Not registered? Sign up. Publications Pages Publications Pages. Recently viewed 0 Save Search. Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.
Find in Worldcat. Go to page:. Your current browser may not support copying via this button. Search within book.
Subscriber sign in You could not be signed in, please check and try again. Username Please enter your Username. Milton undoubtedly attempts to reform scriptural conceptions of heroism throughout Paradise Regained through his radical displacement of Christ from the traditional Christian Trinity.
In the ecclesiastical art of The Middle Ages, Arius is often depicted alongside the figure of Judas, implying his role as the consummate betrayer of Christ, and subsequently, of Christian belief. Although Paradise Regained touts a markedly Arian subtext, Milton had every reason to mask the heretical undercurrent of his narrative. Thus, aspects of Christology in Paradise Regained can be read as both heretical and safely orthodox. After all, traditional Biblical doctrine states that Jesus was wholly human and wholly divine i.
Despite these ambiguous precautions taken by Milton, a heretical anti-Trinitarian subtext certainly thrives in Paradise Regained. It must be noted that Arius himself never conceived a coherent or authoritative ideology. Arianism was fabricated by a polemical Nicene writer named Athanasius who developed the term to the purpose of countering heretical developments within the early church The following passage from Paradise Lost illustrates a fascinating delineation between The Son and Godhead:.
To safeguard his position, Milton cites proof texts from the Old and New Testaments alike. During the fifth chapter of Christian Doctrine Milton elucidates this point further:. The essence of God cannot be imparted to Christ within this system: this would imply that God is divisible, mutable, and knowable. It is therefore justifiable to perceive Christ as being subject to the same sinfulness, mutability, and temptation as the rest of humanity in the postlapsarian realm of Paradise Regained. Nonetheless, Satan would prefer Christ to identify himself as equivalent to God, for Christ would then surrender the altruistic agency of his rational argument.
In Paradise Regained, Christ cannot predict the future. Christ is not all-knowing, divine, or omniscient. Only after he has profoundly contemplated the laws of God through his individual study and interpretation of the scripture can Christ bring what he has learned of faith into rational discourse. Christ then denies the presence of divinity within him, choosing a humane path of rational discourse over the shock and awe of theophany. The outright choice is made to perceive himself as a rational human being as opposed to a divine entity.
In many ways, passages like these throughout Paradise Regained help Milton enact the process by which reason is reconciled with faith. Much like the false prescriptions of prelates, Satan steps into the deceptive role of intermediary between humanity and the divine forces of the cosmos, providing mankind with erroneous oracles, predictions, and ideas beyond those set down in the scripture.
Under the episcopal government, according to Milton:. By the standard of the wholly spiritual, humble, and egalitarian ministry instituted by Christ he finds the episcopal institution an abomination, meriting his almost visceral disgust. Milton is moving, even at this stage, toward Independency…Milton sees and presents himself in these tracts as a learned scholar, but one whose essential characteristic is an intellectual independence neither constrained nor needing support from human authorities As Satan embodies the corrupt authorities of the episcopacy, Milton himself seems to be embodied by the Christ of Paradise Regained, the learned scholar of scripture who asserts his independent interpretation of texts over the false prescriptions of episcopal authorities.
At this point we must shift focus to Book II of Paradise Regained where we find Satan in Hell expressing his curious concerns regarding the true nature of Christ. Milton states precisely in Paradise Lost :.
And thou my Word, begotten Son, by thee. This I perform, speak thou, and be it done: 7. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Colossians 2. The Son was "begotten" for the specified purpose of creating "all things. In this case and the cases to come the difference in degree is of fundamental importance for revealing the basic tenets that decide Milton's quasi-Arian position. A fourth and progressively more complex issue credited to Arius is explained as such.
Before the advent of time God "begat" "beget" and "create" are actually identical in the original Greek, thus Milton and Arius both accepted them as interchangeable Hunter 15 the Son, of Whom it must be properly said that "there was once when he was not.
The Son was produced out of nothing, the two Persons, in fact, are utterly alien and dissimilar in substance or essence, and totally unequal in every respect, even glory. It is noticeable at this time that Milton makes a few minimal concessions to the Arian orthodox while simultaneously keeping a respectable and unique position.
In contrast to Patrides's statement that "Milton rejected this entire scheme" , Milton agreed with Arius that "there was once when the Son was not," and Milton repeatedly denied that the Father and the Son are of the same essence De Doctrina Christiana , , etc , 3 and his flat affirmations that "there is in reality but one true independent and supreme God" De Doctrina Christiana , and, further, that "the essence of the Father cannot be communicated to another Person" De Doctrina Christiana Patrides should be given credit, though, for recognizing the "relative value" of these Miltonic conceptions.
Yet he fails to recognize the power that these "relative values" possess as parallel views, in part, of the Arian position. Hunter entertains this point thoroughly in his well-researched study of Milton's Arianism.
After exhausting De Doctrina Christiana , Hunter summarizes "that for Milton the Son is different from the father, inferior to him, generated at the beginning of creation, but of the divine substance" He concludes the issue with emphasis on the point that Milton never in any of his writings denies the divinity of the Son or even suggests such a denial.
In Paradise Lost , according to Patrides Milton disagrees with the views stated in De Doctrina Christiana ; for while the treatise consistently maintains that the Father and Son are not equal, in the poem we find the Father stating that the Son is.
Thron'd in highest bliss. Equal to God, and equally enjoying. God-like fruition, 3. From this Patrides concludes the poem affirms equality between the Father and the Son and that De Doctrina Christiana contradicts this and is not parallel This conclusion is indirectly refuted by John Clair in his aforementioned article.
Clair states that an examination of several "scenes" between the Father and the Son indicates that the passage quoted above is but the culmination of the poet's dramatization of one of the most widely accepted Arian belief: that the Son "was raised through merit to Godhood and worshipped at the father's command" Adamson also finds himself indirectly disagreeing with Patrides's conclusion. Adamson reflects that Milton accepted a common set of metaphors which expressed a particularly close relationship between the Father and the Son.
These were the same metaphors accepted from the very beginning by nearly all of the Fathers of the Church. These metaphors were rejected by Arius and accepted by Athanasius and Milton Adamson Milton accepted the metaphors and they are the constant and unchanging symbols for the Godhead.
His finest statement occurs in the Invocation to Light in Book 3 of Paradise Lost which begins with the Logos metaphor,. Hail holy Light, offspring of Heav'n first-born,.
Or of th' Eternal Coeternal beam 3. From Adamson's information concerning the metaphors, it is difficult to agree with the absoluteness of Patrides's equality of the Son and the Father, for the very nature of the metaphors lessens the power of the Son to the Father. Fifth, it follows from the above argument that the Son could have no real knowledge of His Father.
Being himself finite, He could not comprehend the infinite God; indeed He had no full comprehension of His own being. In Arius's own terms,. The Father remains ineffable to the Son, and the Word can neither see nor know His Father perfectly and accurately. Patrides believes Milton took great pains to assert the extremely close communion between the two Persons. He states several instances in the New Testament that specifically maintain the Son "knows" the Father Math. Arius elected to disregard this evidence while Milton, thinks Patrides, not only noticed the relevant verses, but on their basis concluded that the Son is the "effulgentia" of the Father This effulgence appears in Paradise Lost twice.
To the angels, the Son is. Thee next they sang of all Creation first,. Begotten Son, Divine Similitude,. In whose conspicuous count'nance, without cloud. Made visible, th' Almighty Father shines,. Whom else no Creature can behold; on thee. Impresst th' effulgence of his Glory abides, 3. Later the Father addresses the Son as the.
Effulgence of my Glory, Son belov'd,. Son in whose face invisible is beheld. Visibly, what by Deity I am, 6. As depicted by Patrides above, Milton inculcates a close communion between the Son and the Godhead. While not attempting to prove that Patrides is in error, for he is not in toto , a less extreme stand between the Arian and the Trinitarian position would prove more accurate.
Behold mee then, mee for him, life for life. I offer, on mee let thine anger fall;.
0コメント