4174645_-_milton_-_sermo

7/25/2019 4174645_-_milton_-_sermo

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/4174645-milton-sermo 1/15

Rhetoric and Revelation: Milton's Use of Sermo in "De Doctrina Christiana"Author(s): Ken SimpsonReviewed work(s):Source: Studies in Philology, Vol. 96, No. 3 (Summer, 1999), pp. 334-347Published by: University of North Carolina PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4174645 .

Accessed: 12/04/2012 11:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of North Carolina Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Studies in Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4174645?origin=JSTOR-pdf



http://www.jstor.org/stable/4174645?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpress

7/25/2019 4174645_-_milton_-_sermo


R h e t o r i c

a n d

Revelation

M i l t o n s

s e

o

e r m o

in

e

D o c t r i n a

Christiana

byKen

Simpson

_ VEN

Erasmus,no

strangerto

controversy,

must

have

been sur-

prised

by

the

uproar caused

by

the

publication of

the

second

edition of

his New Testament

translation in

1519.'

In

particular,

as

Marjorie

O'Rourke

Boyle

notes,

the

word

which his

enemies

seized

to

crystallize

ecclesiastical

opposition was

sermo.2 In

England,

Henry

Standish,

bishop

of

St.

Astaph,

denounced Erasmus in

a

sermon

outside

St.

Paul's,

at

a court

banquet,

and before the

king

and

queen,

arguing

that

Erasmus,

in

presuming to

correct the

Vulgate, was

undermining

the

authority of

scripture.?

Although Erasmus saw

attacks

like

these

as

efforts of

entrenched

clergymen

and

theological

faculties

to

rouse

opinion

against the

reforming

humanists,

there

was more at

stake than

I

The first

edition, Novum

Instrumentum,

was published

by

Froeben in

Basel

in

1516.

The

second,

Novum

Testamentum,

was

published, also

by

Froeben, in

1519.

My thanks

to the

Centre for

Reformation

and

Renaissance

Studies,

Victoria

University

in

the Uni-

versity

of

Toronto,

for

making their

Erasmus

collection

available to

me,

including the

Novum

Instrumentum

(1516),

Apologia

De In

Principio

Erat

Sermo

(1520),

Annotationes in

Novum

Testamentum

1522), and

Paraphrasis

n

Evangelium

Joannis

(1523).

References

in

the

text

are to

Desiderii Erasmi

Roterdami

Opera

Omnia, ed.

J.

Leclerc, lo vols.

(Leiden:

1705;

reprint,

London:

Gregg Press,

1962).

2

MarjorieO'Rourke Boyle, Erasmus

on

Languageand Method in Theology Toronto: Uni-

versity of

Toronto

Press,

1977), 5. 1 am

indebted to

Boyle's

study

throughout this

paper,

but

especially

in

this

section

on

Erasmus.

On

sermo,see

also J.

Bentley,

Humanistsand

Holy

Writ

(Princeton,

NJ:

Princeton

University

Press,

1983), 170; C.

A. L.

Jarrott,

Eras-

mus'

In

Principio

Erat

Sermo:A

Controversial

Translation,

Studies in

Philology 61

(1964):

35-40; Werner

Schwartz,

Principles

of

Biblical

Translation:

Some

ReformationControversies

and Their

Background

Cambridge:

Cambridge

University Press,

1955),

146;

and

G.

H.

Wil-

liams, The Radical

Reformation

London:

Weidenfeld and

Nicolson,

1962), 25.

3

Erika

Rummel,

Erasmusand His

Catholic

Critics,

2 vols.

(Nieuwkoop:

De Graaf Pub-

lishers,

1989),

1:122-27. See also

Boyle,

On

Language

and

Method,151 n.

34.

334

?

1999 The

University of North

Carolina

Press

7/25/2019 4174645_-_milton_-_sermo


Ken Simpson 335

professional jealousy and infighting.

As the detailed commentary

in

Annotationes

in Novum

Testamentum,

he

polemical

defence in

Apologia

De In Principio Erat Sermo, and the eloquent,

theological reflections of

Paraphrasis n EvangeliumJoannis testify,

Erasmus' revision of Jerome's

Vulgate translation of John

1.i

from

In

principio

erat

verbum

to

In

prin-

cipio erat sermo reveals both

his

theological

method and his doctrinal

emphasis.

Over

and

over again

Erasmus reminds his readers that there is

only

a grammatical, not a doctrinal difference between verbumand sermoas

renderings of the Greek logos in the New Testament: it implies speech

as a whole rather than a single word; it is masculine rather than neu-

tral

(verbum)

or feminine

(oratio)

and, therefore, suits the Son of God;

and finally,

it is

preferred by the majority of Latin

authors as

well as

patristic

authorities.4 Erasmus' rhetorical strategy is clear here since

his opponents cannot attack

him

without condemning themselves, but

he also demonstrates his theological

method: since the Son as

sermo

is

the eloquence of God speaking to Christians through the sacred text,

philology

and rhetoric must be

joined

to theology.

Erasmus is careful to deny that sermo and his theological method

lead to heresies

of

any kind,

but the

theological

issues at stake are

worth

noting

since writers like Milton

later

use

sermo

as

evidence for

theological

ideas

that Erasmus

specifically

rejects.5

He insists that sermo

does not

diminish the

singularity

of the Son in the Trinity, nor does it

imply the inequality of the Son and the Father.

A

speech may consist

of more than one

word,

but

as a whole

it

reflects

the mind of

its

au-

thor, for there is no object that

more fully and clearly expresses

the

invisible form of the mind than

speech. 6

Those who think that the

word of God is secondary to

him

who

produces it, as

with us

intention

is prior to utterance, are mistaken; this word is not created in time but

begotten

from

eternity,

the eternal word of the eternal

mind, whereby

the Father

forever speaks. 7 Despite

his disclaimers, then, Erasmus'

view of the logos as the revealing discourse

[sermo]

of the Father did

have

doctrinal implications, especially

for the

Trinity,

and his

attempts

4

See

Boyle,

On

Language

and

Method,8-12 passim.

5

Erasmus, Paraphrasis n Evangelium Joannis,in Opera Omnia,

7:499E.

See

Boyle,

On

Language

and

Method,28-29, 173 n. 171.

6

Erasmus, Paraphrasis n EvangeliumJoannis, n Opera Omnia,

7:499A;

English transla-

tion taken from

Erasmus, Paraphrase

n

John,

trans. and annot.

Jane

E.

Phillips,

vol.

46

of

TheCollectedWorksof Erasmus(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 15.

7

Erasmus, Paraphrasis

n

EvangeliumJoannis, n Opera Omnia,

7:499E, 499C;

translation

from

Erasmus, Paraphrase

n

John,

16.

7/25/2019 4174645_-_milton_-_sermo


336 Milton's Use of Sermo in De Doctrina Christiana

to align his

translation

with doctrinal orthodoxy

are not

always

con-

vincing.8

Verbum mplied a

more passive

sense of revelation than the

immediate,

expressive revelation of the

Word

that Erasmus believed he

found in the scriptures. Verbum

reinforces

the

authority

of the church

not only because

it is Jerome's

translation,

but also because if the Word

is passive, only those who

have access to a theological method

sanc-

tioned by the church can ascend

to the Son; sermo, on the

other hand,

promises an

active revelation to everyone

who can read Erasmus' elo-

quent translation. Nowhere else, Erasmus says in his prefatory letter

to Pope Leo X, is the celestial

Word more present or effective

than in

the

original

Gospels and

Epistles that he has translated.

Rather than

choosing the doctrinally safe

verbum,

he

opted

for the

philologically

correct though theologically suspect

sermo,compromising orthodoxy

for textual rigor and substituting

a hierarchy

of understanding for a

hierarchy of

tradition, despite

his insistence that

sermo

altered nothing

in

church doctrine.

When

Milton translated logos

as sermo rather than

verbum n

his

dis-

cussion

of

the Word of God in

De

Doctrina

Christiana,

the

controversy

surrounding this translation of John

1.i

in Erasmus' 1519edition of the

New Testament

had long

since subsided.9 However

transitory

the con-

troversy,

the influence of the rhetorical theology promoted

by Erasmus,

of

which

sermo

was the flash

point, extended far beyond

this occasion. 0

8

See Boyle, OniLanguage

and Method, 25.

9

Parenthetical

references

to De Doctrina Christiana in

my text cite the translation

in

the Yale edition

(CPW) followed by the

Latin text in the Columbia

edition (CE). See the

following: John Milton,

The Christian Doctrine, trans. John Carey,

vol. 6 of The

Complete

Prose Works

of

John

Milton, 8 vols. (New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973);

John

Milton, De

Doctrina Christiana,

trans. Charles Sumner,

vols. 14-17 of The Worksof

John

Milton,

20 vols.

(New York: Columbia University Press, 1933-34). Other parenthetical

references

to Milton's works are cited from

John

Milton:

CompletePoemsand Major Prose,

ed. Merritt

Y.

Hughes (Indianapolis: Odyssey

Press, 1957).

10

Charles Trinkhaus uses

rhetorical theology to describe

the thesis, shared by early

humanists and reformers

in their opposition

to scholastic methodology,

that since mat-

ters of faith cannot be proved

by logic, they

must be induced by rhetoric-the

word of

man in the service of the

Word of God. The commitment

to

the studia humanitatis and

the application of the new

philology

to

the Bible led to the

emergence

of a

shared

tex-

tual practice in which scripture

was viewed as the rhetoric

and Word of

God. As a result,

a

new

emphasis was placed

on

evangelical preaching;

on the original languages

and tex-

tual sources of scripture;

on the literary merits of the Bible;

and on rhetorically effective

as well

as

grammatically

accurate

translations. Moreover, in the process of defending

the value

of poetry and rhetoric by citing

the Word as

God's speech to the church, early

humanists such as Ficino elevated the Bible almost to the status

of

a

sacrament by insist-

ing on the

immediacy and real presence

of the written word: the

entire Holy Scriptures

speaking

of Christ through

the

Holy Spirit,

is as if

it

is Christ Himself, living every-

7/25/2019 4174645_-_milton_-_sermo


Ken Simpson 337

Applying techniques learned in

their study

of ancient literature

to

scripture,

such diverse

figures

as

Ficino, Erasmus, Luther,

and Calvin

guaranteed the rhetorical

structure of theology

and

the

textual

condi-

tions

that

made such

a

theology

viable. Freed of

textual

corruptions,

scholastic

glosses,

and

poor Latin,

the biblical

text,

as

God's sermo

(con-

versation,

speech), could speak plainly and directly to readers,

moving

them to embrace the

Christian life. God's self-revelation through the

Word

in

its pre-existent, incarnate, and scriptural forms

is

especially

clear in Erasmus's Linguaof 1525, where sermoplays an important role

in

the construction of revelation as a series

of

divine

disclosures medi-

ated

by speech:

God

the Father

poke

once and

gave

birth

to

his Eternal

Word.

He

spoke again

and with

his almighty word created he entire fabricof the universe.

And again

he spoke through his prophets,by whom he entrusted to us his Holy

Writ....

Finally he sent

his

Son, that is

the Word

clothed

in

flesh

...

compressingevery-

thing, as it were,

into

an

epilogue.12

Milton's relationship to rhetorical theology has not been

explored

in

any detail; understandably, scholars

have

been

interested

in

patristic

or

Reformed

sources

of De

Doctrina

Christiana,

and

more

recently,

the

authorship

of

the text

itself. 3

Readers who note Milton's use of

sermo

where and breathing into all

who ever

reads, hears, and meditates by

a

more

powerful

affection.

Therefore

Paul

seems

secretly

to

warn that

we

should

approach

the

Evangel

with the

highest reverence, almost as if

to the Eucharist. See Charles

Trinkhaus, In Our

Image and Likeness:

Humanity

and

Divinity in

Italian

Humanist Thought,2 vols.

(London:

Constable,

1970), 2:611,

745-46.

For

Ficino's text,

see

In

Epistolas Pauli,

vol.

i, pt.

1

of

OperaOmnia,2 vols.

(Basel, 1576; reprint, Torino: Bottega

d'Erasmo,

1959), 435.

11

See

Trinkaus,

In Our

Image

and

Likeness,2:564, 611; Manfred

Hoffman, Rhetoric

and

Theology

(Toronto: University of Toronto

Press, 1994), 5; Peter

Matheson,

Humanism

and Reform Movements, in TheImpactof Humanismon WesternEurope,ed. A. Goodman

and A.

McKay (London:

Longman, 1990), 34-38;

and

William

Bouwsma,

Calvinism

as

TheologicaRhetorica

Berkeley:

Center

for

Hermeneutical Studies

in

Hellenistic and

Mod-

ern

Culture, 1987),

1-12.

12

Erasmus, Lingua,

n

OperaOmnia,4:696;

translation

from

Erasmus,

The

Tongue, rans.

Elaine Fantham,

vol.

29 of The Collected

Works f Erasmus

(Toronto: University of

Toronto

Press,

1974), 323.

13

For patristic and Reformed contexts

respectively,

see W. B.

Hunter,

Milton's

Arian-

ism

Reconsidered, in BrightEssence:Studies

in

Milton's

Theology, ed. W. B. Hunter, C.

A.

Patrides, and J.

H.

Adamson

(Salt Lake

City: Utah University Press,

1971), 29-51, and

Maurice Kelley,

Milton's

Debt to

Wolleb's Compendium

Theologicae

Christianae,

PMLA

55 (1940):

156-65. Despite intriguing circumstantial

evidence, Hunter's

view that

Milton

did

not write De

Doctrina

Christiana

s

unconvincing;

see W. B.

Hunter,

The Provenance

of

the Christian

Doctrine,

Studies

in

English Literature

32 (1992):

129-42.

For rebut-

tals by John Shawcross and

Barbara Lewalski, see Forum:

Milton's

Christian

Doctrine,

ibid., 143-162.

See also

W. B.

Hunter,

The Provenance of the

Christian Doctrine: Ad-

7/25/2019 4174645_-_milton_-_sermo



assume

that he

simply

transcribes or adapts

the

Junius-Tremellius Bible

without

giving much

thought to

the

implications of the

translation,

but

this is

unlikely

considering his

precise attention

to philology

and

ety-

mology

throughout

both his

prose and

poetry.14 William

Shullenberger,

on

the other

hand,

rightly emphasizes the

importance

of the sermo

or

speech

of God in

the anti-trinitarian

doctrine of

De

Doctrina

Chris-

tiana, but

his suggestion

that

Milton

conceived

the creative

structure

of the

Deity

in

the

same pattern

which

Saussure

found

to

obtain

be-

tween language and speech ignores a more plausible and historically

concrete

analogy

that

shapes

Milton's

theology

of the

Word. 5

Father

and

Son

are

related not as

language

(langue) to

speech

(parole),

but

as

speaker

to speech, author

to

text,

an

analogy

used

throughout

scrip-

ture to describe

God's

activity

and

used

by

rhetorical

theologians to

authorize

their

own

literary

activities.

According

to

Erasmus,

the tongue was

given

to men

so

that

by

its

agency

as

messenger

one

man

might know

the

mind

and

intention

of

another.

So

it

is

fitting

that

the

copy

should match

the

original,

as

mirrors

honestly

reflect

the

image

of

the

object

before them.... For

this reason

the

Son of

God,

who

came

to earth

so that

we

might know God's will through him, wished to be called the Word[Sermo] f

God....

16

denda

from the Bishop of Salisbury, Studies

in

English

Literature33 (1993): 191-207, as

well as

rebuttals by Maurice Kelley and Christopher Hill

and Hunter's reply to them in

Forum

II:

Milton's Christian Doctrine, Studies in English Literature

34

(1994):

153-203.

The

latest study concludes that De Doctrina Christiana is a

working manuscript under

revision

by Milton : see Gordon Campbell, Thomas N.

Corns, John K. Hale, David

I.

Holmes, and Fiona J.Tweedie,

The Provenance of

De

Doctrina Christiana, Milton Quar-

terly 31.3

(1997): 110.

14

As

Kelley notes, Milton adapts

but

does not

transcribe

the

Junius-Tremellius text

of John 1.1, but Kelley, quoting G. H. Williams, also refers to sermo as merely he voice

of God

(CPW 6:239, my

emphasis), indicating

his

failure

to

fully appreciate

the

im-

plications of this translation for Milton's

later

arguments.

Williams also refers

to sermo

as

theologically neutral (Radical

Reformation,

10).

Milton

used

many

Bibles

during

his

career, including a 1612 Authorized Version, a

Geneva Bible,

a

Hebrew Bible, a

Junius-Tremellius

Bible,

and Brian

Walton's

Biblia Sacra

Polyglotta,

but

used

the

Junius-

Tremellius Latin text most frequently

in

De

Doctrina Christiana. For a

brief overview of

the

topic,

see

John Shawcross,

Bibles,

n vol.

1 of A Milton

Encyclopedia,

d. W.

B. Hunter

et

al.,

10

vols.

(Lewisburg,

PA:

Bucknell

University Press,

1978), 1:163.

15

William

Shullenberger,

Linguistic

and

Poetic Theory

in

Milton's

De Doctrina Chris-

tiana, English Language Notes

(X982): 268. See also

Shullenberger,

The

Omnific

Word:

Language in Milton (Ph.D. diss.,

University of

Massachusetts,

1982).

16

Erasmus, Lingua,

in

Opera

Omnia, 4:691;

translation from

Erasmus,

The

Tongue,

314-

15. For language as mediation in Erasmus's rhetorical theology, see Hoffman, Rhetoric

and

Theology,6.

7/25/2019 4174645_-_milton_-_sermo


Ken Simpson

339

Just as speech mediates the self and the

Son mediates the Father in

the

rhetorical

theology

of

Erasmus,

so the

Son mediates the revelation

of

the

Father

in

Milton's view of the

Trinity. For

Milton, however, the

essence

or

intention

of

the Father

is

never

fully revealed in his Son any

more than

an

author's intention is fully revealed

in

a speech or text. It

is

the

work of the

Holy Spirit to bring together speech and author in

the

understanding

of

the

reader.

This

coexistence of presence and absence

in

Milton's view of God's

sermo, a structure implicit in the pre-existent, incarnate, scriptural and

indwelling

Word in De Doctrina Christiana,

underwrites

the

ongoing in-

terpretative activity of

the

church

as well.

In

the

Word,

God

speaks

plainly to the

church about all things

necessary for salvation. When

there is disagreement,

as

there must

be

when the

Word

is not

identical

to

the author

of

the Word, the church should

proceed

as the

prophets

in

the mansion house

of

liberty do,

disputing, reasoning, reading, in-

venting,

discoursing,

even

to a rarity

and

admiration (Areopagitica,

744)

until

the

Second

Coming

of

Christ

reveals

the

truth.

De Doc-

trina

Christiana

is

provisional,

even

polemical

in

the

way

that

many

of

Milton's

texts are. Miltonic

textuality, inseparable

from

his

theology

of

the church, implies a

dynamic textual community gathered at a great

religious

feast

across the

ages

to

discover

and unfold the Word

of God.

Rhetorical

theology

in

general

and

the sermo

translation

in

particular

provide

Milton

with

the

textual

conditions,

the

ideology

of

the book

which makes this view

of religious

community possible.

Milton's rhetorical theology, implicit

in

his

use of

sermo, rests

on

notions of

authorship

that

have been

rejected

out

of hand

by structural-

ist

and

post-structuralist theorists over the last thirty years.'7 I will not

attempt

a detailed

exposition

of the

critique-this has

been

provided

in

a

number

of accounts

of contemporary

theory-but

it

is important

to

distinguish Milton's assumptions from

those

of

prominent theorists

17

My

brief overview

is

based on

the

following: Roland Barthes, The

Death of the

Author,

in Image,Music, Text,

trans. Stephen Heath

(New York:

Hill

and

Wang, 1977),

142-48; Roland

Barthes, From Work to Text,

ibid., 155-64;

Roland

Barthes, Theory

of

the

Text, in Untying the Text:

A Post-Structuralist

Reader,ed. Robert Young and

trans. Ian

McLeod

(Boston: Routledge and

Kegan Paul, 1981), 31-47;

Jacques

Derrida, Of Gramma-

tology, trans. Gayatri

Chakravorty Spivak

(Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University Press,

1976),

6-18; Jacques Derrida,

Writing and

Difference, rans. Alan Bass

(Chicago: Univer-

sity

of

Chicago Press,

1978);

and

Ferdinand

de

Saussure,

Course

in

General

Linguistics,

ed.

Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye in collaboration with Albert Riedlinger and Wade

Baskin

(New

York:

McGraw Hill,

1966).

7/25/2019 4174645_-_milton_-_sermo


340 Milton s Use of Sermo

in

De Doctrina Christiana

so that textualities

can be understood

as historical and

pragmatic ar-

rangements rather

than as abstract concepts such as Barthes'

classical

text. 18 Saussure,

for example, does not

posit

a

rhetorical triad of au-

thor, text, and reader,

nor does he assume, as Milton does,

that the

source of meaning is what the author intends. For Saussure,

the arbi-

trary and differential

relations among signifiers and between signs

and

their referents are what produce meaning,

not the relationship between

signs and the meaning which an author

embodies

in them.

Although Milton would agree with these theorists that the author is

never immediately

present in his speech,

it is not because he is always

mediated in the play of language; rather,

it is because a divine author

transcends

language.

All attempts to represent

the author will be lim-

ited

(though

not doomed to failure),

because the author has revealed

as

much as

he wants the reader to know. Though infinitely

present,

the divine author is finitely absent since

he cannot be identified

with

his Son or Word. The theory of textuality which results from

this as-

sumption

also includes multiple, though not

unlimited

interpretations:

a text's

meaning

is limited by the author's intention, by linguistic

con-

text,

and

by

the fallible understanding of the reader. Although

Milton

retains the structure of revelation implicit

in the rhetorical theology

of Erasmus and others, he draws very different conclusions

from

his

analysis

of the biblical

image

of God

speaking.

Before he discusses the Son's

generation

as God's first act of external

efficiency,

Milton

has

prepared

his

argument

in the first four

chapters

of De Doctrina Christiana:

he

self-existent,

ineffable Creator transcends

both human

understanding

and

the Word

through

which the author

is

revealed. God's

decree,

or

intention,

Milton writes, corresponds to

that idea of all

things

which,

to

speak

in human

terms,

he had in mind

before he

decreed

anything (CPW6:154;

CE

14:64);

that

is,

as Sidney

explains

in

a

different

context,

the skill of each artificer standeth

in

that

idea,

or foreconceit of the

work

and not in

the

work itself.

19

When

18

For

Barthes' account of the classical

text, see Theory of

the Text, 33.

Overviews

of post-structuralism

include the following:

Jonathan Culler,

On Deconstruction (Ithaca,

NY: Cornell University

Press, 1982); Terry Eagleton,

LiteraryTheory:An Introduction,

2d

ed. (Minneapolis:

University of

Minnesota Press, 1996); John Ellis,

Against Deconstruction

(Princeton:

Princeton

University Press, 1989);

Christopher Norris, Deconstruction:

Theory

and Practice(London:

Methuen, 1982);

and Vincent Leitch, Deconstructive

Criticism (New

York:Columbia University

Press, 1983).

19

Sir Philip Sidney, The Defence of Poesy, ed. J.W. Hebel, in Prose of the EnglishRenais-

sance (New

York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1952),

271. For the

theological

use of this

7/25/2019 4174645_-_milton_-_sermo


Ken

Simpson

341

he turns

to his

interpretation of

John i.1

(CPW

6:206; CE

14:180),

the

scriptural

basis of the

orthodox view

of the

Son's

generation from

eter-

nity, Milton's

translation of the

Greek logos into

the Latin

sermo builds

upon his

notion of

God as an author and

reveals the

rhetorical

nature

of the

Father's

relationship to the Son.

They are related

as

a speaker

is to his

speech,

as the author is to his

Word,

and as Milton

has made

clear

in

his

discussion

of the

Father,

the

speech is subordinate

to

the

speaker.20

Except

on

three

occasions,

Milton

adopts sermo

whenever

he

cites the pre-existent Word; moreover, he clearly shows that his view

of the Son's

subordinate

divinity

is a result

of

the

rational

explication

of the

metaphor of God's

speech so

prominent

in

the Bible. The

Word,

Milton

argues, must

be

audible, but

God is inaudible

just

as he is in-

visible,

John

v.

37;

therefore

the Word is

not of the

same essence

as

God

(CPW6:238-39;

CE

14:252).

The

generation, or more

precisely, the

creation of the Word within

the limits

of time

following

God's internal decree is the

logical conse-

quence of

Milton's construction of

revelation as a

speech act,

the

Word

emerging from the silent

presence

of

God's fullness. When he

explains

Renaissance

commonplace by a writer

who

had a tremendous

influence on Milton in De

Doctrina

Christiana,see

William Ames,

The

Marrowof Sacred

Divinity

(London, 1642), 27:

Inevery

artificer, r one

thatworkes

by

counselladextra,

utwardly,

here s a platforme

afore hand

in

the mind

whichwhen he is

aboutto

worke hee lookes

into..

.

so also in

God,seeinghe

worketh

not

naturally,

nor

rashly,nor

by

constraint,

but with

greatestperfection

of

reason,

such

a

platforme

is

to be

conceived to pre-exist

n his

mindas the

exemplary

cause of all things to be

done.... The

platformeof all

things s the Divine Essence.

20

Implied here

is

Milton's Arianism

or,

alternatively, his subordinationist view

of

the

Trinity. Hunter's

thesis that

Milton's doctrine is

not Arian

but

subordinationist, not

heretical

but

unorthodox,

because he

shares a

two-stage

logos

theory

with some

pre-

Nicene authors, does not account for the anti-trinitarianism of many parts of the treatise.

Thus,

although

the term Arian s

not

technically

accurate since Milton would not

have

known

Arius' works,

it was used

to

describe any

anti-trinitarian

and

subordinationist

theory of the

Son's

relationship

to

the Father in the

seventeenth

century

and,

as a

re-

sult,

can be

meaningfully

applied

to Milton. Hunter's

attempt

to soften the hard

edges

of Milton's radicalism

by

associating

him with the

Cambridge

Platonists and

through

them

with the

two stage

logos theory

of pre-Nicene

theology is,

therefore,

unsuccess-

ful.

On

the other

hand, Kelley's

derivation of

Milton's

anti-trinitarianism

from strictly

theological sources

ignores the

possible influence of

rhetorical

theology

on his

thought.

See

Shullenberger, Omnific

Word,

167-85

and

John

P.

Rumrich,

Milton

Unbound

(Cam-

bridge:

Cambridge

University

Press, 1996),

40-47

for concise

summaries of

the problem

of Milton's

Arianism. For

extended

discussions,

see

Michael

Bauman,

Milton's

Arianism

(Frankfurt

am

Main and

New

York:

P.

Lung,

1986),

and

Maurice

Kelley,

This Great

Argu-

ment: A Study of Milton's De DoctrinaChristiana as a Gloss on ParadiseLost (Princeton,

NJ:

Princeton

University Press, 1941).

7/25/2019 4174645_-_milton_-_sermo


342

Milton s Use of Sermo in De Doctrina Christiana

the precise way in which the Father and Son are one, Milton again uses

the metaphor of speech: they areone

in

that they speak and act

as

one

(CPW6:220; CE 14: 210).

As I

showed earlier,

Erasmus

argues that

sermo

had no doctrinal implications.

In

the Paraphrasis n Evangelium

Joannis

he outlines the possible heresies related to sermo, including Milton's-

that the Word follows the Father

in time and

is, therefore, not equal

to

him in essence-but insists that his translation

is

compatible

with

the

eternal

generation

of the

Son.2

The

possible

misuse of

logos theology

and the analogy of the pre-existent Word and human speech was also

anticipated by

Athanasius and other Nicene

theologians long

before

Erasmus,

but

they

reached different conclusions:

logos language

was

excluded from the Nicene Creed (325)

to avoid the

suggestion, possibly

useful to

their enemies,

the

Arians,

that

temporality

was

introduced

into the Trinity by the Word.2 Calvin saw potential problems as well: he

defended Erasmus'

translation,

but he

carefully qualified

his

approval

so that anti-trinitarians would not

jump

to

the conclusion that the Son

was not

equal to the Father just because the

Word follows

the speaker

of the Word.23Milton was not the only one to ignore the warnings of the

orthodox, either. The RacovianCatechism,published in 1651 and known

by Milton, also capitalizes on the anti-trinitarian implications of the

speech metaphor, taking

the central

metaphor

of rhetorical

theology

to

its logical conclusion just as Milton does

in

De Doctrina Christiana.24

When Milton turns to the relationship of the

Word

to the Spirit,

he repeats

that

Christ is the medium

of revelation.

The difference

in

divinity between the Son and Spirit is crystallized

in

his translations:

the Holy Spirit, sometimes called voice,

or word

[verbumi, is sent

from above, either through Christ, who is the Word of God [qui Dei

sermo

est],

or

through some other

channel

(CPW 6:284;

CE

14:366).

To

show that the inequality of the Son and Spirit is based on the same

principle as the inequality of the Son and Father, Milton reiterates the

earlier argument using the same metaphor

of

speech: for the Word

21

Erasmus, Paraphrasis n

EvangeliumJoannis, n Opera Omnia, 7:499E; see Boyle,

On

Language

and

Method,28-29, 173

n. 171.

22

See

J.

N. D.

Kelly, Early

Christian

Creeds, 3d

ed.

(London:

Longmans, 1950), 217-

18; H. A.

Wolfson, The Philosophyof the ChurchFathers

(Cambridge: Hlarvard

University

Press,

1956), 227-30.

23

John

Calvin,

Calvin's Commentaries: he

Gospel According

to

John,

-1o,

ed. D. W.

Tor-

rance and T. F.

Torrance;

trans. T. H. L.

Parker (Edinburgh:

Oliver and

Boyd,

1959),

6-7.

24

The RacovianCatechism,ed. and trans. Thomas Rees (London: Longman, i818), 139-

40. See also H.

J.

McLachlan,

Socinianism

n

Seventeenth-CenturyEngland (Oxford:

Oxford

University Press, 1951).

7/25/2019 4174645_-_milton_-_sermo


KenSimpson 343

[sermo]

s both Son

and Christ

... and as he is the image,

as it

were, by

which God becomes

visible,

so he is the word [sermo]

by

which God is

audible.

Since this is what

he is like he cannot be

one in essence

with

an invisible and

inaudible

God. The same thing

has been proven

above

about

the Spirit..

.

(CPW6:297;

CE

14:400).

In Milton's

account of the

generation

of the Son

and his

relationship

to the Father and the Spirit

before

creation, then, revelation

is constructed as

a rhetorical act,

as

God

speaks

the Word and the world

into existence.

As E. R. Curtius and C. A. Patrides have shown, the book of nature

was

a commonplace used

in

many literary

cultures of medieval

and

Renaissance

Europe to describe

God's self-revelation

in

the

created

world.35 For reformers

like Calvin,

however,

the book of nature

was

ambiguous

at best. The spectacles

of

the

scriptures

were necessary

to

clarify

the significance

of natural

signs.

Milton continues this

emphasis

on the ambiguity

of creation as a

guide

to God's

will.

God

creates the

world

by the Word

and Spirit, but

because the Word is an

agent or

medium unequal to the speaker,

the text remains

an

uncertain guide

to God's intentions.

He

argues

that texts like Isaiah 44.24,

where

God

is identified as Jehovah that maketh all things, preclude[s] the pos-

sibility

not

only

of there

being any

other

God,

but also of there

being

any person

.

..

equal

to him

(CPW 6:300;

CE15:4). The preposition

per,

translated as by

or

through

in

texts such

as

2

Peter 3.5,

indi-

cates that

the

Father is the

primary

cause and author of creation

while

the Word is an instrumental cause.

More

importantly,

from expres-

sions like through the

Word

of God (per

Dei sermonem)that describe

how God created the world, Jesus derived

his 'title of the Word (sermo

dicitur) (CPW 6:301;

CE 15:6). The use

of

sermo in these

examples

links

the generation of

the Son

with the Word as the

instrument of God's

creative

will.

When he uses forms of

verbum to describe God's act of

revelation

in

creation,

the same metaphor

of

speech

is

generated:

to

show that God

creates

by

speaking

his

Word,

he refers to Genesis 1,

Psalm

33.9, and Psalm 33.6:

By the word

of the Lord were the

heavens

made;

and all the host of

them by the breath

of his mouth (CPW

6:301;

CE

15:6).

Even

though

Milton

alternates

between forms of ver-

bum and sermo

here,

the metaphor of speech used

to describe God's act

of revelation

in creation is consistent and

shapes

the theological rela-

25

E. R.

Curtius, European

Literature nd the LatinMiddle

Ages,

trans. W. R.

Trask

(Prince-

ton: Princeton University Press, 1983; reprint with afterword by Peter Godman,

1990),

302-47;

C. A.

Patrides,

Milton and the Christian Tradition

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966),

68-69.

7/25/2019 4174645_-_milton_-_sermo



tionship of Father

and Son, author

and Word.

Since the Word logically

and chronologically

follows

from the Father,

and since the Word

is the

Son, the

Son cannot

be equal to the

Father; consequently, the Word

is

first born but not begotten

from eternity,

and creation,

though it

speak[s]

/ The

Maker's high magnificence

(ParadiseLost,8.ioo),

can-

not be identified

with the

Word any more than

the Word can be

iden-

tified

with the Father. God's providence,

however, has provided

the

incarnate, scriptural and

indwelling

Word through

which the divine

will can be understood more easily.

Occupying

Milton

from

chapter

ten to the end of the first book

of

De Doctrina

Christiana, general

and

special providence

are the last ex-

amples

of external efficiency

through

which God is revealed,

and

they

too share the rhetorical

structure

which governs

generation and

cre-

ation.

The postlapsarian

and restored phases

of special providence

are

especially

important

because they

are accomplished

through

a

specific

instrument

of redemption:

the incarnate Christ,

the

Word made flesh.

I

have

already

demonstrated how,

by adopting the

metaphor of the

sermo of God,

Milton was led to subordinate the

Son's divinity

to the

Father's. To emphasize that both forms of Christ's redemptive office-

the sacrifice of

the cross and the

preaching

of the

Word-are linked

to

the divinity of

the pre-existent

Word, Milton adopts

the same trans-

lation

of logos in John

1.14 as he

did in

John

1.i:

et sermo

factus

est

caro

(CPW 6:418;

CE 15:258).

In the cross and

the words of the

Word,

then, God speaks

clearly. For

Milton, however,

Christ's prophetic

office

receives

more attention

than his

priestly one,

for

Jesus'

divine

and

human natures are identified

in his office

as the

prophet

of the Word

in words. Milton consistently

uses

sermo to refer

to the

gospel

and

to the

preached word

of the apostles.

Moreover, since the

incarnate

Word is the God-man who proclaims God's Word in human speech,

the authority of his preaching

ministry

is of the first order.

Jesus

is

pri-

marily

and

properly,

the

Word of God

[sermo

Deil,

and the

Prophet

of

the Church

(CPW

6:285;

CE 15:368).

It is an office

which includes the

external

revelation of divine

truth,

subsequently

written

down

by

the

church,

and the internal illumination

of the

mind,

both of

which,

when

taken together,

form the double

scripture

of the

Word

and

Spirit.

The

incarnate

Word will continue

to be revealed

in

the scriptural

Word

by

the

Spirit

who

writes

the inner Word on

the hearts of believers.

The words of Christ

are the last

forms of revelation that

began

when

the Word was spoken and then used to create the universe. Although

the Son is subordinate

to

the

Father,

since the

Word is not identical

7/25/2019 4174645_-_milton_-_sermo


KenSimpson 345

to

the

essence or

intentions

of

the

author,

his

divinity

is

still

included

in his nature as incarnate Word.

To

be accommodated to

human

limi-

tations, however,

the Word had to

become

words.

This

act of

divine

rhetorical decorum,

in

which the Father adjusts his speech to the scope

and understanding of a human audience, underlies Milton's view of

the scriptural

Word,

the primary means by which God continues to

be revealed to the church after the Ascension.26 Each reader

is

capable

of

receiving

the word

[verbol

of God -that

is,

the textual

presence

of Christ-by being scrupulously faithful to the text (CPW

6:120;

CE

14:6).

Even

though

God

is

always

described

or outlined not

as

he

really is,

. . .

they understand best

what God

is

like who

adjust

their

understanding

to

the

word

of

God

[Dei verbol,

for he

has

adjusted

his

word

[verbol

to our understanding, and has shown what kind of an idea

of

him

he

wishes

us to

have

(CPW 6:133, 136;

CE

14:30, 36).

The

text

itself, then, cannot be identified with

the

author of the text, words

with

the Word, any more than the pre-existent or incarnate Word can be.

Not only is scripture an accommodated text

and

human understanding

fallible,

but

no

indisputable

word of

God

[Dei verbo],

no

autograph

copy of the New Testament, exists (CPW6:589; CE 15:278).

Illumination

by the Holy Spirit of

the

internal scripture written

on

the

hearts of

believers (CPW 6:521;

CE

i6:

ii6)

enables

the external

scripture

to become the Word

of God

in

the

act of

reading.

Milton as-

signs many

names to the unwritten

Word

-conscience

and

right

reason

(CPW6:132;

CE

14:28),

the

ingrafted

word

(insititium sermonem)

and

the

image of

God

(CPW

6:524,

353;

CE

16:

ii8; 15:114),

the

indwelling

word

(sermo

Christi

inhabitet)

and the

internal

law

(CPW 6:478, 536;

CE

16:6,

148),

the

mind

of

Christ

and

the

Spirit

of

truth

(CPW 6:583, 534;

CE

:66:264, 149)

are

all used

at different times-but

each expression

con-

veys the authority of each individual in the reading of scripture. Since

everyone

has

access to

this

revelation

through

the

interpretation

of

the

vernacular scriptures with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the church,

as

the textual

community

of

believers,

consists of individuals

united

by the Word

and

Spirit rather than the objective efficacy of the sacra-

ments,

the laws

of

church

tradition,

or

the

professional clergy. Because

the author's eternal presence always supersedes

the

limited forms of

26

For the doctrine of rhetorical decorum, see the following:

Aristotle, Rhetoric, rans.

W.

R. Roberts,

in The

Rhetoric

and Poetics

of Aristotle (New York: Modern Library, 1984),

178; Quintillian, The Institutio Oratoriaof Quintillian, trans. H. E. Butler, 4 vols. (Cam-

bridge:

Harvard

University Press, 1980), 4:155-87; and Cicero,

On the

Orator,

trans. E. W.

Sutton

and H.

Rackam,

2

vols.

(Cambridge:

Harvard

University Press, 1979),

2:31-211.

7/25/2019 4174645_-_milton_-_sermo



self-revelation,

no one can claim infallible

authority

in

matters of inter-

pretation, opening the church

to a staggering variety of doctrines and

disciplines,

as

well as a dynamic

process of Christian

liberty based on

the

authority of the inner Word. As long as a doctrine or

discipline is in

the spirit of scripture, Christians

should tolerate each

other until God

reveals

the truth to all (CPW 6:584; CE 16:266). As a

result, accord-

ing to Milton

it

is not the

visible church

but

the

hearts of believers

which,

since Christ's ascension,

have continually constituted the pillar

and ground of truth.They are the real house and churchof the living God,

1

Tim. iii.

15 (CPW 6:589;

CE

16:278). Since everyone has, by virtue

of the inner

Word,

the

ability

to hear God

speak

in

the external

Word,

every person participates

in the church's sacramental life

through

lit-

erary

activity broadly defined. The difference between the Father and

Son, the

author and the text, that results from Milton's rational

expli-

cation of God's

speech

is

reiterated, then,

in the

doctrine of the

inner

Word. The Father is not identical

to the Word and the Word is not iden-

tical to the words of

scripture,

but the

Spirit encourages the unity of

Father

and

Son, not

in

personhood or essence, but

in

divine utterance

as the Father speaks through his Word to believers who understand

and return

the gift

in

words

with

the guidance of the

Holy Spirit.

Milton's rhetorical theology is evident in his use of

sermo

o

account

for

the

pre-existent, incarnate,

scriptural

and

indwelling

Word and in

his

structuring of revelation as

a rhetorical relationship between au-

thor,

speech, and audience. This indicates the extent to which the

liter-

ary

and

the theological Milton

are impossible to separate: literary and

textual

practices shape his theological thinking as

much as his the-

ology

informs his

poetry

and

prose.

In

keeping

with

his doctrine of

scriptural

accommodation, Milton presents the biblical God as an au-

thor and creator who reveals infinite goodness by speaking the Word

in the

creation

of

the Son, the scriptures, and the incarnate Word.

God's

unity parallels the self-presence of a

speaker since,

when

the Father

speaks

in

scripture,

he

speaks

as one

character,

not

three at the same

time,

while

his internal decrees

correspond

to the internal ideas which

precede

speech, limiting

the extent to which the

speech

ever conveys

the

complete

intentions of

the author.

The texts themselves also reflect a rhetorical

structure. The Son

is

not

equal

to

the

Father because the

Word

is temporally and

essentially

subordinate to the

speaker.

Scripture, although

a

more reliable form

of God's self-revelation than the created world, is not identical to the

Word, since the Son sits at the

right

hand of the Father. Nor

is

the

7/25/2019 4174645_-_milton_-_sermo


Ken Simpson 347

text identified

with

the

author

since

God's nature needs

to

be accom-

modated to the limited

capacities

of

his creatures.

Finally,

the incar-

nate Word,

although fulfilling

the

words of

the

prophets, is limited

in

divinity

since

he

must take

on

human

syllables

and

letters to

express

the unlimited

glory of the author of the Word.

In

each

case, the absence

and

presence

of the Father in his

texts authorizes

the

continuing, pro-

gressive revelation of the Word in the

literary activities

of

the church.

Despite Erasmus's attempts to control its

scope of reference by

in-

sisting on its orthodoxy, sermoappears to have had a metaphoric life of

its

own.

For a

radical

like

Milton,

the

logical outcome

of

the rhetorical

relationship between Father and Son implied

in sermo is the inequality

of

Father

and

Son, whether we

want

to call the

doctrine Arian

or

not. In

1522 Erasmus retracted his suggestion in the

Paraclesis of the first edi-

tion

of

his New

Testament

(1516) that every

plowman could interpret

scripture

because Christ

speaks

there

with

power,

but

Milton

was

not

so cautious: for

him,

if

God speaks

in

the

Word, the sacerdotal func-

tion and hierarchy of the priesthood are

dispensible. Instead, the Holy

Spirit

in

Milton's literary Trinity illuminates

and persuades readers

according

to

their

gifts, transforming

the

church

into

a

textual

com-

munity progressively unfolding the Word, a convivium

religiosum

made

possible by the

conditions of reading and the agency of

the

book.

University

College f

the

Cariboo

Date post:	26-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	manticora-veneranda
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

4174645_-_milton_-_sermo

Documents