Milton’s Theological Process

Jason A. Kerr’s book, Milton’s Theological Process, offers a method for interpreting Milton’s De Doctrina Christiana as a reflection of his evolving theological thought process, rather than merely a compilation of his established doctrinal views. Kerr gives a close examination of the manuscript’s complex material state, as well as Milton’s diverse ways of engaging with scripture and various theological interlocutors. Such a reading uncovers significant shifts in Milton’s theological approach throughout his work on the treatise. Initially, Milton aimed to use Ramist logic to organize scripture, intending to reveal its intrinsic doctrinal structure. However, this method had two unexpected outcomes: it led Milton toward an antitrinitarian perspective on the Son of God, and it compelled him to reflect on his own authority as an interpreter, prompting the development of an ecclesiology that could distinguish divine truth from human error. Thus, the book examines the intricate interplay between Milton’s preconceived theological ideas and his readiness to revise them, as evidenced by the manuscript’s layers of revision. The book concludes by examining Paradise Lost as a medium for Milton’s continued reflection on theological foundations, demonstrating how the epic itself challenges the outcomes of these reflections. Interpreting Milton theologically requires more than identifying his doctrinal views; it involves critically engaging with his complex process of evaluating and reconsidering the doctrines shaped by his earlier studies.

In his introduction, Kerr discusses the significance and methodological considerations of reading John Milton’s theological treatise De Doctrina Christiana. This manuscript, unearthed in the 19th century, has sparked extensive debates regarding its connection to Milton’s epic poem Paradise Lost and its contentious Christological views. Historically, scholars have concentrated on its doctrinal content, authorship, and theological implications. By the early 21st century, these debates had largely settled, establishing a consensus around the text’s importance and its alignment with Milton’s broader theological perspectives.

Kerr introduces a novel approach by proposing that De Doctrina Christiana be read not as a static collection of Milton’s beliefs but as a dynamic document reflecting his evolving theological process. The manuscript, characterized by numerous revisions and expansions, demonstrates the fluid nature of Milton’s thoughts. These changes, coupled with transitions in literary genre and rhetorical style, underscore Milton’s progression from logical argumentation to a more rhetorical and literary expression. Kerr’s analysis aims to reveal how these shifts mirror Milton’s theological journey, particularly in the controversial chapter concerning the Son of God.

The introduction outlines three primary components of Kerr’s argument. First, he posits that the treatise represents an evolving theological process. Second, he examines how the manuscript’s material state, including its revisions, reflects a shift from logical to rhetorical approaches, especially in its treatment of the Son of God. Third, Kerr discusses Milton’s theological method, which involved a dynamic interaction between scripture, human interpretative faculties, and ecclesial dialogue. This interplay significantly influenced both De Doctrina Christiana and Paradise Lost. Kerr’s goal is to establish a methodology for reading De Doctrina Christiana as a literary work, thereby enhancing its theological and literary significance.

Kerr’s introduction to Milton’s Theological Process offers a fresh and insightful perspective on De Doctrina Christiana. His proposition to read the treatise as an evolving process rather than a static doctrinal text is a significant contribution to Milton studies. This approach allows for a deeper understanding of Milton’s theological and literary development, shedding light on the dynamic nature of his thoughts as reflected in the manuscript’s numerous revisions and expansions. By focusing on the material state of the manuscript, Kerr adds a layer of depth to his analysis, emphasizing the treatise’s fluidity and Milton’s evolving theological process.

However, the dense scholarly language and frequent references to specialized debates may pose challenges for readers who are not well-versed in Milton studies or theological discourse. While Kerr’s thoroughness in addressing these debates is commendable, simplifying some explanations could enhance the text’s accessibility without compromising its academic rigor. Additionally, while Kerr aims to reframe De Doctrina Christiana in relation to Paradise Lost, a more detailed comparative analysis would further illustrate the specific points of continuity and divergence between the two works. This comparative perspective would strengthen Kerr’s argument and provide a clearer picture of Milton’s theological and literary journey.

Moreover, Kerr’s assertion that the treatise reflects Milton’s crisis in theological methodology and his confidence in scriptural interpretation is intriguing but would benefit from additional evidence. Exploring Milton’s personal and historical context in greater detail could bolster this claim and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing his theological process. Despite these areas for improvement, Kerr’s interdisciplinary approach, bridging literary and theological studies, offers a comprehensive framework for analyzing De Doctrina Christiana. This approach not only enriches both fields but also invites scholars to reconsider the intersections between literature and theology.

Kerr’s approach stands in contrast to traditional readings of De Doctrina Christiana, which often focus on its doctrinal content and its relationship to Paradise Lost. Traditional interpretations tend to view the treatise as a static document that encapsulates Milton’s established theological positions. In contrast, Kerr sees it as a dynamic text that embodies Milton’s theological and rhetorical evolution. This perspective aligns with recent trends in Milton studies that prioritize the interpretive and processual aspects of Milton’s writings. Scholars such as Jeffrey Alan Miller and Stephen B. Dobranski have explored the fluidity and complexity of Milton’s thought, but Kerr’s focus on the manuscript’s material state and its implications for understanding Milton’s theological process offers a unique and valuable perspective.

In chapter one, Kerr discusses the intricate relationship between scripture and literary form within Milton’s De Doctrina Christiana. The primary focus is on the discrepancy between Milton’s stated intention to let scripture dominate the text and the actual presence of extensive argumentative prose. According to Kerr, this tension highlights the dynamic interplay between Milton’s theological aims and his literary execution.

The foundation for this discussion is laid out in the chapter on “Holy Scripture,” where Milton differentiates between “external scripture” (the written word) and “internal scripture” (the holy spirit’s inscription on believers’ hearts). This duality forms a continuum of literary forms in the treatise, ranging from scriptural citations organized under Ramist logic to Milton’s rhetorical prose. The latter, in particular, reflects Milton’s personal engagement with scripture and his theological reasoning.

The chapter then explores how Milton’s thoughts on Christian liberty, as discussed in sections I.26-27, challenge Augustine’s rule of faith. Milton replaces this principle with the idea that all things should ultimately be referred to the spirit and the unwritten word, highlighting his preference for internal scripture over traditional ecclesiastical authority.

The concept of internal scripture is further examined through Milton’s “Art of Logic,” which distinguishes between exterior (vocal) and interior (mental) speech. Milton’s preference for intuitive judgment over syllogistic reasoning suggests a nuanced understanding of internal scripture as both a personal, wordless conviction and a basis for rhetorical argumentation when needed.

Kerr concludes the chapter by discussing the implications of Milton’s approach for understanding judgment and critical thinking. Unlike the French humanist Petrus Ramus (1515-1572), who saw judgment as a subset of logic, Milton views it as a broader concept that includes rhetorical skills. This divergence underscores Milton’s unique blending of logic, rhetoric, and theological insight in his work.

The exploration of scripture and literary form in Milton’s treatise offers a look into the complexities of his theological and literary methods. Kerr’s focus on the tension between Milton’s scriptural intentions and his argumentative prose aligns with broader scholarly discussions on Milton’s theological evolution and his engagement with contemporary theological debates.

Comparatively, this analysis can be juxtaposed with other works on Milton’s theology, such as Barbara Lewalski’s Milton’s Brief Epic or Michael Bauman’s Milton’s Arianism. Lewalski emphasizes Milton’s narrative strategies and theological convictions in Paradise Lost, highlighting his use of epic form to explore doctrinal themes. Bauman, on the other hand, focuses on Milton’s Arian beliefs and their impact on his theological writings.

Both Lewalski and Bauman offer insights that complement the Kerr’s focus on De Doctrina Christiana. Lewalski’s attention to narrative and form resonates with the discussion of literary techniques, while Bauman’s exploration of Arianism parallels the theological shifts observed in Milton’s treatise. Together, these works provide a multi-faceted understanding of Milton’s theological and literary landscape.

Chapter two looks into the intricate relationship between human rhetorical authority and theological interpretation in Milton’s De Doctrina Christiana. This chapter builds on the first, which examined Milton’s use of logic and rhetoric in engaging with scripture, and focuses on the theological foundations underpinning human rhetorical authority. Milton scrutinizes the tension between scriptural authority and human interpretation, a familiar Protestant polemic often linked with the Roman magisterium’s claims to authority. Milton’s nuanced position on this issue is highlighted through his comparison of enforced human interpretation to violent enslavement.

Milton’s perspective on human activity in religious matters is not entirely negative. He juxtaposes inhuman tyranny with a liberty that is both Christian and human, while recognizing the potential problems associated with human law. This paradox is evident in his discussion of human interpretative capacity in De Doctrina Christiana I.17, which addresses the renewal of this capacity from its fallen state.

Milton’s theological methodology emerges from his deep commitment to scripture as the foundation of theology. He employs Ramist logic and rhetoric to argue for a human evaluative capacity focused on the rhetorical delivery of the Word through preaching. This approach also addresses interpretative difficulties arising from the biblical scholarship of his time, such as issues of corrupt textual transmission. While these concerns contributed to the rise of religious rationalism and the destabilization of biblical authority, Milton’s methodological rigor was more influential in shaping his theological views.

The chapter challenges binary readings of Milton’s work, such as debates over his orthodoxy or heresy and the zero-sum contest of authority between scripture and Milton’s words. Instead, Kerr argues that Milton’s heresies evolved organically from his orthodoxy and that he sought to speak with the authority of scripture, even in his own words. His anti-Calvinist stance on human participation in their own renewal, which underpins his concept of a church characterized by constant human activity, remains deeply rooted in Reformed theology.

Milton’s views on the interpretation of scripture are best understood by closely examining his concrete practice of reading. The manuscript revisions in chapters I.17 and I.18 provide insights into his changing theological perspectives. These revisions reveal his shift from external/internal renewal to natural/supernatural renewal, facilitating a broader understanding of human capabilities in their natural state. Milton argues that God has renewed all humans to the extent that they can understand and evaluate scripture, enabling them to consent to further acts of grace for salvation.

The chapter also addresses the theological context of Milton’s time, particularly the debates on human capacity for scriptural interpretation and renewal after the Fall. It examines the differing views of theologians like the Swiss Protestant Johannes Wolleb (Wollebius) (1589–1629) and English Puritan minister William Ames (1576-1633) and how Milton’s revisions reflect his struggle to align his theology with scriptural language. The theological significance of renewal, the distinction between will and intellect, and the nuanced definitions of “natural” in Calvinist and Arminian perspectives are explored in depth.

TO BE CONTINUED…