS), they appear to be the same persons. Titus 1:5 states that elders are appointed for setting things in order, 41

and in 1:7 Paul told Titus that qualifications of bishops which con­ textually suggests the same office to which men were appointed. The term "elder" indicates the mature spiritual experience and under­ standing of those described. The term "bishop," or "overseer," indicates the character of the work undertaken. According to the divine will and appointment in these New Testament statements, there were to be bishops/overseers/elders in every local church. Where the singular form "bishop" or "overseer" is used, the passage is describing the character of the individual.l6 With the study of the New Testament Greek, Milton argued that

11 the name bishop in Greek signifys that the church official was the more famous presbyter, not that he had any more authority in the church government." Not of divine origin, Milton contended, prelaty grew up as part of man's effort to organize the church; it was at least four hundred years after the time of the apostles before any distinction arose between bishop and presbyter. Such practices Milton thought were contrary to the practices of Christ Himself:

11 First, if to do the work of the gospel, Christ our Lord took upon him the form of a servant, how can his servant in this ministry take upon him the form of a Lord?nl7 Milton believed that prelatical episcopacy stemmed from men with itching ears who began after their own lusts to heap to themselves teachers, and "as if the divine Scripture wanted a supplement, and were to be eek't out" the prelate ran to the "indigested heap of

Authors they call Antiquity 11 (I, 626). Yet, Milton contended that to leave the Bible to go after the traditions of the ancients would 42

hear the ancients themselves confess that whatever knowledge they had in this issue was gathered from Scripture. Those who suggest that prelatical episcopacy descended from apostolic times, Milton

said, had no basis of authority since the gospel makes them one ~nd the same thing. He argued: ••• although, as all men well know, it be the wonted shift of errour, and fond Opinion, when they find them­ selves outlaw•d by the Bible, and forsaken of sound, to betaken them with all speed to their old starting hold of tradition, ••• yet their owne antiquity betrayes them to infor~e us that Tradition hath had very seldome or never the gift of persuasion ••. (I, 648). The fathers that prelates used for credibility of their argument were insufficient to convince, especially when weighed with Scrip- ture. The traditions of the early church fathers used to supplant Scripture were what led the English to break with Rome in the first place in Milton•s view: " • if we turne this our discreet, and wary usage of them into blind devotion towards them, and whatsoever we find written by them, we both forsake our owne grounds, and reasons which led us at first to part from Rome, that is to hold to the Scriptures against all antiquity;" (I, 650). However, Milton leaves his strongest retort for the prelates by saying that they have no argument against the papists because both the Anglicans and Romanists have traditions to prove their positions. It was the

higher ~aw of Scripture which then must be used if the doctrines of the church were to have credibility. "Of Prelatical Episcopacy" concludes: if we have given our selves up to be taught by the pure, and living precept of God•s Word onely, which without more additions, may with a forbidding of them hath

, G 43

within it selfe the promise of eternall life, the end of all our wearisome labours, and all our sustaining hopes, ••• Episcopacy cannot be deduc't from the Apostolicall Times (I, 652). The tract stands as an important statement about Milton's position on the place that Scripture was to have in the life of the indivi­ dual believer and the church. He believed that taking its literal words as a statement of meaning would put an end to tyranny and superstition. He assumed that all necessary religious institutions are to be found in the Bible, and it was reassuring to him not to find prelatical bishops there: But let them chaunt while they will of prerogatives, we shall tell them of Scripture; of custom, we of Scripture; of Acts and Statutes, still of Scripture, till the quick and pearcing word enter to the dividing of their soules, and the mighty weakness of the Gospel throw down the weak mightiness of man's reasoning (I, 828).18 The reform of church government would serve to keep intact the purity of doctrines achieved by the original reformation, which the episcopacy had not been able to accomplish in Milton's estimation. His puritanism demanded the one right discipline prescribed in Scripture. He argued for equality in the ministerial offices and the right of the individual congregation to choose its own bishop-- elders. It was the laymen's right to share in church government because the Word of God said so. He interpreted the Scripture at its literal level showing its simple, direct clear statements con­ cerning reformation and church offices. CHAPTER II I THE DIVORCE CONTROVERSY

Following the years of involvement in the prelatical contro­ versy, Milton turned his attention to a matter which heretofore had not been resolved by Puritan or Anglican divines: divorce. Whether prompted by his own personal circumstances or seeing the larger con­ text of reformation and personal liberty within Christendom, the pamphleteer Milton again threw the weight of his vast learning and rhetorical powers into the battle for the liberation of truly redeemed minds. He wrote a series of tracts all defending the right of a regenerate man to divorce for legitimate causes, and he claimed that right upon the authority of Scripture. He first published "The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce" in August 1643; it was not well received by the Presbyterians and so he reissued the tract in a largely expande-d version in February 1644. Attacked for his supposed liberal antinomianism, Milton continued his plea for reasonableness in the issue by appealing to the author1ty of the sixteenth century Cambridge reformer Martin Bucer in "The Judgment of Martin Bucer, concerning Divorce," appearing in July 1644. The last-two pamphlets provided his final statements in defense of his position: "Tetrachordon: Expositions upon the four chief Places in Scripture which treat of Marriage, or nullities in Marriage," and "Colasterion: a reply to a Nameless Answer against

44 45

'The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce.'" which appeared in print around March 1645.1 Before examining Milton's hermeneutics in "The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce," a review of the practice of divorce is important because of Milton's seemingly radical position. Before the Reformation the law governing divorce in England was canon law; and since true marriage was held to be a sacrament, there could be no divorce with real dissolution of marriage and the right to re­ marry. The only acceptable divorce was from bed and board and that could occur only by sentence from an ecclesiastical court. Nullifi­ cation, however, was possible for any cause in existence before marriage which interfered with its validity as defined by canon law, such as consanguinity, impotence or precontract. In England, the grounds of judicial separation were limited to adultery and cruelty.2 The Reformation, which led men to deny marriage to be _a sacra­ ment, saw the reinstatement of divorce with the right to remarry. Almost all the Protestant states legalized remarriage for the inno­ cent party after divorce for adultery, and many accepted remarriage after divorce for desertion. However, there was much opposition to divorce with remarriage in the English Episcopal hierarchy. In 1597, they declared there to be no legal basis for remarriage after divorce; however, Elfzabeth did not sanction the canon laws. The limitation of divorce was repeated after her death and accepted by her successor, James I, in 1604. The Puritans resisted the canons of 1604 as much as they could by solemnizing remarriages for divorce involving adultery and desertion.3 46

The Puritans and Anglicans saw matrimonial ends in very much the same light which they derived from Scripture, Roman Law, Canon Law, and the Book of Common Prayer. The purposes of marriage were pro­ creation, avoidance of vice, and mutual solace. Even in procreation three aspects were involved: propagation of the human race, the foundation of the family upon which a state was based, and ultima­ tely the spread of the Church.4 As the years passed, the differences of opinions grew between the prelatical episcopacy and presbyterian reformers concerning the divorce issue; and it was into this controversy that Milton stepped with his first divorce pamphlet. Going much further than other Puritans, he demanded recognition of divorce with the right of remarriage for both parties, the liberalization of the grounds of divorce to include incompatibility, and the removal of divorce from ecclesiastical or civil jurisdiction to a matter of private con­ science.5 For Milton the Canon Law was_naturally associated with the papal tradition of the episcopal hierarchy. He saw the inten­ tion of canonical law as giving its attention to the body rather than the soul. Such thought he concluded was a demonstration of the carnality of the episcopacy which he had exposed in his antiprelati­ cal episcopacy tracts. Milton thought of marriage as a spiritual rather than a merely physical union. The idea of an external com­ pulsion binding two human beings where mutual love and sympathy had departed was repellent to his reason and excited him to eloquent and passionate denunciation.6 47

After seeing in the antiprelatical tracts that Milton's hermeneutics followed the fairly literal line similar to other Puritans, one notes an interesting turn in his exegetical work. His first divorce pamphlet was not well received by his presbyterian counterparts much to his shock and chagrin. The second issuing of the tract shows as much expanded and carefully articulated argument again with a view to his "enlightened interpretation of Scripture." In his introductory remarks to Parliament and the Presbyterian assembly, he says: now the duty and the right of an instructed Christian cals me through the chance of good and evill report, to be the "sole" (emphasis mine) advocate of a discount'nanc't truth:7 The emphasis to be understood here is that Milton saw himself alone in speaking for a right understanding of the Scriptures concerning divorce. At the end of this tract he makes a very pointed statement about his exegetical work: whose unerring guidance and conduct having follow'd as a loadstarre with all diligence and fidelity in this ques­ tion, I trust, through the help of the illuminating Spirit which hath favor'd me, to have done no every daise work: in asserting after many ages the words of Christ with other Scriptures of great concernment from burdomsome & remorsles obscurity, tangl'd with manifold repugnances, to their native lustre and consent between each other: heer­ by also dissolving tedious and Gordian difficulties, which have hitherto molested the Church of God and are now decided ••• with immaculate hands of charity, to the unspeakable good of Christendom. And let the extrem literalist sit down now & resolve (consider) whether this in all necessity be not the due result of our Savior's words {II, 340). This statement shows rather definitively what has taken place in the context of this work. Milton believed that under the guidance of the illuminating Spirit he was the prophet who spoke as the sole 48

voice able to restore a muddied truth about divorce to its original luster. He was the one who had untangled what the traditions of Canon Law had knotted into Gordian difficulties. He alone had been favor'd to dissolve the tensions having arisen from an improper understanding of the words of Scripture, and he had been faithful to follow the guiding light of the Spirit to be the one who released men from the burden of an improper marriage. Milton begins his argument on marriage and divorce with an appeal that his readers go beyond tradition to the original expression of God's will and purpose. The tradition to which Milton refers was the Scriptural texts upon which the prohibition of divorce was built. The first was an Old Testament reference from the Mosaic Law in Deuteronomy 24:1-2: 11 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife... The second reference was a New Testament statement by Christ when he was asked by the Pharisees about divorce in Matthew 19:3-9: The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, 11 ls it. lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 11 And he answered and said unto them, 11 Have ye not read that he who made them at the beginning, made them male and female; and said 'For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh'? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder ... They say unto him, 11 Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorce­ ment, and to put her away? 11 He saith unto them, 11 Moses, 49

because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, •whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her who is put away doth commit adultery. • 11

To these two statements Milton added Genesis 2:18, 11 And the Lord God said, •It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make an help meet for him. • .. His major problem was to reconcile two apparently contradictory attitudes about divorce, Deuteronomy and Matthew. It had been possible to assert that Scripture clearly outlined a form of Church government which did not include diocesan bishops and to oppose this institution as an antichristian tradition; however, divorce was a matter of a different kind. First, the Scripture if taken literally would appear to be contradictory between God•s revealed will in Mosaic Law and Christ•s statement to the Pharisees. Secondly, the dissolution of marriage, a contract between two human beings, not like church government in being part of _a covenant between God and man, must depend on the free choice of the two individuals concerned.s Milton found it impossible to believe the God could contradict himself or that the opinion he arrived at on divorce could be contrary to the divine will. Consequently, instead of opposing the plain truth of Scripture to custom, he had to reinterpret the pre­ cept on which custom seemed to lose itself and by sheer weight of reason to reconcile Christ•s statement with what seemed to him the sense of the Mosaic Law and original institution. It was necessary 50

to explain the Word of God and defeat custom through free reason.9 Milton raises human reason to the level of sole arbiter of moral issues and the individual to a position of eminence over insti­ tutions, as though particular men could both see and want their good. 10 In "The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, .. Milton begins by saying that Error and Custom are blots and obscurities wrought upon our minds which injure and abuse man•s free soul which study and true labor can free. Enemies use Scripture to support the errors which he calls debaucheries. Honest liberty, though, is a great foe to dishonest license. He intended to utter a doctrine, though neglected or not understood, which is very important to the governing of mankind. Divorce prohibited was nothing more than a superstition of the episcopacy and was something which God and charity both permit and command. His Scriptural support is in

Romans 13:10, when Paul says 11 love is the fulfilling of the law.ull His argument with civil and ecclesiastical authority is that they force marriage to be fulfilled without charity and against charity. He states that God never gave man allowances; he gave reason, charity, nature and good example to be used and observed by man in all his relations. He contends that anyone who prefers ordinance or forced matrimony above the good of man does not understand the gospel and is no better than a Pharisee who binds by law. It is folly and the perverseness of the heart which hammers out laws to add to human misery rather than to seek freedom.12

' I) 51

Milton saw a difference in the ends of matrimony. Instead of the accepted tenets of Canon Law, Milton accepted the primacy of mutual solace rather than procreation or the avoidance of vice. His principle is based upon the order of events coming in Genesis where the man in the Garden of Eden is given a mate who was a "help meet" (Gen. 2:18). It is after this statement in Genesis that the idea of procreation that man should be fruitful and multiply, for Milton is of secondary importance and not a necessity. He saw the greatest problem as not an unsatisfactory sexual relationship but with the incompatibility of minds; this factor was for him to be the deter­ miner of grounds for divorce. The law said that a consummated marriage validly contracted was indissoluble. Milton argued that "once they experience the nuptiall bed, regardles of what they discover about differences of tempers, thought and constitutions, they can neither be to one another a remedy against loneliness nor contentment" (II, 235). That would be contrary to the original plan of God for the marital relationship. Milton said that Christ's words in Matthew 19 appear to congeal into a stony rigor, but are inconsistent with his doctrine and his office and what he preached to the conscience. However, to read the text literally, "resting on the meere element of the Text" is "not consulting with charitie, the interpreter and guide of our faith" (II, 238). Such a statement is reminiscent of Augustine who said that any text should be interpreted in light of love. Yet the broader purpose of Milton is to show that Christ does not add a new law in the New Testament. 52

The second tract, expanded in 1644, includes chapter divisions which show how Milton actually began to answer the objections to divorce. The two parallel sources of authority were Scripture and the light of reason. If Scripture was rightly interpreted, it did not oppose a position taken on rational grounds. It is this posi- tion that he followed as he expounded Genesis 2:18, where he said the purpose of marriage was es tab 1 i shed as prov-iding woman as a he 1p meet for man: That indisposition, unfitness, or contrariety of mind, arising from a cause in nature unchangable, hindring and ever likely to hinder the main benefits of conjugall society, which are solace and peace, is it greater reason of divorce then naturall frigidity, especially if there be no children, and that there be mutual consent (II, 242). The importance of the term "fitness" in his argument can be seen as the condition which makes love possible. Since God's institution of matrimony was to create a "help meet" for man, marriage cannot exist where unfitness exists, whether a defect of nature or a defect of will. So then the primary purpose for marriage was not physical gratification but what Milton saw as a spiritual necessity: pro­ viding a help suitable to man's need, a companion whose mind and soul were in accord, upon which the physical relationship could be built. Milton, as he proceeded, used the term "learned Interpreter" in discussing the meaning of some passages. In his first reference to the Deuteronomy passage, he said that the cause of divorce is some "uncleanness," but in the Hebrew he interpreted it as a reference to "nakednes of ought" or "any real nakedness," which he said in all 53

the "learn'd interpreters refer'd to the mind, as well as the body." ·He concluded by stating, "And what greater nakednes of unfitnes of mind then that which hinders even the solace and peacefull society of the maried coupel and what hinders that more than the unfitness and defectiveness of an unconjugall mind?" (II, 244). The "learn'd i.nterpreter" compared other Old Testament texts which could substan­ tiate his position: Deuteronomy 23:14 ("therefore shall the camp be holy, that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee") and I Samuel 30:30 ("thine own confusion, and unto the con­ fusion of thy mother's nakedness?"). Both these Scriptural passages supported Milton's argument that spiritual uncleanness is a mental state, not a physical one, which could be understood in the Deuteronomy passage as a principle reason for divorce. He uses the term "learned interpreter" a second time in a further discussion of the meaning of Genesis 2:18. He said that with words so plain, it must be concluded that God's intention is that "a meet and happy conversation is the chiefest and the noblest end of mariage; for we find here no expression so necessarily implying carnall knowledge as this prevention of loneliness to the mind and spirit of man" (II, 246). At this point he stated that the fall had not yet occurred, so men's thinking was not yet corrupt with regard to the sexual relationship. Milton has made an interesting interpretation here upon which he builds his whole argu­ ment for the purpose of marriage. The text reads that it is not good for "the" man to be alone; hence, God made a help suitable to him. It appears that Milton conveniently left out the definite 54

article to refer to a specific individual in a specific context for a specific purpose. Milton then builds a general principle for all men in all times and in all contexts upon his own interpretation. Harris Fletcher in his The Use of the Bible in Milton's Prose con­ cluded that Milton felt free to make any change he saw fit in the various readings because ~e knew the original languages and was as fit as any to translate Scripture. However, Fletcher concedes that the definite article is present in the Hebrew. 13 It seems that Milton stood alone as the "learned interpreter" of this text as he developed his argument. The next step in his rational development was to interpret New Testament passages concerned with divorce. He said that the pattern of marriage as the Savior bid was not for controlling lust but for establishing conjugal love and helpfulness. Paul states in his first epistle to the Corinthians that if the unmarried and widows cannot have self control, let them marry for it is better to marry than to burn (v. 9). Milton does not accept the interpretation of burning as carnal lust. He argues that God put in Adam the burning desire and longing to put off solitariness. The "other burning" could be put off by a strict life and hard labor with a rigorous diet to keep out the lust of sexual impurity. Hence, this could only mean a rational burning which is remedied by a fit and proper marriage. Copulation could not be honorable for the mere reducing and terminating of lusts between the two (II, 250-52). The curious thing about the I Corinthians 7:9 text is that Paul is talking in· the context of that statement about the avoidance of sexual 55

immorality, saying in verse one that it is good for a man not to touch a woman, but in verse two that to avoid sexual fornication every man was to have his own wife and conversely a wife, her hus­ band. Paul proceeds to establish that husbands and wives do not have power over their own bodies but it belongs to the mate. If then a person is single or widowed, it is best to remain in that condition unless they burn. It seems rather clear that the burning has to do with erotic desires which are reinterpreted by Milton to mean what he has "received ... A shift has occurred from his literal­ ness of interpretation in the antiprelatical tracts. Milton next returned to Old Testament text which appears to give warrant for divorce. Malachi 2:16 reads, "For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that He hateth putting away; for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts; therefore, take heed to your spirit that you deal not treacherously." There is a variant marginal reading for this text which says, "if he hate her, put her away.nl4 Milton used this verse to his advantage, because to forbid divorce was to keep men in servile bondage. He appealed to I Corinthians 7:15 where Paul said that a man or woman is not under bondage for "God hath called us to peace." He answered more objections to divorce by the exegesis of several Scripture passages reasoning that there were two commands given to the Jews for divorce. One was to divorce those who were unclean; the second was to avoid seduction to false gods. The first law was abolished when Peter's vision (Acts 10) showed no distinc­ tion between clean and unclean. However, the second law was still

' d 56

in effect if a wife were at the ear to seduce man from his true worship of God or defile his conscience by their continual unbelief. Milton says, based upon II Corinthians 6:14, that believers were not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers; then, 11 even in the due progress of reason, ••• it cannot be imagined that this cited place commands less than total and final separation; at least, no force should be used to keep them together... He reasoned that if Moses bid divorce absolutely, and if Christ had said hate and for­ sake, and his apostle said no communion with darkness, all this could not be understood to say that Christ said not to divorce (II, 261-264). Milton acknowledged that the apostle Paul was led by the Spirit of God to write the words of Scripture. Yet, he concludes, Paul's words are to be understood as advice, not commands in I Corinthians

7 based upon verses 7 and 25 where he says, 11 I speak this by per­ mission and not by commandment 11 and ''I have no command of the Lord, yet I give my judgment." He concludes that this Scripture is not less inspired because Paul wrote that he was not commanded. He granted that the Spirit of God led him to express himself to Christian prudence in a matter which "God thought best to leave uncommanded" (II, 266). The implications of this statement gave Milton the liberty to apply what he believed to be the right and proper understanding, that man was to fear seducement and was to separate from the misbeliever. He then applied I Corinthians 7:16,

11 How knowest thou, 0 man, whether thou shalt save thy wife." Clearly, Milton set the whole context of the questions about divorce 57

from the standpoint of Paul's advice, not command, and used them to support the cause for which he was the proponent. From this point Milton moves to reasons for divorce sought for natural causes. He appealed to Paul's first Corinthian epistle:

For it is written in the law of Moses, 11 Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope 11 (9:9-10). Milton uses this text as support for two people being unequally yoked together, because man should have hope for happiness in his life in marriage. Hence, to be muzzled as the ox would be to take away the hope which is supposedly promised him from the statement of God in Genesis. There would be great violence in nature to put two unequal, incoherent, uncombining natures together by force. Only when there is a natural separation of those unnaturally combined elements can there be renewal (II, 270,73). The progressive development of Milton's rhetorical discussion led him to state that marriage was a human society and that all human society must proceed from the mind rather than the body or else the institution would reduce man to a brute animal. This idea proceeded from his understanding of the Decalogue, the ten command­ ments in Exodus 20 comprising the moral law of God which bound man. to obedience. The keeping of the Sabbath was part of the first table of the Law which dealt with man's relationship to God. The second table of the Law concerned man's relation to man. He argues that the Sabbath law is a higher law, and God took great displeasure 58

at man•s disobedience to it; but for the good of man he permits man to break it because the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. How much more then would God allow man to break a law of lesser degree, especially when Malachi 2:16 says if a man hate his wife he should put her away. Christ agreed to the severity of the law except where works of charity were concerned. To force men to remain in a marriage he should not be in would be to make an idol of marriage, which transcended the Law in the two tables of the Commandments. God cannot be pleased with two people who have found themselves to be unfit for one another. They could assume that God did not unite them initially, which makes them free to dissolve the physical union since the spiritual union had never occurred (II, 275-77). Concluding this portion of his argument, he attacked those who

held to a 11 literality11 of Scripture. He called it an 11 alphabetical 11 servility to take the statements of Scripture in a literal sense. The appearnce of this thought shows a shift from the literal posi­ tion he expounded in the earlier antiprelatical tracts to this more enlightened position. He said that every text of Scripture seeming to contradict the discipline of divorce may be understood with a due exposition. As they are properly understood, they will actually prove that divorce is acceptable although they appear to speak against it. Milton reiterated the orthodox position of the Puritan reformers that where reasonable doubt about a text•s meaning occurs from the letter of the text, then it is expounded by considering upon what occasion everything is set down and by comparing it with 59

other texts (II, 280,82). His method sounds very orthodox, but his conclusions were not. Milton supplied an example where Christ's words were not meant to be understood literally. He used the Scriptures where Christ seems unusually harsh about adultery or unu­ sually lenient. He discussed Matthew 5:28 where Christ says that the man who looks upon a woman to lust after her has already com­ mitted adultery with her in his heart. The Scripture of seeming leniency is John 8, where the woman caught in adultery was brought before Jesus by the Pharisees to see what He would do. In response Jesus said that whoever was without sin should cast the first stone at her. Milton concluded that Jesus was not so heavily condemning secret weakness as· the open malice seen in the Pharisees. All this explanation was to indicate that Christ's doctrine did not repeal one law regarding divorce, which means that Christ's words need to be understood in their proper context. If Christ spoke against all divorce as adultery and not against the abuse of divorce, then the Law of Moses was repealed. Not only would the Law of Moses be repealed, but it would be guilty of impurity and contradiction since it authorized and maintained legal adultery by statute. Therefore, Jesus' statement to the Pharisees about divorce for hardness of heart and about Moses' permission to divorce could not be understood by literal exegesis, because the Law of Moses could not permit nor enact permission to sin if divorce were sin. According to Isaiah 10:1, God condemns those who give unrighteous decrees. If Moses gave an unrighteous decree, then he stood condemned. However, his writings were construed as Law, and Jesus said that not one jot or bU

tittle of the Law would be repealed. Milton said these Scriptures need to be properly understood, but the normal expositional method of interpretation would not suffice (II, 283-85). Milton believed that, properly understood, Christ's words do not condemn divorce though at first glance they would appear to do so. To enhance his argument further, Milton appealed to Pauline authority to prove his own interpretation of Christ's words were valid. Paul wrote in the first epistle to Timothy that the purpose of every commandment is charity out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith (1:5). For Milton the implica­ tion of such a statement would make the interpretation of Deuter­ onomy 24, Moses' law permitting divorce, for the good of man, since love would be the purpose of the commandment. If the Law of Christ speaks against divorce, then the law of Moses which appears to allow divorce would be contradictory. If, on the one hand, the law gives out license to sin, then God becomes the author of sin because Moses wrote God's law. Law foils itself and cannot be true. Why would God enter into a covenant relationship with people to be holy, just, and good, and yet mislead and betray under the appearance of a Law that legitimatizes sin? Since God cannot do this, He cannot be understood to give a statute for uncontrolled adultery. Therefore, Christ's words need a learned interpretation as Milton provided (II, 288-300). Logic and rational argument ensue from his establishment of his Scriptural base for divorce, and Milton addressed what he con­ sidered inaccurate interpretations of the divorce question. Though 6

he conceded that the nature of man is weak, he affirmed that the Gospel bears with man's weakness. He concluded that divorce was never prohibited and, therefore, did not exact more obedience under Gospel than the Law had. Man was not compelled to remain in marriage without benefit of divorce. He said: Wee find also by experience that the Spirit of God in the Gospel hath been alwaies more effectual in the illumina­ tion of our minds to the gift of faith, then in the moving of our wills to any excellence of virtue, either above the Jews or the Heathen. Hence those indulgences in the Gos­ pel; "All cannot receive this saying;" "Every man hath his proper gift," with strict charges not to lay on yokes which our Fathers could not bear (II, 303). Milton cited Matthew 19:11, I Corinthians 7:7 and Acts 15:10 as the Biblical references which grant man the liberty to divorce. He believed that the prime end of the Gospel is not so much to exact obedience as to reveal grace and Christ's death as the satisfaction for man's disobedience. Milton used this understanding to build his case for an interpretation of Christ's grace statement in Matthew 19:11 when He said that Moses permitted divorce for hardness of heart. Although he said Christ's words sound like law, Milton's purpose was to give the "true" sense of "hardness of heart," which provides a very important statement about how the literalness of a Scripture leads to error. The Deuteronomy Scripture referred to in Matthew, Milton says, was undoubtedly intended to mean that if any. good and peaceable man discovered some helpless disagreement or dislike either of mind or body where he could not perform his duties as a husband without disturbance to his spirit, thus making both of them uncomfortable and unhappy. Rather than continue fulfilling a 62

duty, he might dismiss her whom he could not conscionably retain. Milton used Proverbs 30:20,23 stating that a hated woman is one whom the earth cannot endure, and he provides an interpretation for the words "good" and "peaceable" concerning the man and "hated" con- cerning woman. The determination for what constitutes these cri- teria is rationally and logically understood. No clear definition is given as to what makes for a good man except that a licentious man is one who took Moses' word for a hard law, hence, the hardness of heart. Apparently, legalism and the restraint of liberty would make for an evil and contentious man. Nature cannot endure a hated woman; therefore, she is to be dismissed, which ends his statement about her (II, 306). Milton returned to discuss the interpretation of Christ's words, and developed this discussion elaborately by drawing both Old and New Testaments together. Jesus' words to the Pharisees were not to us. Milton showed how this could be seen by using the words that the man was to cleave to the woman and they would be one flesh. The passage only applied to Adam in the Garden, not to us, because Eve was literally of his flesh. Obviously, women now are not of men's flesh, consequently Christ's reference in Matthew 19:6 reiterating Moses' text about two becoming one flesh was to bring the Pharisees up short for their abuse of the Law. Milton said that we must look to a higher principle of Law, which was God's promise to make a helper suitable for man: And therefore even plain sense and equity, and, which is above them both, the all-interpreting voice of Charity her self cries loud that this primitive reason, this 63

consulted promise of God to make a meet help, is the onely cause that gives authority to this command of not divorcing, to be a command (II, 309). The unworthiness of a woman in marriage becomes the only fit reason for divorce, based upon a ••proper" interpretation and understanding of Jesus• words. His words were to quell the ignorance of Scripture which the Pharisees demonstrated. Properly understood then, Jesus did not prohibit divorce; He demanded that those who interpret Scripture take the whole counsel of Old and New Testament. When the disciples questioned Jesus about his harsh words to the Pharisees, Jesus said that all men could not receive His words. Milton under- stood this to mean words about married life whereby Jesus did not close the door to married people so they could not extract them- selves from their miserable condition. Divorce was to be a blessing given by God, and it was perverse opinion which bound two people . against nature and reason where God never truly joined. Milton did not see a contradiction between Jesus and the Law, but he gave what he believed to be the proper understanding of Christ's words (II, 310-12). Proceeding further, Milton believed that the law of divorce was established for man and not for woman since the woman was made for man and not man for woman. I Timothy 2:12 says that a woman is not to usurp authority ov~r a man, and this passage provided Milton with additional support for his overall statement on divorce. Also used are Proverbs 12:4 and 19:13 where Solomon says that a virtuous woman is a crown to her husband, while contentions of a woman are con- tinual droppings. Milton concluded that Scripture counsels a man 64

to divorce rather than to live with a contentious wife because Scripture apparently has more pity on man than the \'loman who was made for man. With these thoughts adding to the weight of his argu­ ment, he stated that Christ's words on divorce were to be taken

circumspectly, as in His words 11 Take, eat, this is my body, 11 which elementally understood are against nature and sense (II, 324-25). The literalness of Scripture again is challenged, not because it is not the Word of God, but rather because nature and sense argue against taking the text concerning divorce too literally. Christ's words of eating His flesh were seen figuratively, which Milton implied would lead to the conclusion of a different sense than literalness about divorce.

Returning to 11 they must be one flesh, 11 Milton explained 11 how to

understand. 11 His exegetical method in this text proves especially enlightening. He came back to Christ's words in Matthew which restate the Genesis account, and his principle argument was that the union was not physical but mental, because the original state of Adam and Eve was not for their physical union but for their com­ munion with one another. This further led Milton to conclude that since the mere joining of two bodies will not remove loneliness,

only the union of compatible minds will accomplish that, 11 they must

be one flesh 11 was not to be understood as physical joining. Furthermore, the verse following in Matthew about not putting asunder what God has joined could be easily explained: Only those with fit minds who were able to maintain cheerful conversation to the solace and love of the other were the ones who fulfilled the

' 6 promises of Genesis. Therefore any joined who were not brought together by God did so against His ordinance. Consequently, there was no power above their own consent to hinder their divorce. Also it could properly be called divorce since they were never truly joined initially (II, 326-28). This was certainly not a literal statement of the passage, but Milton's interpretation. Since God had called men to peace (I Cor. 7:15), it was apparent to him that to force men to remain in that marital state would contribute to hard-heartedness and destructiveness. For Milton the correct understanding of adultery was next to be interpreted since Christ had said fornication was the only proper cause for divorce and to divorce apart from such conditions would lead to adultery if either party remarried. Milton said again that marriage was not for copulation but for mutual help and comfort. If Christ's words in the context were properly understood, the beginning and end of marriage are charity. There is no new command by Christ but only the enlargement of charity, the bond of perfec­ tion. Those commands as they appear compel us to a cruelty in prohibiting divorce and hinder the movement forward to spiritual perfection. Therefore, Christ's words cannot be a command. Moses' words were to keep men from license for some temporary or recon­ cilable offense, in justifying divorce. Milton wanted Christ's words to show what He did not say which were natural or perpetual hindrances to the mind that prevent the establishment of contentment and solitude to the marriage pair. Christ's Gospel does not dissuade men from divorcing; rather, natural hatred, when it arises, 66

would be far greater than the accident of adultery. In other words, Milton said that Christ does not mean adultery when he says adultery. He actually means matters of strife and those things which nullify contentment, solitude and acceptable conversation (II, 330-33). Since Milton apparently anticipated an objection to his analysis of fornication, he asked whether the Savior•s words were to be understood as the actual committing of an illicit sexual act outside the context of marriage. Again, did Christ mean fornication or did He not? Milton used two Old Testament passages which speak of for­ nication in a supposed different understanding. Milton said that Judges 19 means stubborn disobedience to her husband and Numbers 5 suggests lewd suspicion or jealousy and example. Yet when read, both instances speak of a wife committing harlotry with another man. It appears that Milton conveniently ignored the statements to fit his interpretation. If adultery or fornication could not be proven by eye-witnesses, then, Milton said, Christ•s words were to be seen as any kind of matrimonial transgression as coming under the broad statement of fornication (II, 337). Milton•s conclusion to his thesis was that there is scarcely any one saying in the Gospel that must be read with limitations and distinctions to be rightly understood. He said that: Christ scatters the heavenly grain of his doctrine like pearle here and their which requires a skilful and labo­ rious gatherer; who must compare the words he finds, with other precepts, with the end of every ordinance, and with the general "analogy" of Evangelisk doctrine (II, 338). Otherwise, the church would grant divorce for the wrong reasons 67

based upon wrong interpretations. Obviously he saw himself as the skillful and laborious gatherer who had given the right and proper statement to the Biblical pattern of divorce. He challenged the extreme literalist to consider if what he had supplied was not the due understanding of Christ's words. To him fleshly intimacy without the souls' union and commixture of intellectual delight was a soiling more than a fulfilling of the marriage rights. Christ's healing on the Sabbath taught us to dispense with erroneous obser­ vance of an ill-knotted marriage (II, 339). Clearly, Milton had been the one in God's plan to dispell the myth of no divorce and to dissolve the difficulties which have violated the Church of God. Seeing that neither Scripture nor reason has disproved the doctrine of divorce, the only place where the error could come from is the letter-bound servility of Canon Doctors. Their literal rendering of Scripture amounted to superstition and custom to tyranize man, which God never intended (II, 340-43). Milton saw that if those who sought ·to bind men would recover the misattended words of Christ to the sincerity of their true sense from their contradictions and be opened with the key of charity, man would be restored to his just dignity and prerogative in nature, preferring the soul's free peace before the promiscuous draining of carnal rage. God has· put all things under His feet but the command­ ments under the feet of charity (II, 355-56). Though Scripture remained for Milton the revelation of divine will, in the tractate on divorce he raised human reason to the level of sole arbiter of moral issues and the individual to a position of 68

eminence over institutions as though particular men could both see and want their good. The whole argument rested upon the belief that God is just. In not allowing divorce due to unhappy marriagess though sanctioned by the Old Testament and unchanged by the News civil and ecclesiastical authorities were guilty of undermining belief in divine justice. The consequences for man were either despair over spiritual conditions or loss of faith.l5 Through his

argument~ Milton in effect redefined God's law as understood by his Puritan audiences who built upon the letter and not the spirit of the Scriptures. He professed to hold to the authority of the text; but as we have seen, He is the one who has illumined us who are too dull of hearing or uneducated due to the obscurities of the text. The Bible was designed to free men from a state of slaverys and any passages which seem to approve or confirm the bondage of man have not been rightly understood; but once Milton had rightly expounded them, the light of truth charitably broke the bondage which had enslaved us. He was the learned scholar who had the right interpretation. "The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce" was not the only tract where Milton expressed his view that he was the learned interpreter, guiding men to uncover a lost truth. He reiterated the same idea in ''Tetrachordon: Expositions upon the foure chief places in Scripture, which treat of Mariage, or nullities in Mariage." He stated that men's fear keeps men from understanding a text when they read with verbal straightness. In this tract Milton declared: Thus med'cining our eyes wee need not doubt to see more 69

into the meaning of these our Saviors words, then many who have gone before us (II, 639). Milton believed that he had the proper medicine to make men's eyes clear because he had acquired the learning to make the Scriptures clear that tradition and ecclesiastical authorities had obscured. In this work Milton gives a verse-by-verse, phrase-by-phrase exposi­ tion of the four major texts that dealt with divorce: Genesis 1:27,28; Deuteronomy 24:12; Matthew 5:31-32 with Matthew 19:3-11; and I Corinthians 7:10-16. He did not offer various opinions of these verses but rather wrote his interpretation as he compared Scripture with Scripture in the place of the learned interpreter. Milton brought the light to men's eyes depending upon the law of Christ written in his heart. CHAPTER IV CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

The years that followed his involvement in the divorce contro­ versy were for Milton fraught with numerous personal and political difficulties. The important Calvinistic statement of faith and practice, the Westminster Confession of Faith, appeared during this time; Milton believed it was directed at him personally because of the divorce statement. He learned very painfully from the Presbyterians that his position on divorce was not orthodox or acceptable, and he moved further from identification with any par­ ticular group of Protestants as England moved toward the Common­ wealth under Oliver Cromwell. He became totally disenchanted with the Presbyterians for their hostile reception to his divorce pamph­ lets and resolutely deprecated or ignored them for the rest of his life.1 By 1651 Milton had become compl~tely blind but still held his position as Latin secretary in the Cromwell government. Matters of state occupied his time as he spoke vociferously for the legiti­ macy of the Commonwealth; however, he continued to study the Scriptures and to probe and question matters of accepted orthodox doctrine through the-aid of his friends and family. Before 1660, Milton constantly involved himself in the quest for liberty: personal, political, and ecclesiastical. He believed very strongly in it, and invasions into personal liberty prompted him to seek discovery where true liberty was threatened. Having seen that

70 71

his quest for liberty concerning the doctrine of divorce was rejected as antinomianism, he approached his major theological treatise with much more caution in his publication. The De Doctrina Christiana, or, Christian Doctrine, appears to have been compiled over a period of years before he attempted to provide some semblance of order, cataloguing his basic beliefs. This treatise was withheld from publication partly because his searching of Scripture was not completed, but it also may have been withheld because those same Presbyters who scorned his divorce position as heretical were in power politically and ecclesiastically. This too was perhaps for- tunate since a number of the conclusions in this work diverged rather drastically from reformed, Protestant orthodoxy and would have raised ire disadvantageous to Milton.2

Milton•s combing Scripture for 11 The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce .. taught him to be wary of orthodox positions that were in error. He felt that the mistaken interpretations of Scripture which form erroneous orthodoxy were to be rejected and heresies accepted

11 11 if heresies agreed with Scripture. He had said in Areopagitica : Truth is compared in Scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in perpetuall progression, they sick•n into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition. A man may be a heretick in the truth; and if he beleeve things only because his Pastor sayes so, or the Assembly so determins, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet every truth he holds, becomes his heresie (II, 543).3 Certain that divine revelation in the Bible provided the grounds of faith, and that God had opened the way of eternal salvation only to the faith of the individual, Milton realized that his creed could

' & 72

not be safely trusted to the opinions of other men. A regenerate Christian in his search for true orthodoxy will test and prove those matters relating to faith and practice. He appealed to the voice of Protestantism which spoke for the freedom of inquiry and discussion that should be granted to all believers. Without the Christian liberty of sifting every doctrine and then writing about it according to his individual faith and persuasion, he believed him­ self to be enslaved by a barbarous tyranny of force, not left free in the sense of the gospel, that had been given to free men.4 As seen previously, Milton was not concerned with a system of Christian Doctrine in the early prose works but rather with par­ ticular controversies. His chief concern was to defend against human assaults on the freedom he instinctively prized, and he believed that God was wont to illuminate him with a far and sur- passing light since God had enlarged his faculties and chosen and equipped him for the work of writing the defenses. Though he was not free from the ills of humanity, he thought he was under the care of the deity and was aided by divine favor and help.5 In the De Doctrina Christiana it is clear that Milton in all earnestness came to think of himself as an inspired religious teacher, a modern Samuel in the schools of the prophets. He believed that God would open truth to anyone truly diligent and untiring in their search. Eventually in this work he became persuaded that he had discovered what was a matter of true belief and what was merely opinion.6 In the title of the work Milton said that he drew his doctrine from Scripture alone. The probable influences shaping the form of 73

his statement of faith came from two Calvinist theologians and their systematic theologies: William Ames• Medulla Theologiae and John Wolleb's Christianne Theologiae Compendium. These men stated points of doctrine illustrated by Scripture and expanded by argument if necessary. They held the Protestant view that the Bible was 11 the

~ead and Empress of all faculties and Arts, the encyclopaedia of all knowledge; it should be accorded absolute primacy as the ground of all, the touchstone to try all, and the Judge to determine all truth ... ? Though Milton did not use Ames and Wolleb as the basis for his theology, he did subscribe to the Puritan position of the pri­ macy .of Scripture. From the written word Milton sometimes drew extreme doctrines, but his attitude toward it was conservatively Protestant. He believed in the simplicity of Scripture and three basic principles: freedom of interpretation, reason under Divine Guidance and the plainness of the text.B Milton felt that no man could definitely judge the sense of Scripture for another man's conscience. The authority of the Bible stands against the authority of the church, and religious liberty must begin with an acceptance of the sole authority of the Bible.9 Addressing himself to learned readers, or at least to men of mature understanding of Christian doctrine, he did not state his own opinions nor recommend his own authority. Statement-s of Scripture fi 11 the pages. 10 Having given something of the context of Milton's Christian Doctrine, it is important to consider how his hermeneutics and exe­ gesis appear in this theological compendium. Divided into two books, the first book delivers the major doctrines while the second 74

book covers man•s relationship to God and man. His statement about Scripture, although he said his theology was based solely upon it, does not appear until the thirtieth chapter, almost at the end. Yet this chapter provides the clearest insight into his practice of interpretation. He said in this chapter that the rule and canon of faith is Scripture alone. It is most definitely true that his theology is based upon Scripture; but this compiled work, coming more than ten years after the divorce tracts, shows another shift in his hermeneutic practice. This treatise amounted to an independent search for God•s truth built upon the two axiomatic premises: the all-sufficiency of Scripture and the necessity of individual interpretation unfettered by outside human judgment. Neither bound by an attitude of bibliolatry nor limited by some kind of mystical intuition, Milton with utmost solemnity formulated his system of Christian doctrine upon his energetic and conscientious study of the Bible.ll The interpretation of Scripture builds upon what Milton saw as the double Scripture: "There is an external Scripture of the writ­ ten word and the internal Scripture of the Holy Spirit which he, according to God•s promise, has engraved upon the heart of believers and which is certainly not to be neglected."12 He expanded upon this idea by saying that the external authority of the Christian faith, the Scripture, is of very considerable importance and, generally speaking, it is the authority with which a Christian has his first experience. However, Milton said, the pre-eminent and supreme authority is the authority of the Spirit which is internal 75

and the individual possession. What this statement provided was the freedom for Milton to arrive at conclusions that he saw Scripture supporting based upon what he felt was the prompting of the Spirit. He felt that his position was solidly supported with the words of the prophets of the Old Testament and the apostles in the New. Isaiah had said that the Lord would put His spirit, "which is in you, and my words which I have placed in your mouth, shall not leave your mouth or the mouth of your seed ••• says Jehovah, from this time forward, forever" {59:21). Jeremiah echoed the same thought when he said, "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts ••• they shall teach no more every man his neigh­ bor ••• for they shall all know me" (31:33,34). Milton amplified this position with the New Testament. In the Acts of the Apostles Peter says, "We are witnesses for him to those things which we have said, and so also is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him" {5:32). Paul adds his voice in the first epistle to the Corinthians, "we have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit, which comes from God, that we may know the things which God has given us" (2:12). These passages substantiated the internal witness of the Spirit for Milton; and coupled with his belief that no person or politic body had the right to impose any statement of belief upon man, he was free to come to any conclusion he saw fit based upon the internal witness and his right reason. The position that Milton held about the Scriptures sounds quite orthodox, for he developed a lengthy discussion about their centra­ lity and the primacy of their position in his personal faith 76

statement. The statements were reminiscent of his bold statements in the antiprelatical statements, and it was as though he had returned to the rather literal interpretations contained there; but there is a difference from those early points and the ones he is making here. By seeing the development of his statement of the doctrine of Scripture, it is quite apparent that at this stage in his hermeneutical development he trusted the "inner light" for interpretation more than the Scriptures themselves. He accepted the writings of the prophets and apostles as the Holy Scriptures, the canonical books of Old and New Testament generally agreed upon by orthodox Protestants; and they had been written for the use of the church throughout all succeeding ages. Milton cited statements from both Testaments, such as Isaiah 30:8, ••write this that it may be for the time to come forever," and Romans 15:4, "the things written beforehand were written for our instruc­ tion," which suggest he followed the Scriptures literally. Pointing to II Timothy 3:15 as an important statement that the divine inspiration of Scripture is able to make one wise to salva­ tion, and further in verse 16 that all Scripture is divinely inspired, he emphasized that Scripture was useful for teaching, even to those already learned and wise. Further, he applied I Corinthians 10:15 to his doctrine which says "as to intelligent men, consider what I say." For Milton then, the Scriptures provided clearly that no one should be forbidden to read them but rather that all sorts and conditions of men should read or hear them read regu­ larly. In Luke 4 Christ Himself, when in the synagogue, read the 77

Scriptures even though the Pharisees and scribes considered Him to

be unlearned. The book of the Revelation says 11 blessed is he who reads .. (1:3). Thus the Scriptures are, both in themselves and

11 through God's illumination .. absolutely clear. If studied carefully and regularly, they are an ideal instrument for educating even unlearned readers in those matters which have most to do with salvation (VI, 578).

Milton added the phrase 11 through God's i 11 umi nation 11 because the indwelling of the Spirit was vital to his exegesis. Truly, the Scriptures do speak of the anointing of the Spirit to teach us, in John 16:13 as guiding into truth and I John 2:27 where God's anointing teaches and no man is needed to teach. But the point seems clear that from his stance in the prelatical controversy, where anyone could read and interpret the clear statements of

Scripture, that this "inner Scripture 11 was the substantiating factor in the Christian Doctrine. Milton said the prophecy of Scripture must not be interpreted by the intellect of a particular individual, that is, not by human intellect, but with the help of the Holy Spirit, promised to each individual believer (VI, 580). At this juncture, Milton returned to defend the clearness of the external Scriptures as plain and sufficient in themselves to make a man wise and fit for 5alvation through faith, and through them to prepare and provide fully for a man of God to do good works. He argued that the Scriptures were difficult or obscure in matters of salvation only to those who perish, and the Bible is used to establish his position, a reminder of the literal position of his

' 0 78

earlier tracts attacking the episcopacy. He supported his illumined

·insights by citing Luke 8:10 which says 11 to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to others I speak in parables so that they might look but not see, and hear but not

understand ... I Corinthians 1:18 says 11 the Word of the cross, to those who perish, is foolishness; but to those who are saved, it is the power of God... Milton saw these texts as two statements about the clear teaching of the Bible, and he saw each passage of Scripture as having a single sense, though in the Old Testament the single sense may be a combination of historical and typological. In accepting these principles, Milton believed that the Protestant reformers had laid down the right method of interpretation of Scripture to arrive at that single sense (VI, 581). However, when Milton diverged from the method theologians had ·laid down, he clearly reveals how he had changed his stance from

earlier days. He said about the method of theologians, 11 This is

certainly useful but no very careful attention is paid to it, 11 and then he outlined the important methodology (VI, 582). The requisi­ tes were linguistic ability, knowledge of the original sources, con­ sideration of overall intent, distinction between literal and figurative language, examination of causes and circumstances, and of what comes before and after the passage in question, and comparison of one text with another. It must always be asked how far interpre­ tation is in agreement with faith. Lastly, he said, no inferences should be made from a text, unless they follow necessarily from what is written. This precaution was necessary, because Milton felt that 79

people might be forced to believe something which is not written instead of something which is. Acceptance of human reasoning, which he saw as generally fallacious, would obviously lead men away from divine doctrine (VI, 583). All this sounds orthodox, but Milton said that "no very careful attention is paid to it." He departed from orthodoxy by saying that every believer is entitled to interpret the Scriptures for himself. He has the Spirit, who guides truth, and he has the mind of Christ. Then Milton made the impor­ tant statement that no one else could "usefully'• interpret for him, unless that person's interpretation coincided with the one he made for himself and his own conscience (VI, 584). It would appear that Milton had those in mind who adamantly opposed his divorce position, but the emphasis very clearly points to the "inner Scripture, .. which he saw as the Spirit which would ·direct him to a right and proper understanding of Scripture. Two principles seem important here because of the theological factors involved. First would be the issue of the regenerate mind that Milton believed he had, as he established in the Christian Doctrine, as well as in the divorce tracts, and the second would be the role of pastor-teachers in public exposition of the Scriptures. In "Of Regeneration," the chapter which stated the doctrine about those who were saved, Milton believed that when a man came to God on the basis of faith, the act of rebirth took place. For his system to succeed, the mind had to be dramatically affected so that "the mind of Christ" and the Spirit might be operative as the guide to truth. He said: 80

Regeneration restores man's natural faculties of fault­ less understanding and of free will more completely than before. But what is more, it also makes the inner man like new and infuses by divine means new and supernatural faculties into the minds of those who are made new (VI, 461). Milton implied here that a believer had a mind anointed to be fault- less like God's mind, to which the Spirit would then reveal the true understanding of Scripture~ Therefore, any strictures imposed from human institutions were to be rejected if they conflicted with the understanding and free will of man. Milton said then: · In controversies no arbitrator except Scriptures, or rather, each man is his own arbitrator, so long as he follows Scripture and the Spirit of God (VI, 585). Scripture alone is the rule and canon of faith, which sounds as if he followed the strict Protestant stance upon the Bible; but the two-fold nature including the internal witness of the Spirit was valid. Therefore, Milton's system of interpretation said all that the Protestant reformers had said, but added reason under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and free interpretation because of the infallible nature of the mind made new. The second principle Milton had to deal with involved the public exposition of Scriptures, since it was obvious that not everyone could study Scripture in the original languages. Even Milton him­ self saw that he was a kind of prophet who was submitting a doctrine to teach those less learned than himself. Important to his theology was the idea that the pillar of faith had to be based upon Scripture and not the external authority of any ecclesiastical body. The apostle Paul had written in I Timothy 3:15: "the church of the 81

living God, the pillar and ground of truth." What Timothy was to ·understand from Paul's words was that he meant his letter to have the force of Scripture so that Timothy would know how to behave in the church, that is, any assembly of believers. Therefore, it was not the church to rule Timothy but the Word of Scripture which Timothy received from Paul. The church receives its rule from the Word of God, the writings of Scripture being its foundation. Milton's circumlocution about this situation afforded him the answer to public exposition of Scripture. To restate, he believed every regenerate mind was entitled to interpret the Bible for him­ self because of the internal Spirit and the mind of Christ. He concurred with Scripture that the church was endowed with those whom God appointed as an apostle, prophet, evangelist or pastor-teacher, as seen in Ephesians 4:11-13 and I Corinthians 12:8. He accepted the principle that certain men were endowed with the gift of teaching, and it was no more apparent than the situation where he sought to recover a lost or obscure truth, restoring the proper perspective of divorce. He cited Matthew 13:52 where the scribe instructed concerning that the kingdom of heaven is like a man who brings forth out of his treasure new things and old. He denied that these passages meant those appointed to professional chairs by mere men or by universities. Rather, those who were professionally occupied by ecclesiastical authority were like those in Luke 11:52, where Christ condemned interpreters of the law who took away the key of knowledge. They did not enter into the liberty of reformation, and they stopped those who were attempting to enter. He concluded 8;

that no church or magistrate had the right to impose its interpreta­ tions upon the consciences of men as matters of legal obligation which demanded implicit faith (VI, 584). Any dependence upon human authority was a yoke upon the Holy Spirit and was to be forbidden. He believed his doctrine derived from the Holy Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not from any school of philosophers. Though he felt the Bible clear and though he saw the need for public exposition and interpretation, interpretations from others had limited value because each believer, aided by the Spirit, must interpret Scripture for himself. Public exposition was of value and consequence only so far as it confirmed interpretation privately arrived at by the individual. 13 Milton left himself his escape when the differences of interpretation arose. It seemed that he allowed for differences especially since he felt so all alone after the divorce controversy. He said that any disagreement about the sense of Scripture among apparent believers should lead to tolerance among one another until God reveals the truth to all, or perhaps, until all came to Milton•s persuasion.

It became clearer why the 11 inner Scripture 11 became part of his doctrine and his hermeneutic. Based upon some statements in the epistles, he concluded that the external Scriptures had suffered corruption to some extent. Milton concluded that not all the Scripture had survived or was written down as evidenced by II John 12, when John had said that he had many things to write, but would not with paper and ink, and in III John 13 where a similar statement appeared. Paul said in Colossians 4:16 to read the epistle from 83

Laodicea. Milton appeared to be forced to conclude that what was lost or unrecorded may have been useful but not necessary for salva­ tion. What was lost or unrecorded must have been supplied by other parts of Scripture, but Milton staunchly rejected any decrees from councils or popes and edicts from magistrates. If those lost or unrecorded statements were important to the life of the believer, it would be illumined by the Spirit operating in the believer's life which was promised from John 16:12,13. In that passage, Jesus said He had many things to say to His disciples which they were not ready for but that when the Holy Spirit came, He would guide or lead them into all truth. Milton also used II Peter 1:19, that attention must be paid to the prophetic word until 11 the day dawned and the star rose in our hearts." The reference he saw was the light of the gospel that was to be sought in the regenerate heart as much as in the written records. Even though the external Scripture suffered deterioration over the years, the written record, he felt, corro­ borated his inner Scripture position as ·he used several other apos­ tolic statements. Paul speaks of believers as the epistle of Christ written with the Spirit of the living God or the fleshly tablets of the human heart in II Corinthians 2:3. John speaks of the believer possessing the anointing of the Holy Spirit and no need to be taught by anyone as His anoihting teaches all things in I John 2:20,27. His strongest support came from the Pauline statements where the apostle said, "I say this not the Lord, 11 11 I have no command from the Lord but I give my own opinion," and 11 in my judgment, and it seems to be I have the Spirit of God 11 (II Corinthians 7:12,25, 84

40). The answers to specific problems were not laid out but were answered, according to the spirit of Christianity, the ••inner Scripture" of the Holy Spirit; and Milton saw the answer to his own questions of Scripture in the words of Paul. Therefore, though Milton continued to assert that the rule and canon of faith is Scripture, he could also say that the external authority of the Christian faith was of considerable importance and was the authority by which a believer had his first experience. However, the pre-eminent and supreme authority was the authority of the internal Spirit individually possessed of every regenerate per­ son. Since the New Testament had often been liable to corruption and was, in fact, corrupt for Milton, it was so because of the various untrustworthy authorities who had collected it together from divergent manuscripts, surviving in a medley of transcripts and edi­ tions. On the other hand, no man was able to corrupt the Spirit which guides regenerate man to truth. A spiritual man would not be

easily deceived as I Corinthians 2:15 and 16 imply: 11 The spiritual man judges all things discriminately but is himself judged by no one. For who knows the mind of the Lord • But we have the mind of Christ." Under the new dispensation of the gospel, the believer possesses a two-fold Scripture: the external of the written word and the internal which the Holy Spirit writes in the hearts of believers. Since the written word apparently had suffered corrup­ tion although the Spirit cannot, the internal Scripture is a more trustworthy guide than the external. The believer, then, should follow the internal guide rather than human opinion, political

. \) 8

authority, or ecclesiastical tradition. Every believer is ruled by the Spirit of God. So if anyone imposes any kind of sanction or dogma upon believers against their will, he is placing a yoke on man and the Holy Spirit. Magistrates cannot impose rigid beliefs not found in Scripture or deduced from Scripture by human reasoning which does not carry any conviction with it. Thus, on the evidence of Scripture, all things for Milton are to be referred to the Spirit and the unwritten word (VI, 590). Once Milton established that two-fold witness of Scripture, it was not difficult to see how he was able to conclude heterodox opi­ nions. He saw that human traditions were forbidden upon authority of Scripture, and no believer should rely upon predecessors or upon antiquity. He saw in the Old Testament how men had followed in the footsteps of their fathers who had gone astray and deviated from ·God's statutes. To accept the opinions of antiquity in matters of faith and practice would be no better than an acceptance of a literalness of letterism. That kind of hermeneutic practice would create a kind of idol worship similar to the Pharisees who constructed a whole tradition of rules around their external inter­ pretation of the holy writings. Idol worship obviously violates any biblical pattern for living and worship. Therefore, Milton would not attribute too much to the church as an external form since it would restrict his liberty. He accepted only the church in its mystical state where all regenerate members were like-minded and free, operating upon the internal Scripture free from error (VI,

592). 86

Many of Milton•s beliefs were based upon a literal reading of the words accepted as divinely inspired. Other beliefs appear based upon a sincere if somewhat extreme application of Protestant indivi­ dualism. When his common sense was offended, or when he was forced to reconcile apparent contradictions, or when he was compelled to reason beyond ambiguity or silence, he consulted his own soul, calling upon the Holy Spirit for guidance. The efficacy of the "inner light," brought the external Scripture under its authority because the Spirit controlled the believer•s mind. The hermeneutics employed sound very much in the Protestant reformed mold until his exposition of the status and place of Scripture is revealed. True, he followed something of a literal exegesis, but his conclusions often led him to exercise liberty above the seeming statement of the text. The literal exposition Milton does fits in with his reason as . he searched to reconcile man to God. CONCLUSION

The examination of John Milton's prose writing as it covers a period of approximately twenty years shows a continuing change, or what might be seen as a progressive development. Early in his life he committed himself to becoming something of a poet-prophet for the people of his country, and he immersed himself in the academic stu­ dies which would enable him to speak the oracles of God. When England began to experience internal strife over questions of church authority, Milton volunteered himself to aid his countrymen in a proper understanding of what the Word of God said. In the early 1640's he wrote pamphlets against the prelatical episcopacy that demonstrated a hermeneutics following the line of the Protestant reformers, and based on a literal, historical sense of the words of Scripture. Accordingly, he found in the Bible that episcopacy and presbytery were interchangeable words, ·which meant that the form of hierarchical church authority which England had at that time stood without the authority of Scripture. A few years after the prelatical episcopacy controversy, Milton entered another foray concerning the issue of divorce. Importantly, the four divorce tracts reveal a change in his hermeneutics. Scripture was clear to him as previously, but Scripture had to be interpreted by someone inspired, which Milton believed himself to be. He was the sole advocate of a discountenanced truth, as well as the one with medicined eyes, and he felt that he had been inspired

87 88

to recover a true teaching of Scripture obscured by wrong interpre­ tations and ages of tradition. The extreme literalist was given over to a literalness through enlightened eyes. His reason became the sole arbiter of moral issues as he said that divorce was to be granted if the minds of the two people had not been united by God. No marriage had taken place if the minds were not suitable to one another~ and Milton saw his interpretation as following in the line of those prophets who spoke regardless of the opposition they faced.

During the more than ten years after the divorce tracts~ Milton began to compile his theological summary of the truths to be believed in the Christian religion. He said that his Christian doctrine was based solely on Scripture, but his hermeneutics shows that he has taken another turn in his practice of exegesis. Because the external Scriptures~ that is, the written word of God in the

Protestant Old and New Testaments~ is fraught with error~ it remains that the only incorruptible Scripture is the "inner Scripture~" that is, the internal Spirit in the heart of every believer. Even though error may be in the written Word~ the Spirit is not, which means that the person who interprets the word for himself can be assured that his interpretation is correct as he listens to the Spirit speak to him the right understanding of Scripture. To follow the literal text alone would lead to error in faith and practice because of the errors in the text. The presentation here has been to show that while Milton wrote his prose tracts, he manifested a change in his hermeneutics. He began with the conservative position where the Scriptures were clear and could be simply interpreted by anyone who read them with a desire to understand. Later his hermeneutics changed to seeing his interpretation as by someone enlightened, one to whom the truth had been revealed. As he compiled his Christian Doctrine, the her­ meneutics takes another turn as he looks at Scripture as the "·internal Spirit" which reads the Scripture to arrive at its under­ standing. The Scripture is two-fold and together form the rule and canon of faith. Although the intent of this study has been to show a progressive development in Milton's hermeneutics in his prose works, a wider application can be made by looking at his three major poems. Although the hermeneutics of Milton's poetry would provide the basis of another study, the purpose here is not to do an in-depth reading, but rather to suggest how Milton applied his interpretive practices · in Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained, and Samson Agonistes. As Milton began Paradise Lost, he established the atmosphere for the whole poem in which Biblical authority is apparent in every action, every speech, and every description and is part of a great system reaching back into the past of Chaos, Creation, and the Fall and forward into the working out of God's providence in Redemption and Restoration. Within the first thirteen lines Milton alludes to thirteen separate Scriptural references, clearly placing the poem in the center of Biblical authority.l The Scripture provided Milton with an historical document that if rightly understood and correctly interpreted, would enable a man to see God working in his own life and in the world. Milton believed that he stood in the role of 90

the prophet as one endowed with the wisdom for the purpose of

teaching. His theme, 11 I may assert Eternal Providence,/and justify

the ways of God to man 11 (PL, I, 25-26), placed him in the role of prophet who was centered squarely upon the authority of the Bible. The hermeneutical position stated in Christian Doctrine of the inner Spirit being the inner Scripture is seen clearly in Milton's

invocation to the must. 11 Sing Heavn'ly Muse • I thence/Invoke

thy aid to my advent'rous Song 11 (PL, I, 6, 12-13). Again there is further petition for inner illumination when Milton says: And chiefly Thou, 0 Spirit, that dost prefer Before all Temples th' upright heart and pure, Instruct me, for Thou knou'st What in me is dark Illumine, what is low raise and support. (PL, I, 17-19,22-23) These lines from the opening of Paradise Lost indicate that Milton ·followed the position in Christian Doctrine that if he interpreted Scripture, it was by means of the Holy Spirit and not by the judgment of men. God's ways could be justified to men only by the Spirit of God speaking through the pure, upright heart of the prophet. Further, the same desire for inner light echoes the state-

ment from the tract 11 Tetrachordon 11 where Milton gave men medicine for their eyes when the poet Milton said: So much the rather thou Celestial Light Shine inward, and the mind through all her powers Irradiate, there plant eyes, all mist from thence Purge and disperse, that I may see and tell Of things invisible to mortal sight. (PL, III, 51-55) The inner light from the Spirit will shine through him to dispel the 91

darkness that shrouded men's eyes. Milton desired to speak of things that men had not understood about God from the wisdom and insight of the Scriptural authority planted in his regenerate mind. Milton clearly applied his stance on Scripture in the poem that the mind is a vessel through which the Spirit of God speaks and carries the authority of Scripture as the poet submits to the Spirit's ·illumination. The application of his inner Scripture can be seen in Milton's development of Christ's character in the poem which placed him out- side orthodox doctrine. He said: Because thou hast, though Thron'd in highest bliss Equal to God, and equally enjoying God-like fruition, quitted all to save A world from utter loss, and has been found By Merit more than Birthright Son of God. (PL, III, 305-309) Based upon his own study and reason, Milton concluded that Christ had a position beneath the Father. His own deity had a beginning whereas the Father is eternal, and though Christ is enthroned with the Father enjoying 11 God-like fruition, .. He cannot be said to be equal with God. The Christian orthodox position concerning Christ is that Christ is not only co-equal with the Father but also co- eternal. Milton's Christ assumes His deity by merit more than birthright, a rather radical departure from orthodoxy. Milton presented a picture of God that follows his Christian Doctrine position on the inner Scripture where God speaks to His Son about the fall of man: For Man will heark'n to his glozing lies, And easily transgress the sole Command, 92

Sole pledge of his obedience: So will fall Hee and his faithless Progeny: whose fault? Whose but his own? ingrate, he had of mee All he could have; I made him just and right, Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall. When Will and Reason (Reason also is choice) Useless and vain, of freedom both despoil'd Made passive both, had serv'd necessity Not mee. (PL, III, 93-99, 108-111) Milton's God speaks as though He were insensitive to man's situation, but Milton felt under the illumination of the Spirit to describe God's foreknowledge as well as account for man's respon- sibility. Even though God made man just and right, Milton concluded that God was not responsible for man's sinfulness. God created man with will and reason, the opportunity to choose his own course; but man chose to go his own independent way, breaking his fellowship with the Father. Milton believed that God was justified in His ·actions when He permitted man to suffer the consequences of his own choice. Milton further established that the regenerate mind could experience that fellowship again under the illumination of the Spirit. A renewed reasoning capacity permitted man to make right

choices under the Spirit's direc~ion. Milton followed his inner Scripture, it appears in this picture of God. At the end of Paradise Lost, Milton followed the position he stated concerning Scripture in Christian Doctrine where Scripture is not to be interpreted by the judgment of man unassisted but by the means of the Holy Spirit and mind of Christ given to all believers. As the archangel Michael spoke to Adam about how he was to live outside Paradise, he said, 93

and the truth With superstitions and traditions taint Left only in those written Records pure~ Though not but by the Spirit understood.

The Spirit of God~ promis'd alike and given To all Believers. (XII~ 511-14, 519-20) The statement appears to be very clear that the sole basis of authority for Milton was the Scripture but echoes the Christian Doctrine that the "inner Scripture" was the only way that Scripture would be properly interpreted and understood. Of the two religious guides, the written word and the Spirit, the Spirit is more reliable because it is incorruptible while the written text may have suffered corruption: Laws which none shall find Left them inroll'd, or what the Spirit within Shall on the heart engrave. (XII, 522-24) ·Paradise Lost contains the fruit of Milton's long labors for which he had prepared his whole life. Under the direction of the Spirit and his own reason, he interpreted the Scripture he believed had been obscured or distorted by careless expositors.

In writing Paradise Regaine~, Milton continued to depend on the authority of the Bible and the inner illumination of the Spirit. The issue at stake in the poem was the obedience of Christ when faced with temptation. Milton had invested a large portion of his life to become the poet-prophet, but in this poem Christ's human- ness bears the mark of Milton's hermeneutics as he shows how Christ grows into an awareness of His identity. Milton remained consistent with Paradise Lost in that Christ is the one raised to His status 94

by merit. Milton•s Christ says before His temptation: all my mind was set Serious to learn and know, and thence to do What might be public good; myself I thought Born to that end, born to promote all truth, All righteous things. first By winning words to conquer willing hearts, And make persuasion do the work of fear; (l, 203-207, 221-23) Christ is seen having a vague knowledge of His purpose and identity. He knew He was born for the benefit of mankind, but at this point in the story He acts upon His knowledge of reason as choice. Milton puts Christ in the place of all men who know they are born to do the will of God but are unaware of their specific purpose. Christ went through a series of temptations from Satan all of which were intended to circumvent the plan of God. Milton framed the temptations so that if Christ were to accept Satan•s suggestions He would become the source of His own sufficiency. Since Christ is the 11 Greater Man 11 who restored men to God, Christ had to fulfi 11 what Adam was unable to do by learning to obey the Father•s Word. He learned that to obey was best. The great learning of the world was of little value if a man did. not know God. Milton had Christ answer Satan•s temptation saying, Think not but that I know these things or think I tnow them not; not therefore am I short of knowing what I ought: he who receives Light from above, from the fountain of light, No other doctrine needs, though granted true; (PR, IV, 285-290)

Christ reiterated what Milton believed about the 11 inner Scripture 11 95

which was the light of the Gospel truth. The whole basis of the poem rested upon the position Milton came to that Scripture settled all matters of dispute. Where God is prais'd aright, and Godlike men, The Holiest of Holies, and his Saints; Such are from God inspir'd, not such from thee; Unless where moral virtue is express'd By light of Nature, not in all _quite lost.

But herein to our Prophets far beneath, As men divinely taught, and better teaching

In them is plainest taught, and easiest learnt, {PR, IV, 348-52,356-57,361) The prophets spoke for God and for the clarity of Scripture established by God in the heart of the believer as the "inner'' is established by Scripture. The obedience of Christ in the face of temptation finished the work which Adam did not, but the great lesson for Milton was his own need to obey. He had tried to give man a spiritual dignity by sup­ posing that the value of his conduct depended partly on his own judgment of right and wrong and partly on his own knowledge of spiritual things. Finally in this poem he yielded the sovereignty of his understanding and will and rested upon obedience.2 The pat­ tern of his interpretation was to take the reasoned approach of Scripture from Luke and allow it to stand. God cannot be blamed if man erred; man is fully responsible for his own fall. His vigorous learning was brought under the authority of Scripture. 96

The last major poem Samson Agonistes showed that Milton con­ tinued to recognize the authority of Scripture sustaining the inter­ pretive stance of Christian Doctrine. He recognized that the Bible was difficult in many points but not those points necessary to salvation. Milton spoke through the Chorus which echoed Paradise Lost. Just are the ways of God, And justifiable to Men; (SA, 293-94) But even though God's ways may be justified to men, the Chorus says: Yet more there be who doubt his ways not just, As to his own edicts, found contradicting, Then give the rains to wandering thought, Regardless of his glories diminution; Till by their own perplexities involved, They ravel more, still less resolv'd, But never find self-sAtisfying solution. (SA, 300-06) The simple conclusion for Milton was that it may not be for man to understand but to obey. Arthur Sewell said that Milton thought in terms of being obedient to the recommendations of Reason which kept man's will on the right lines of obedience to God.3 He accepted the rule and canon of faith as the Scripture both internal and external. The external would witness to or·agree with the internal causing man to act in obedience to the Reason. Milton's creation of Samson's character is indicative of his interpretive position of Christian Doctrine although it is apparent that the strongly reasoned application of earlier years has been replaced by an emphasis upon obedience. He did not follow the Judges 13-16 account exactly which forces his readers to ask why, 'JI

thus putting them in the role of the interpreter. Samson, like Adam, fell through disobedience to the revealed will of God by his weakness for the woman and his flesh. He deserved his situation because he betrayed God and God's word. His acceptance of his guilt and his acknowledgment of God's justice are acts of faith, but his hope that in some way God would still use him forces him to await God's plan to be worked out. The poem appears to be Milton's attempt to explain why God did what He did. Milton was looking to see truth, but he saw God as a sovereign mystery who was to be obeyed prior to his own understanding. As Samson learned, to obey is best. The poetry forms another study in seeing the development of . I Milton's hermeneutics, but it is apparent that Milton's practice of interpretation continued to develop throughout his life. The prose certainly should not be separated from his poetry, but if seen as an aggregate of the larger man, the whole canon of Milton's writing demonstrates that the man was saturated with the words of Scripture. He worked very hard to see his life as a "true poem" where God's words found their outlet in one who wanted to speak prophetically, as one who spoke the words of God to men. By seeing the progression of interpretive practices, we have an important insight into those works for which he is perhaps better known--the poetry.

' d

·I NOTES

Introduction 1 Harris Francis Fletcher, The Intellectual Development of John Milton (Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1961), II, 103-112. 2 Harris Francis Fletcher, The Use of the Bible in Milton's Prose (1929, rpt. Folcroft, Penn.: The Folcroft Press, Inc., 1969), pp. 9-11. Chapter I 1 The information for Chapter I is based on four major sources outlining the history of hermeneutics: Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1950), pp. 11-31; Frederic W. Farrar, History of Interpretation (1886, rpt. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 1- 354; Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Inter retation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1970, pp. 1-63; Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.), pp. 610-694. Information quoted directly will be cited parenthetically in the text. 2 Palestinian Jews had a profound respect for their Scriptures and the infallible Word of God, even to regard the letters as holy. However, the Prophets and Holy Writings were not held in as high esteem as the Law. Hence, their great objective was the interpreta­ tion of the Law. Their exegesis, called the "midrash," was divided into the Halakhah; matters of binding law in a strict legal sense, and the Haggadah, interpretations of the non-legal parts of the Prophets and Holy Writings. The latter proved to be homiletical and illustrative rather than exegetical. 3 One of the greatest Jewish thinkers to emerge from the Middle Ages was Moses Maimonides (1135-1204). His great aim was to har­ monize Judaism with science and philosophy, and he became the great influence and authority in matters of religion to Jews everywhere. He worked to publish a lucid abstract of the traditional rabbinic exegesis from the greatest authorities. However, he involved him­ self in a religio-philosophical work that led him to reject many things in rabbinic writings which many held sacred. This work Moreh Nebuchim, or "Guide of the Perplexed," created a new epoch in the philosophy of the Middle Ages. It brought on a furor which divided his people into two camps, those who saw his eclecticism as heresy to be burned and others who saw his writings as a new "Mosaic" law.

98 99

4 Typology, a facet of Biblical exegesis, developed as a way of seeing prophetic "pictures," a foreshadowing appearing in the Old Testament which was fulfilled in the New Testament. Chapter II 1 Georgia B. Christopher, Milton and the Science of the Saints (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press; 1982), pp. 3, 22. · 2 Christopher Hill, Milton and the English Revolution (New York: The Viking Press, 1977), p. 245. 3 D.M. Rosenberg, "Style and Meaning in Milton's Anti Episcopal Tracts," Criticism, XV (1973), pp. 47, 49. 4 Arthur E. Barker, Milton and the Puritan Dilemma 1641-1660 (The Univ. of Toronto Press, 1942), pp. 4-5. 5 Don M. Wolfe, Milton in the Puritan Revolution (1941; rpt. New York: Humanities Press, 1963), p. 48. 6 John A. Via, "Milton's Antiprelatical Tracts: The Poet Speaks in Prose," Milton Studies 5:88. 7 John Milton, "Of Reformation and the Cawses That Hitherto Have Hindered It," in Complete Prose Works of John Milton, 1, gen. ed. Don M. Wolfe (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1953), pp. 524-25. The Yale edition provides all the references to Milton's prose wri­ tings in this study and will be noted in the text by volume and page numbers. 8 The references to the Bible are taken from the Authorized. Version of 1611, also known as the King James Version. 9 Michael Fixler, Milton and the Kingdoms of God (Northwestern Univ. Press, 1964), p. 94. 10 Barker, p. 23. 11 Wolfe, p. 48. 12 John Milton, "Of Prelatical Episcopacy," in Complete Prose Works of John Milton, Vol. I, gen. ed. Don M. Wolfe (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1953). 13 W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words with their Precise Meanings for English Readers, 4. vol. in 1 (1940; rpt. Old Tappan, NJ; Fleming H. Revell Co., 1966), Vol. I, p. 128. 14 Vine, Vol. I, 129. 100

15 Vine, Vol. II, p. 21. A note to add is ·that 11 EPISKOPE0 11 is translated 11 oversight 11 in I Peter 5:2 saying, 11 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight, thereof, •.• 11 The word 11 taking 11 does not imply entrance upon such responsibility, but the ·fulfillment of it. It is not a matter of assuming a position, but of the discharge of the duties (III, 157). 16 Vine, Vol. I, p. 129. 17 Wolfe, pp. 48-49.

18 John Milton, 11 The Reason of Church-government Urg'd against Prelaty, 11 in Complete Prose Works of John Milton, Vol. I, gen. ed. Don M. Wolfe (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1963), p. 827. Chapter III 1 James Holly Hanford and James G. Faaffe, A Milton Handbook (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970), p. 71.

2 Ernest Sirluck, 11 lntroduction, 11 in Complete Prose Works of John Milton (New Haven and London: Yale Univ. Press, 1959), Vol. I I, p. 145. 3 Sirluck, p. 146. 4 John Halkett, Milton and the Idea of Matrimon : A Stud of the Divorce Tracts and 11 Paradise Lost 11 New Haven and London: Yale Univ. Press, 1970), p. 14. 5 Sirluck, p. 146. 6 Hanford and Taaffe, p. 73.

7 John Milton, 11 The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, 11 in Complete Prose Works of John Milton, II, gen. ed. Don M. Wolfe (New Haven and London: Yale Univ. Press, 1959), p. 224. 8 Arthur E. Barker, Milton and the Puritan Dilemma (The Univ. of Toronto Press, 1942), p. 71. 9 Barker, p. 71. 10 Halkett, p. 6. 11 II, 224, 225, 227, 228. 12 II, 229, 233. 13 Harris Francis Fletcher, The Use of the Bible in Milton's Prose (1929, rpt. Folcroft, PA: The Folcroft Press, 1969), p. 30. 101

14 Fletcher, p. 33. 15 Halkett, pp. 6, 95. Chapter IV 1 William B. Hunter Jr., "The Theological Content of Milton's Christian Doctrine," in Achievements of the Left Hand: Essays.on the Prose of John Milton, ed. Michael Lieb and John T. Shawcross (Amherst: The Univ. of Massachusetts Press~ 1974), p. 271. 2 Arthur Sewell, A Study in Milton's Christian Doctrine (1939, rpt. Archon Books, 1967), pp. 10, 63. 3 John Milton, "Areopagitica: A Speech of Mr. John Milton for the Liberty of Unlicenc'd Printing," Complete Prose Works of John Milton, II, gen. ed. Don M. Wolfe (New Haven: Yale Univ. press, 1959), p. 543. 4 William Riley Parker, Milton: A Biography (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1966), p. 1. 5 Sewell, pp. 54-55, 59-60. 6 Parker, pp. 495-96. 7 C.A. Patrides, Milton and the Christian Tradition (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1966), p. 1. 8 George Newton Conklin, Biblical Criticism and Heresy in Milton (1949, rpt. New York: Octagon Books, 1972), p. 27. 9 Sewell, p. 67. 10 Parker, p. 496. 11 Conklin, pp. 33, 39. 12 John Milton, "Of the Holy Scriptures," in Christian Doctrine in Vol. VI of Complete Prose Works of John Milton, gen. ed. Don M. Wolfe (New Haven and London: Yale Univ. Press, 1973), p. 587. 13 Maurice Kelley, "Introduction," in Vol. VI of Complete Prose Works of John Milton (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1973), p. 43. Conclusion 1 James H. Sims, The Bible in Milton's Epics (Gainesville: Univ. of Florida Press, 1962), p. 12. He states that Romans 5:12,19; Genesis 2:17; I Corinthians 15:45,47; Psalms 23:3; Exodus 24:12-18; Genesis 1:1; John 1:1; Nehemiah 3:15; Isaiah 8:6; Psalms· 102

28:2; Psalms 2:6; Deuteronomy 4:10 and Exodus 19:18 are within the first thirteen lines. 2 Arthur Sewell, A Study in Milton's Christian Doctrine (1939, rpt. Archon Books, 1967), p. 208. 3 Sewell, p. 210. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Milton~ John. 11 Areopagitica: A Speech of Mr. John Milton for the Liberty of Unlicenc'd Printing ... Vol. II of Complete Prose Works of John Miltonr Gen. Ed. Don M~ Wolfe. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press~ 1959.

11 Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce~ The. 11 Vol. II of Complete Prose Works of John Milton. Gen. Ed. Don M. Wolfe. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press~ 1959.

11 • 0f the Holy Scriptures... In Christian Doctrine. -----,,_.....:----:Vol. VI of Complete Prose Works of John Milton. Gen. Ed. Don M. Wolfe. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press~ 1973.

11 ------,c-:----:--· 0f Prelatical Episcopacy ... Vol. I of Complete Prose Works of John Milton. Gen. Ed. Don M. Wolfe. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press~ 1953.

11 • 0f Reformation and the Cawses that Hitherto have ------,~-:-Hindered It ... Vol. I of Complete Prose Works of John Milton. Gen. Ed. Don M. Wolfe. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press~ 1953. • Paradise Lost. In Complete Poems and Major Prose. ------,~~ Ed. Merritt Y. Hughes. Indianapolis~ Ind.: The Odyssey Press~ 1957. Paradise Regained. In Complete Poems and Major Prose. Ed. Merritt Y. Hughes. Indianapolis~ Ind.: The Odyssey Press~ 1957 •

11 • Reason of Church-Government~ The ... Vol. I of ---::-----=-Complete Prose Works of John Milton. Gen. Ed. Don M. Wolfe. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press~ 1953.

------,;:-;-~· Samson Agonistes. In Complete Poems and Major Prose. Ed. Merritt Y. Hughes. Indianapolis~ Ind.: The Odyssey Press~ 1957.

11Tetrachordon: Expositions upon the Foure Chief Places in Scripture Which Treat of Mariage, or Nullities in Mariage. 11 Vol. II of Complete Prose Works of John Milton. Gen. Ed. Don M. Wolfe. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press~ 1959. _____. Two Books of Investigations into Christian Doctrine

103 104

Drawn from the Sacred Scriptures Alone. Vol. VI of Complete Prose Works of John Milton. Gen. Ed. Don M. Wolfe. New Haven and London: Yale Univ. Press, 1973. Secondary Sources Barker, Arthur E. Milton and the Puritan Dilemma 1641-1660. The Univ. of Toronto Press, 1942.

Berkhof, L., B.D. Principles of Biblical Int~rpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1962.

Cable, Lana. 11 Coupling Logic and Milton's Doctrine of Divorce ... Milton Studies IV (1981) 143-159. Christopher, Georgia B. Milton and the Science of the Saints. Princeton NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1982. Conklin, George Newton. Biblical Criticism and Heresy in Milton. 1949, rpt. New York: Octagon Books, 1972. Farrar, Frederic W. History of Interpretation. 1886; rpt. Grand Rapids, MI; Baker Book House Company, 1979. Fixler, Michael. Milton and the Kingdoms of God. Northwestern Univ. Press, 1964. Fletcher, Harris Francis. The Intellectual Development of John Milton. 2 Vol. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1961 • • The Use of the Bible in Milton's Prose. ~----~~--~-=~--1929; rpt. Folcroft, PA: The Folcroft Press, Inc., 1969 •. Halkett, John. Milton and the Idea of Matrimony. A Study of the Divorce Tracts and "Paradise Lost". New Haven and London: Yale Univ. Press, 1970. Hanford, James Holly, & James G. Taaffe. A Milton Handbook. 5th ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970. Hill, Christopher. Milton and the English Revolution. New York: The Viking Press, 1977. Hunter, William B., Jr. "The Theological Context of Milton's Christian Doctrine... In Achievements of the Left Hand: Essays on the Prose of John Milton. Ed. Michael Leib and John T. Shawcross. Amherst: The Univ. of Massachusetts Press, 1974, pp. 269-287. Kelley, Maurice. "Introduction ... Vol. VI of Complete Prose Works of John Milton. Gen. Ed. Don M. Wolfe. New Haven: Yale 105

Univ. Press, 1973.

----,::------:--· This Great Argument: A Study of Milton Is 11 De Doctrina Christiana .. as a Gloss upon 11 Paradise Lost ... Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1962. Parker, William Riley. Milton: A Biography. 2 Vol. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1968. Patrides, C.A. Milton and the Christian Tradition. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1966. Pope, Elizabeth Marie. Paradise Regained: The Tradition and the Poem. 1947, rpt. New York: Russell & Russell, 1962.

11 11 Radzinowicz, Mary Ann. Toward Samson Agonistes : The Growth of Milton•s Mind. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1972. Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1970. Rosenberg, D.M. "Style and Meaning in Milton•s Anti-Episcopal Tracts ... Criticism, XV (1973), 43-57. Sewell, Arthur. A Study in Milton•s Christian Doctrine. 1939; rpt. Archon Books, 1967. Sims, James H. The Bible in Milton•s Epics. Gainesville: Univ. of Florida Press, 1962. Sirluck, Ernest. "Introduction." Vol. II of Complete Prose Works of John Milton. Gen. Ed. Don M. Wolfe. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1959. Terry, Milton S. Biblical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zonder­ van Publishing House, 1983.

Via, John A. 11 Milton•s Antiprelatical Tracts: The Poet Speaks in Prose." Milton Studies. 5:87-127. Vine, W.E. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words with their Precise Meanings for English Readers. 4 Vol. in 1. 1940; rpt. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1966. Wolfe, Don M. Milton in the Puritan Revolution. 1941; rpt. New York: Humanities Press, 1963.