Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-t9bwh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-15T05:04:13.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Milton and the Protestant Theory of the Atonement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

C. A. Patrides
C. A. Patrides*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley 4
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

That numerous commentators on Paradise Lost have been repelled by the presentation of the Father in Book III is common knowledge. The objections raised have been voiced variously, ranging from Mark Van Doren's flat statement that Milton's God is a “dull dictator” to G. Wilson Knight's persuasion that sulphur is more appropriate to the poet's Heaven than ambrosia. Behind these and similar statements stands the opinion that Milton's defense of the ways of God to man is, as Sir Herbert Grierson put it, “too purely legal.”.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 74 , Issue 1 , March 1959 , pp. 7 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Noble Voice (New York, 1946), p. 125; The Burning Oracle (London, 1939), p. 91. Knight's statement is in reference to the “ambrosial fragrance” that filled Heaven upon the termination of God's first speech (P.L. iii.135–136).

2 Milton and Wordsworth (London, 1950), p. 96. But see the excellent discussion by John S. Diekhoff, Milton's Paradise Lost: A Commentary on the Argument (New York, 1946), Ch. v, “God's Justice,” esp. pp. 104 ff.

3 Citations from Milton's poetry in my text are from the edition by Helen Darbishire (Oxford, 1952, 1955). My references to his prose are to the Columbia edition.

4 “Paradise Lost” and Its Critics (Cambridge, 1947), p. 104.

5 J. S. Whale, Christian Doctrine (Cambridge, 1952), p. 75.

6 Nathaniel Micklem, What is the Faith? (London, 1936), pp. 204–205. Cf. Charles Gore, Belief in Christ (London 1922), p. 280, n; James Denney, The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation (London, 1917), p. 26; Kenneth E. Kirk, “The Atonement,” in Essays Catholic and Critical, ed. E. G. Selwyn, 3rd ed. (London, 1950), p. 270; Charles E. Raven. Natural Religion and Christian Theology (Cambridge, 1953), ii, 91; etc.

7 Dialogus cum Tryphone, iii. The subsequent occurrence of this analogy in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Augustine, is discussed by P. Pourrat, Christian Spirituality, trans. W. H. Mitchell and S. P. Jacques (London, 1922), i, 238. Cf. Paul F. Palmer, Mary in the Documents of the Church (Westminster, Md., 1952), pp. 12 ff.

8 Adversus Hœreses, v, xvii, 3.

9 Ibid., iv, vi, 2 (trans. Alexander Roberts, The Ante-Nicene Christian Library, v, Edinburgh, 1868).

10 For Irenaeus' formulation of this theory, see the selections from his works in Henry Bettenson, ed. The Early Christian Fathers (London etc., 1956), pp. 110–114, and the discussion by John Lawson, The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus (London, 1948), Ch. xi. Cf. J. Stevenson, ed. A New Eusebius (New York, 1958), pp. 124–125, and H. E. W. Turner, The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption (London, 1952), esp. Ch. iii.

11 Cur Deus Homo? i, iii (trans. Edward S. Prout, 2nd ed., London, 1887).

12 Adversus Hœreses, v, i, 1.

13 Mark x.45; Matthew xx.28.

14 Commenlarium in Matlhœum, xvi, 8 (my translation from the text in J.-P. Migne, ed. Palrologia Graeca, Paris, 1857, iii, 1597).

15 Oralio Catechitica, xxii, XXIII, xxiv (trans. James H. Srawley, Cambridge, 1903).

16 Ibid., xxvi. See also the statement by Rufinus of Aquileia in Documents of the Christian Church, ed. Henry Bettenson (London etc., 1954), p. 49.

17 Sermo CXXX, ii (trans. Sidney Cave, The Doctrine of the Work of Christ, London, 1937, p. 119). For the adaptation of this “mousetrap” concept in art, see the excellent study by Meyer Schapiro, “ ‘Muscipula Diaboli’: The Symbolism of the Mérode Altarpiece,” Art Bulletin, xxvii (1945), 182–187.

18 Oratio XLV, xxii (trans. C. G. Browne and J. E. Swallow, Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Ser., vii, New York, 1894).

19 Cur Deus Homo? i, vii. Passages from the Fathers on the more unpleasant aspects of the “ransom” theory, together with Anselm's reply, have been collected by Philip H. Wicksteed, Reactions Between Dogma and Philosophy (London, 1920), pp. 99–103.

20 James Denney, The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation (London, 1917), p. 65. For a discussion of Anselmic hamartiology, see John McIntyre, St. Anselm and His Critics (Edinburgh, 1954), Ch. ii.

21 In epistolam S. Pauli ad Galatas Commentarius, iii, 3 (trans. Hastings Rashdall, The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology, London, 1919, p. 399). Cf. Calvin, Institutes, ii, xvi, 10.

22 Institutes, ii, xii, 3 (trans. Henry Beveridge, Edinburgh, 1845–46).

23 Ibid., ii, xvi, 3.

24 Cur Deus Homo? I, xiii.

25 Institutio Theologiœ Elenchlicœ, ii, xiv, 10 (trans. Laurence W. Grensted, A Short History of the Doctrine of the Atonement, Manchester, 1920, p. 241). For Luther's similar use of legal terminology, see the detailed account by J. S. Whale, The Protestant Tradition (Cambridge, 1955), pp. 74–80. Cf. J. K. Mozley, The Doctrine of Atonement (London, 1953), pp. 141 ff.

26 Loci Communes, trans. Charles E. Hill (Boston, 1944), p. 94.

27 Luther, op. cit., iv, 19 (n. 21, above) (in Werke, Weimar, 1911, XL [i], 650). For Melanchthon's similar view of the “placated” Deity, see L. W. Grensted, p. 207 (n. 25, above).

28 L. W. Grensted, pp. 204–205. Cf. Alan Richardson, Creeds in the Making (London, 1935), pp. 105–106, and E. C. Rust, The Christian Understanding of History (London, 1947), p. 248.

29 P.L. iii.221, 297; x.61; xii.424.

30 P.L. iii.285–286; xi.383.

31 P.L. v.387; x.183. But Milton objected strenuously to the contention of Irenaeus (in Adversus Hœreses, v, xix, 1) that Mary was the “Advocate” of Eve and, particularly, that “the obedience of Mary was the cause of salvation to her selfe, and to all mankind” (Of Episcopacy, in Works, iii, 94). This view Milton shared with his contemporaries in reaction to Roman Catholic Mariolatry which in medieval times had assumed such proportions as to lead to veneration of the Virgin as “the prime cause of man's salvation” (G. G. Coulton, Five Centuries of Religion, Cambridge, 1923, i, Chs. ix–x). Cf. Palmer, Mary in the Documents of the Church, passim.

32 David M. Ross, The Cross of Christ (London, 1928), p. 189. This attitude is essentially of Pauline origin; see especially Romans iii.21–26, where “deliverance takes the form of an acquittal in court” (Charles H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul lo the Romans, London, 1949, p. 52).

33 The Orthodox Foundation of Religion (London, 1641), p. 17. For other similar statements, see Pierre de la Primaudaye, The French Academie (London, 1586), p. 17; Nicholas By-field, The Rule of Faith (London, 1626), p. 251; John Mayer, The English Catechisme Explained, 4th ed. (London, 1630), pp. 35–36; Henry Holland, The Historie of Adam (London, 1606), fol. 120; William Loe, The Mystery of Mankind (London, 1619), p. 54; Stephen Denison, The Doctrine of Both the Sacraments (London, 1621), pp. 91, 136; and particularly Stephen Egerton, A Brief Method of Catechizing, 29th ed. (London, 1620), pp. 6–7.

34 A Systeme or Body of Divinity (London, 1654), p. 181.

35 The Exaltation of Christ (London, 1646), pp. 49–50.

36 Ibid., pp. 50–51. All commentators, of course, realized that “satisfaction” is not a Biblical term; it is rather, as Leigh explains, “a term borrowed from the Law, applied properly to things, thence translated unto persons, and it is a full compensation of the Creditor from the Debtor” (pp. 418–419). Cf. Thomas Wilson, Christian Dictionarie (London, 1612), p. 424.

37 A Golden Chaine, or the Description of Theology (London, 1591), sig. D6v-E21.

38 Light from Heaven (London, 1638), I, 60.

39 Ibid., ii, 18. For a later but similar view of the penal theory, see the full exposition by Jonathan Edwards, Works (New York and London, 1844), I, 401 ff., 582 ff. Cf. Edward Taylor, Poetical Works, ed. Thomas H. Johnson (New York, 1939), pp. 36–42.

40 The important qualification that “love / Alone fulfill[s] the Law,” I intend to discuss in a future study.

41 Works, xv, 315 seq.

42 Studies in Milton (New York, 1951), p. 160.

43 “Milton and his Contemporaries on the Chains of Satan,” MLN, LXXIII (1958), 257–260.

44 Seriatim: The Sacred Philosophie of the Holy Scripture (London, 1635), ii, 136–137; Christian Ethicks (London, 1675), p. 195; A Confutation of Atheisme (London, 1605), p. 87; The Grounds of Divinitie, 2nd ed. (London, 1615), p. 213, also pp. 130, 209, 217, 223.

45 LXXX Sermons (London, 1640), p. 6.

46 Deus Justificatus (London, 16S6), p. 60. Cf. Isaac Barrow's comment that Christ saved man “by appeasing the wrath of God which He naturally beareth toward iniquity” (Anglicanism, ed. Paul E. More and Frank L. Cross, London, 1951, p. 291).

47 XCVI. Sermons, 4th ed. (London, 1641), p. 100.

48 Immanuel, or the Mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God (London, 1638), pp. 23–24, 30–31.

49 Gospel-Marrow (London, 1659), p. 36.

50 Divine Poemes (London, 1625), p. 6; A Discourse of the Felicitie of Man (London, 1598), pp. 6, 558; The Historie of the Perfect-Cursed-Blessed Man (London, 1629), pp. 61, 62.

51 Cambridge, 1640, p. 12 (i.xxxix.2–8). As many critics have observed, George Herbert used a number of images derived from the law, stressing particularly man's debt to Christ. Far from being accidental, this choice of “purely legal” imagery indicates Herbert's adherence to the current Protestant view of the Atonement.

52 Op. cit., p. 25 (n. 48, above).

53 “A Masque of Mercy,” Collected Poems (New York: Henry Holt, 1949), pp. 626–627.