00001.tif

PDF

Download

Open document

Transcript (if available)

Content MILTON A N D THE RHETORIC
OF RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY
by
Jam eelaA nn Lares
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE G R A D U A TE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SO UTH ERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(English)
August 1994
Copyright 1994 Jameela Ann Lares
UMI Number: DP23194
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL U SERS
T he quality of this reproduction is d e p en d en t upon the quality of the copy subm itted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not sen d a com plete m anuscript
and there are m issing p ag es, th e s e will be noted. Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publishing
UMI D P23194
Published by P roQ uest LLC (2014). Copyright in the D issertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © P roQ uest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United S ta te s C ode
P roQ uest LLC.
789 E ast E isenhow er Parkw ay
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90007
ph-9.
E
m
L32-I
This dissertation, written by
Jameela Ann Lares
under the direction of hsx. Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re
quirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Dean of Graduate Studies
D a te ^ay 19941
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Chairperson
Acknowledgements
I owe abundant thanks to my family, which has supported my
graduate career both morally and financially, and especially to my
children, Julie and Rex, who encouraged me to pursue an advanced
degree even when it meant loss for them. May God reward them.
I would like to acknowledge the overall warmth and generosity of
the University of Southern California as evidenced by its various staff
members. Thanks also to the attorneys and staff of Hahn & Hahn in
Pasadena, California, for seven years of supplementary employment in a
remarkably warm and professional environment.
My research would have been far more difficult without the
cheerful and indefatigable assistance of Suzanne Tatian and staff of the
William Andrews Clark Memorial Library and also of the Readers
Services of the Henry E. Huntington Library.
I owe thanks to more scholars for guidance and encouragement
than I can possibly list, but I would like especially to acknowledge John
Bidwell, Rosemary Boston, Thomas M. Conley, Donald C. Freeman,
George R. Guffey, Michael D. Halls, Richard A. Lanham, Peter Mack,
Kees M eerhoff, Debora K. Shuger, Victoria A. Silver, John M.
Steadman, Paul M. Zall, and also my colleagues in the USC Colloquium
on Renaissance Rhetoric: Gideon Burton, David D. Esselstrom, Jeffrey
Wheeler, and especially Linda C. Mitchell.
Thanks also to my various faculty supervisors. Richard S. Ide
served on my qualifying committee at a busy time for him. Paul W.
iii
Knoll (History) was an unusually helpful outside reader, especially in
the realm of church history. I was particularly fortunate to have three
excellent professors on my committee who provided long-term support
and guidance; anything of value here is owing in large part to them.
Joseph A. Dane supervised my general intellectual progress throughout
my years at USC. He not only served on the qualifying committee, but
continued his support ex officio, even reading and making helpful
suggestions on the final draft. Christopher Grose of UCLA consistently
supported and encouraged my work, both during my time at UCLA and
as a special member of my dissertation committee at USC, where he
served as a much-needed Miltonist and made extensive comments on
several drafts. Writing this dissertation would have been impossible
without him. Lawrence D. Green served as my faculty adviser in
rhetoric, chaired my dissertation committee, spent untold hours on my
professional development, involved me invaluable research projects in
primary materials, and made me part of his extended family. I could not
have asked for a better mentor, or a better friend.
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
List of Bibliographic Abbreviations v
Abstract vi
Introduction 1
Chapter One: Milton and the "Office of a Pulpit" 19
Milton and the Ministry: the Biographical
and Autobiographical Evidence 27
Milton and the Ministry: the Contemporary
Context 43
M ilton’s Poetic Program 59
Chapter Two: Milton in the Context of
Reformation Artes Praedicandi 77
Faith and Practice: The Reformation
Dichotomy 79
Hyperius and Protestant Sermon Manuals 93
Milton and the Sermon Manuals 135
Chapter Three: The Poet as Polemicist 152
The Influence of Hyperius on English
Religious Controversy 153
Milton and Joseph Hall 169
Chapter Four: Paradise Lost and the Sermon Types 217
The Hom iletic Shift from Faith to Practice 220
Correction and Consolation in Paradise Lost 237
Chapter Five: Paradise Regained and Contemporary
D efenses of Scriptural Style 261
The Athens Temptation and D efenses of
Scriptural Style 262
Contemporary D efenses of Scriptural Style 272
D efenses of Scriptural Style: The Case
of Robert Boyle 290
The Wider Context of Scriptural D efenses 310
Epilogue 337
Bibliography 341
V
List of Abbreviations
All quotations from M ilton’s poetry are taken from John Milton: The
Complete Poems and Major Prose, ed. Merritt Y. Hughes (New York:
Odyssey Press, 1957).
CPW The Complete Prose Works of John M ilton. Ed. Don M.
W olfe. 8vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953-
82.
LW Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. Eds. Jaroslav Pelikan and
Helmut T. Lehmann. 55vols. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1955.
Masson Masson, David. The Life of John Milton: Narrated in
Connexion with the Political. Ecclesiastical, and
Literary History of His T im e. London: 1859-80. 6vols.
and index, 1894. Repr. New York: Peter Smith, 1946.
Parker Parker, William Riley. Milton: A Biography. 2vols. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1968.
PL Paradise Lost.
PR Paradise R egained.
STC Pollard, A.W. & G.R. Redgrave, eds. A Short-Title
Catalogue of Books Printed in England. Scotland and
Ireland and English Books Printed Abroad. 1475-1640.
2nd edn. Rev. W.A. Jackson, F.S. Ferguson, and
Katharine F. Pantzer. 3 vols. London: Bibliographical
Society, 1986-1991.
WA Martin Luther. D. Martin Luthers W erke. 61 vols. Weimar:
Hermann Bohlau, 1883-1983. *
Wing Wing, Donald, ed. Short-Title Catalog of Books Printed in
England. Scotland. Ireland. Wales, and British
American and of English Books Printed in Other
Countries. 1641-1700. 2nd edn. 3 vols. New York:
Modern Language Association, 1972-1988.
Abstract
M ilton’s use of homiletics can be located by comparing his work
with contemporary sermon manuals and other English Protestant
literature. He had intended to be ordained until 1640. He believed,
however, that formal ordination was unnecessary, and he continued to
employ preacherly ways of thinking and expression.
English Reformation preaching was remarkably stable, biblicist,
and solifidian. It was particularly marked by five sermon types
borrowed from the Continental theorist Andreas Hyperius of Marburg.
Hyperius drew these sermon types— doctrine, reproof, instruction,
correction, and consolation— from Scripture rather than classical
rhetoric. These types allow us to locate Milton fairly precisely within
the preaching tradition; he favors the same rare combination of
correction and consolation as his Cambridge tutor William Chappell.
In writing religious controversies, Milton worked within
guidelines established by Hyperius, but he also reworked them.
Hyperius’s "redargutive" sermon for reproving false doctrine both
stressed rhetorical expertise and laid down influential guidelines for the
conduct of doctrinal controversies. M ilton’s procedures in his early
antiprelatical tracts evidences his knowledge of these guidelines, but he
also poetically reworks them, especially in his tracts against Bishop
Joseph Hall.
But Milton emphasizes practice over doctrine, a preference which
parallels the shift of rhetorical focus in English homiletics from
redargution to correction. This shift grows out of a native preference
for practical issues and a consensus that Reformation doctrine is
already firmly established. The idea of ministerial discipline is a verbal
alternative to force, and thus rhetorical. M ilton’s means of discipline is
correction and consolation. The difficult ending of Paradise Lost can
be partly explicated by understanding it as sermonic in form: Book XI
corrects and Book XII consoles.
M ilton’s "rejection" of humane eloquence in Paradise Regained is
actually his contribution to contemporary defenses of the Scriptures as
stylistically adequate. These defenses highlight the difficulty of judging
the style of a Semitic text in terms of Greek and Roman elocutio. They
also inform Christ’s rejection of classical eloquence in Paradise
Regained as a ministerial move.
Introduction
In one of his best-known statements, Milton brings poetry and
preaching into close proximity. Speaking of rare poetic abilities such as
his, he says
These abilities, wheresoever they be found, are the inspired guift
of God rarely bestow’d, but yet to some (though most abuse) in
every nation: and are of power beside the office of a pulpit, to
imbreed and cherish in a great people the seeds of vertu, and
publick civility, to allay the perturbations of the mind, and set the
affections in right tune, to celebrate in glorious and lofty Hymns
the throne and equipage of Gods Almightinesse, and what he
works, and what he suffers to be wrought with high providence in
his Church, to sing the victorious agonies of martyrs and Saints,
the deeds and triumphs of just and pious Nations doing valiantly
through faith against the enem ies of Christ, to deplore the
general relapses of Kingdoms and States from justice and Gods
true worship.1
Critical understanding of this passage has tended to focus not on the
pulpit but rather on the announcement of M ilton’s poetic program in
terms of the genres in which he may choose to write and on his sense of
vocation to serve as a poet-priest. This is Ralph A. H aug’s position in
the notes to the Yale prose.2 Michael A. Lieb has asserted that a
1 Reason of Church-Government (1642), in The Complete Prose Works
of John M ilton, ed. Don M. W olfe, 8 vols. (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1953), 1:816-17. A ll English citations from M ilton’s prose are
from this publication, hereinafter cited as CPW.
2 "The preface to Book II... is perhaps the most quoted passage in the
prose because in it he announces himself as a serious national poet,
mentions the types of poetry he will write and lays down at least the out
lines of a poetic creed." CPW 1:741.
Blakean prophetic voice is most characteristic of Milton, and Lieb
focuses on the ’glorious and lofty Hymns’ by which the "office of the
poet corresponds to the pulpit."3 Even when critics specifically
acknowledge the ministerial implications of the pulpit in this passage,
they tend to move on quickly to consider the poetic elem ents which
follow it. John T. Shawcross notes that "Milton had equated the writer
and minister" and asserts that Paradise Lost bears the imprint of
M ilton’s understanding of the ministry, but his ensuing discussion
considers the epic primarily in terms of literature.4 Even William
Haller, who examines M ilton’s early career in the light of the "spiritual
brotherhood" of the Puritan preaching ministry, moves rapidly into a
discussion of his poetry without considering how their schematized
preaching arts may have continued to affect his thinking.5 Critics, then,
have generally focused on issues other than preaching in this passage,
and have rather understood M ilton to be asserting the high seriousness
of poetry. An exception to this general tendency is Christopher Grose,
3 Michael A. Lieb. Poetics of the Holy: A Reading of "Paradise Lost"
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981), 43-45.
4 JohnT. Shawcross. With Mortal Voice: The Creation of "Paradise
Lost”. (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1982), 1-2.
5 William Haller. The Rise of Puritanism. Or. The Way to the New
Jerusalem As Set Forth in Pulpit and Press from Thomas Cartwright to
John Lilburne and John Milton. 1570-1643 (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1938). See especially pp. 339-58 for H aller’s discus
sion of M ilton’s vocation as a poet in relation to the "spiritual brother
hood," and pp. 138-42 for his rather diffuse discussion of Puritan
preaching arts.
3
who questions a strict dichotomy between poetry and ministerial
vocation in all of M ilton’s early work and explores some of the
implications for Milton if such avocation continues, including the
possibility of an "extraordinary" ministry.6
But in this dissertation I argue that M ilton has something even
more sp ecific-even more "precise"— in mind when he claims that the
poet’s office parallels that of the preacher’s. He does, indeed, claim
that poetry is a serious enterprise, and that he has imaginatively
reconfigured his ministerial vocation within his poetry. But Milton goes
well beyond these claims and states his intention specifically to
appropriate the forms and procedures which shaped sermons.
Before we can understand how his later poetry fulfills this
intention, we need to know what the role of the preacher was during the
English Reformation, and then the extent to which Milton shared the
views peculiar to his age. Fortunately, a great deal of evidence survives,
not only to settle these questions, but even to pinpoint the immediate
influences on M ilton’s thinking about "the office of a pulpit" and its
particular "power." As universal as we would like our Milton to be, our
understanding of him must be particular. M ilton’s thinking is in fact
deeply rooted in the immediate circumstances of seventeenth-century
England, as evidenced in long-ignored contemporary documents.
6 Christopher Grose. Milton and the Sense of Tradition (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1988), 6-84.
4
An examination of these documents is at the heart of this
dissertation. I will show how M ilton’s work (poetry in particular) makes
sense only in the context of these recovered and freshly explored works:
sermons and sermon manuals, Bible commentaries, and those works of
religious controversy prosecuted among Englishmen on issues of church
government and scriptural style, works which took many of their
procedures from the preaching arts. I will be arguing that much of
M ilton’s work must be understood in terms of seventeenth-century
preaching and religious controversy.
By so arguing, I may appeal to readers who are interested
primarily in other fields, such as the history of rhetoric or English
church history. Since I imagine a broader potential audience, I will
sometimes provide more explanation about Milton studies, rhetoric, or
religious topics than a specialist in any one of those fields might
require.
Some readers, for instance, may want to know what I mean by
"rhetoric." Among the Ramists of M ilton’s own day this term had been
reduced to little more than a finding-list of tropes and figures; in our
own it is often a useful marker for any kind of verbal behavior, a sort of
discursive phlogiston. In this latter sense, the term "rhetoric" might
appear in the title of an academic work about literature to signal a focus
on whatever critical issue that the author is examining in the work, such
as gender, materialism, or psychology. When I use the term "rhetoric,"
however, I will be focusing on the persuasiveness of the verbal patterns
themselves.
The rhetoric of M ilton’s day was the systematic practice of
effective verbal communication, as understood by the classical period
and recovered, or at any rate reinterpreted, by the Renaissance. The
major texts underlying this understanding were the entire corpus of
Cicero, not only his oratorical works such as De Inventione. Topica. De
Oratore and the orations themselves, but his letters and other works,
the anonymous Ad Herennium which was often attributed to Cicero,
Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria. and A ristotle’s Rhetoric (Techne
rhetorike).7 The works of Tacitus and Demetrius also received
attention, and the Renaissance was particularly puzzled over what to do
with the Peri ideon of Hermogenes, a work which represented a
continuing H ellenic tradition and which did not easily coordinate with
the Latin tradition.8
7 Thomas M. Conley, "Rhetoric and Renaissance Humanism," in
Rhetoric in the European Tradition (New York and London: Longman,
1990), 109-150; Wilbur Samuel Howell, Logic and Rhetoric in England.
1500-1700 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956); George A.
Kennedy, "Classical Rhetoric in the Renaissance," in Classical Rhetoric
and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980), 195-219; John
Monfasani, "Humanism and Rhetoric," in Albert Rabil, Jr., ed., R enais
sance Humanism: Foundations. Form and Legacy. 3 vols. (Philadel
phia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), 111:171-235; James J.
Murphy, ed.. Renaissance Eloquence: Studies in the Theory and Prac
tice of Renaissance Rhetoric (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London:
University of California Press, 1983). For a translation of the use of
Aristotle at Elizabethan Oxford, see John Rainolds’s Oxford Lectures
on A ristotle’s "Rhetoric", ed. Lawrence D. Green (Newark: University
of Delaware Press, 1986).
8 Brian Vickers, for one, reports the Alpine press edition of Rhetorics
Graeci (1508-1509), including H erm ogenes’ On Ideas and D em etrius’s
On Style. In D efense of Rhetoric. 255. Vickers also reports on the
Florentine reception of Tacitus (p. 181). For a modern English transla
tion of Hermogenes, see On Types of Style, trans. Cecil W. W ooten
6
Any systematized rhetoric claims that there is a vital link between
pattern and persuasion, that the form in which something is said is
effective in itself. Rhetoricians during the Renaissance were
particularly persistent about this claim, since writers of the period were
not only attempting to recover a "correct Latinity” but also to write
eloquently in the emerging vernaculars.9 They substituted a medieval
reliance on authority for a reliance on form .10 They catalogued and
recatalogued the names by which verbal ornamentation could be
known.11
(Chapel H ill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1987).
For a preliminary study of the Renaissance understanding of
Herm ogenean types, see Annabel M. Patterson. Herm ogenes and the
Renaissance: Seven Ideas of Style (Princeton, 1970). A more complete
discussion of the impact of H erm ogenes on the Renaissance West is
included in John M onfasani’s George of Trebizond: A Biography and a
Study of His Rhetoric and Logic fLeiden: Brill, 1976), 241-337.
9 For a discussion of "Ciceronianism," see Izora Scott, Controversies
over the Imitation of Cicero (1908; repr. Davis, Calif.: Hermagoras
Press, 1991).
10 For a discussion of the role of authority in medieval literature, see
A.J. Minnis. Medieval Theory of Authorship. 2nd edn. (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988).
11 See for instance Miriam Joseph. Shakespeare’s Use of the Arts of
Language (New York: Columbia University Press, 1947); Lee A. Son-
nino. A Handbook to Sixteenth-Centurv Rhetoric (London: Routledge
and K. Paul, 1968); Brian Vickers, In D efence of Rhetoric (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1988), 254-93, and "Rhetorical and Anti-rhetorical
Tropes: On Writing the History of E locutio." Comparative Criticism 3
(1981): 105-132.
7
Reform ation preaching also followed rules and conformed to
generic expectations, in spite of the fact that theorists recognized that
preaching also relied on "the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." Sermon
theorists acknowledged their dependence on divine inspiration, but they
also looked to the rules of art. The best sermons were a combination of
the two. The "reformed" or Puritan sermon in particular is a hybrid or
amphibious construction. It employed the highly sensitive verbal
disciplines of grammar, rhetoric and logic to produce a patterned
exegesis of a master text, the Bible. Born out of the biblicism and
solifidianism of W ittenberg and Geneva, it actually represented an
alternative system to that of classical rhetoric, based on the patterned
discourse of Scripture itself, and made use of classical rhetoric only
when it could find scriptural warrant to do so.
Milton had intended to be a minister which in his day meant a
preacher. He instead wrote, but the patterns of pulpit discourse
endured. Milton lived in an age of great preachers, in even an age of
great preacher-poets, yet we have assumed that his decision to forego
the ministry meant that he also abandoned preacherly ways of thinking
and expression. This assumption reflects the bias of our own age rather
than the evidence of his. It is we who think that preaching and poetry
are incompatible.
Milton, moreover, can be considered a "Puritan," and therefore
heir to the particular hom iletic tradition which found the Scriptures
them selves to be rhetorically sufficient. "Puritan" is admittedly a
slippery term; I will often say "biblicist" instead. When I do use the term
8
Puritan, I will use it in the moral and theological sense given it by Alan
Simpson, who includes in his characterization of Puritan thought the
belief that an individual must be redeem ed supernaturally, that such a
redeem ed individual has a special destiny but must also submit to
discipline, and that the Scriptures are the sole source of authority for
this view of life.12 Milton called himself by the term Puritan, or at least
complained that it had been a term given to him and others in
derision.13 He believed that the Reform ation had stalled; he
demonstrated a contempt for any time-serving confusions between
church and state; he was educated at reformist Cambridge rather than
conservative Oxford; and he was biblicist, rejecting any admixture of
tradition with Scripture.
Milton was also a controversialist, and here too he demonstrates
the mark of the pulpit. Reformed preaching was keenly concerned with
reproof of false doctrine and correction of "false" behavior. It
developed rules for such remediation, rules which we can trace in
12 Alan Simpson, Puritanism in Old and New England (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1955), 5-6. Perry M iller’s characterization
of Puritan is much the same, although he frames his discussion in terms
of an "Augustinian piety" to which he subsumes the various attitudes
towards sin, grace, faith, reprobation, and the Bible as the inspired
word of God. Perry Miller, "The Augustinian Strain of Piety," in The
New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century (1939; repr. Boston:
Beacon Press, 1961), 3-34.
13 "[W]e shall be all Brownists, Familists, Anabaptists. For the word
Puritan seem es to be quasht, and all that heretofore were counted such,
are now Brownists. And thus doe they raise an evill report upon the
expected reforming grace that God hath bid us hope for." Reason of
Church-Government (1642), CPW 1:783-84.
9
M ilton’s work and which lead back to rhetoric’s agonistic roots. Much
of his controversial writing involves modes of presentation and
meaning.
Existing studies of the rhetorical nature of Renaissance
preaching have insufficiently considered the reformed serm on.14
Wilbur Samuel Howell, for instance, approaches sermon theorists in
terms of where they fit into his logical categories and therefore does not
consider the extent to which the "popular" or "plain" preaching of the
English Reform ation claims to be an alternative system drawn from the
Scriptures and only ratified by classical m odels.15 Historians of
rhetoric have also largely overlooked the lively debate over scriptural
style which called into question any attempt to describe a Hebraic
document in terms of classical aesthetics. Milton understood and
participated in this debate; his Christ prefers the "artful terms" of
Hebrew to the Athenian epithets "thick laid /A s varnish on a Harlot’s
cheek" (PR IV :336, 343-44).
On the other hand, literary studies of preaching have been
directed to the taste of their consumers, and therefore focus on the
14 Edward H. Davidson has discussed some of the formal characteristics
of seventeenth-century Puritan preaching in New England but without
reference to either the deductive statements of sermon manuals or the
rhetorical theories which undergirded them: "’G od’s W ell-Trodden
Foot-Paths’: Puritan Preaching and Sermon Form." Texas Studies in
Literature and Language 25 (1983): 503-527.
15 Wilbur Samuel Howell. Logic and Rhetoric in England. 1500-1700
(1961); Howell discusses hom iletics at pp. 106-108, 110-15, 184, 187,
206-207, 212-13, 229-32, 334-35, 387-87, and 390-97.
10
more heavily ornamented sermons of the metaphysical preachers.16
The Puritan sermon aimed at something different, and that was
preaching to the common man in terms which could be understood,
aiming at the clarity of the message more than its beauty. The Puritans’
intent to "Preach Christ crucified, not with the cunning words of man’s
wisdom, but in the demonstration of the spirit and power" (I Corinthians
1, 2) distanced them from certain kinds of figuration in a way that had
its parallel in Bible translation. Translations of Holy Writ cannot be
both clear and eloquent; many later complained that the language of
Scripture itself was not sufficiently ornamented or elevated.
We have had numerous studies showing how M ilton’s Christianity
influences and directs his work.17 No one yet, however, has directly
16 See for instance the discussions of John Donne and Jeremy Taylor in
Douglas Bush, English Literature in the Earlier Seventeenth Century.
1600-1660 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), 318-35. See also Horton
Davies, Like Angels from a Cloud: The English Metaphysical
Preachers. 1588-1645 (San Marino, Calif.: Huntington Library, 1986),
passim .
17 E.g., Boyd M. Berry. Process of Speech: Puritan Religious Writing
and "Paradise Lost" (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976);
Robert L. Entzminger, Divine Word: M ilton and the Redem ption of
Language (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1985); Stephen R.
Honeygosky, M ilton’s H ouse of God: The Invisible and Visible Church
(Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1993); W.B. Hunter, C.A.
Patrides, and J.H. Adamson, Bright Essence: Studies in M ilton’s T heol
ogy (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1973); Maurice Kelley,
This Great Argument: a Study of M ilton’s "De Doctrina Christiana" as a
Gloss upon "Paradise Lost" (1941; repr. Gloucester, Mass.: Peter
Smith, 1962); C.S. Lewis, A Preface to "Paradise Lost" (1942; repr.
Oxford University Press, 1961); M ichael Murrin. The Allegorical Epic
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); William G. Riggs. The
Christian Poet in "Paradise L ost" (Berkeley, Los A ngeles and London:
University of California Press, 1972); Howard Schultz. Milton and For
bidden Knowledge (New York: Modern Language Association, 1955);
James H. Sims, The Bible in M ilton’s Epics (Gainesville: University of
11
considered the impact of Protestant hom iletics. For example, Barbara
Lewalski has considered many of the literary forms in Paradise Lost, but
not the serm on.18 C.A. Patrides concentrates on theological and
philosophical ideas rather than how these ideas were presented in the
pulpit.19 Thomas B. Stroup identifies sermonic form in M ilton’s work
but subsumes it to ritual and ceremony.20 Harris Fletcher also mentions
preaching, but is satisfied to report on the medieval artes praedicandi.
even though they bear little relation to the preaching of the
Reform ation.21 W illiam B. Haller does place Milton in the context of
Puritan preaching, yet his consideration of its technical aspects is
meager, and his brief analysis of M ilton’s continued connection with the
pulpit is both vague and impressionistic.22
Florida Press, 1962); James H. Sims and Leland Ryken, eds., Milton and
Scriptural Tradition: The Bible into Poetry (Columbia: University of
Missouri Press, 1984).
18 Barbara Kiefer Lewalski. "Paradise Lost" and the Rhetoric of
Literary Forms (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985).
19 C.A Patrides. Milton and the Christian Tradition (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1966).
20 "Now a sermon is in itself neither ritual nor liturgy, but it may be
fitted into liturgy, and it may becom e ritualistic .... the sermon, both at
its beginning and at its ending, retained the form, at least, of ritual."
Thomas B. Stroup, Religious Rite and Ceremony in M ilton’s Poetry
(Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1968), 19-20.
21 Harris Francis Fletcher. The Intellectual D evelopm ent of John
M ilton. 11.225-29.
22 William H aller’s mention of the technical aspects of preaching in
The Rise of Puritanism is mostly limited to scattered comments about
such aspects as plain style and use of simile. Even his most sustained
discussion (Chapter IV, "The Rhetoric of the Spirit") lacks a methodical
or comprehensive approach.
12
In the first two chapters, I will be arguing that M ilton’s work is
strongly influenced by English Reform ation homiletics. In chapter one
I will examine the general evidence, found in M ilton’s autobiography
and in the nature of his contemporary society, which argues that his own
patterns of thought and composition were generally those of
contemporary homiletics. I will also show to what extent Milton
proposes to appropriate homiletics in his digression on poetry in
Reason of Church-Government. In chapter two I will examine the
specific context of Reform ation hom iletics and show the place of
M ilton’s practice within that larger context, including his connection
with William Chappell’s treatises on preaching.
M ilton’s prosecution of religious controversy is addressed in
chapter three, where I describe how various sixteenth- and seventeenth-
century hom iletic texts both encouraged religious controversy and
determined its conduct. I then examine M ilton’s methods of debate
against Bishop Joseph Hall and show how Milton conspicuously reworks
the elem ents of the hom iletic tradition.
M ilton’s major poetry is at the center of chapters four and five.
In chapter four, I show how the English transmute methods of
controversial argumentation, initially restricted to doctrinal issues, and
bring them increasingly into the service of practical Christian behavior.
I then trace this movement in Paradise L ost. In the next chapter I
13
demonstrate how various religious controversialists tried to assert the
semantic significance of biblical style. I argue that M ilton’s
contribution to this controversy is found in his "rejection" of humane
learning in Paradise R egained. Finally, in the epilogue I will suggest
how issues of both style and procedure changed in the century following
Milton, as a more mechanized elocutio gave way to an emphasis on
"style" and as controversy as a means of determining truth gave way to
conversation with the socially adept as a means of gaining a truth
already determined.
By examining M ilton’s use of the hom iletic tradition, I am not
proposing a "source study," but rather an examination of paradigms.
Source studies suggest that Milton was not very creative; paradigm
studies can lead to analyses of the ways in which he indeed was creative.
Milton was concerned, even anxious, about his use of such literary
paradigms as epic, lyric, and drama, and he did not leave them in the
same condition that he found them. Just so, he demonstrates an
awareness and som etim es an anxiety about sermonic forms, and he
transmutes them as well.
In my investigation of Milton and rhetoric, it is also not my
purpose to discuss the impact of the new science, or what M ilton’s
contemporaries would have called "natural philosophy." This subject
has already received well-deserved attention, beginning with Richard
Foster Jones and continuing with Robert Adolph and others.23 But the
23 Richard Foster Jones, "Science and English Prose Style in the Third
Quarter of the Seventeenth Century," in The Seventeenth Century
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1951), 75-110; Robert Adolph,
The Rise of Modern Prose Style (Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute
14
philosophical and m ethodological impact which experimental science
had on language was not a noticeably promising field in its own time but
rather a seed of time that grew. This seed, in fact, grew under the
spreading aegis of religion, which was still a dominant concern of the
age.24 Many inquirers into natural philosophy sought to legitimatize
their pursuit in terms of religion. Robert Boyle of the Royal Society
published an apology for the new science in terms of religion, and in his
will endowed a yearly lecture series to defend Christianity against
unbelievers.25 John Wilkins also of the Royal Society, wrote
speculations about space travel and a treatise on natural religion, but
he also wrote a preaching manual and was an Anglican bishop 26 The
inflammatory Henry Stubbs complained that the Royal Society was
diverting m uch-needed funds from the cause of religious controversy
of Technology Press, 1968). A work more specifically focused on the
history of medicine and its discourse, but still useful in a larger context,
is N eal W. Gilbert’s Renaissance Concepts of M ethod (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1960).
24 Jackson I. Cope identifies the activity of the period in which the new
"plain" prose has its rise as being "continuous theological debate and
exhortation." "Seventeenth-Century Quaker Style," in Seventeenth
Century Prose: Modern Essays in Criticism, ed. Stanley E. Fish (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1971), 200-201.
25 Robert Bovle. The Christian Virtuoso: Shewing: That by Being
Addicted to Experimental Philosophy, a Man Is Assisted Rather Than
Indisposed. To Be a G ood Christian ([London,] 1691).
26 John Wilkins. The Discovery of a World in the M oone (Oxford.
1638); Of the Principles and D uties of Natural Religion (London,
1683); Ecclesiastes, or. a Discourse Concerning the Gift of Preaching
As It Fals under the Rules of Art (London, 1646).
15
with Catholics.27 It is tempting in our post-Christian and pluralistic age
to downplay the religious concerns of M ilton’s age, but we cannot do so
without caricature.28
Much of my research for this dissertation has been in primary
texts. In my examination of religious controversy, I have restricted my
discussion to controversies among seventeenth-century English
Protestants, and then especially to those regarding church polity and
the elegance and sufficiency of the Scriptures. This selection is
somewhat artificial, since it excludes the ongoing debates over authority
between Protestants and Catholics, and it also excludes the religious
aspect of M ilton’s international replies to Salmasius, but I intend to
focus on some of the insular religious concerns which animate M ilton’s
writing. My selection of sermons, sermon manuals, tracts and
commentaries is likewise limited to those insular materials which may
have been available to M ilton’s contemporaries, although I include
some eighteenth-century texts and some materials in French to
represent the neoclassical standards of style and conversation which
becam e popular at the Restoration and retained their popularity into
27 Henry Stubbs. Campanella Revived, or An Enquiry into the History
of the Royal Society. W hether the Virtuosi There D o Not Pursue the
Projects of Campanella for the Reducing of England Unto Popery
(London, 1670).
28 For a further discussion of the difficulties of assessing the impact of
the new science on other discourse, see John M. Steadman, The Hill and
the Labyrinth: Discourse and Certitude in Milton and His Near Con
temporaries (Berkeley, Los A ngeles, and London: University of
California Press, 1984), 95-112.
16
the next century. I also include some of the major sixteenth-century
Continental works on hom iletics which would have been known in
England, such as Erasmus’s Ecclesiastes (1535) and the more diffuse
hom iletic writings of M elanchthon (1529-52). Another Continental
work which is relatively unknown today but which was to have staggering
implications for English hom iletics was Andreas Gerhard Hyperius’s De
formandis concionibus sacris (1553), also available in English
translation after 1577. For all primary materials, I have tried to include
enough of the titles in the bibliography and elsewhere to indicate why
each text has been considered. I also include the date of publication
with each mention of a primary text in my discussion, including any by
Milton, as a means of further identifying such text. I will also usually
indicate the place of publication with each mention of a primary text,
with the exception of texts by Milton.
When citing from primary texts, I have retained most of the
original orthography, although I have follow ed the usual practice of
modernizing u’s, v’s, i’s, and j’s. I have also removed the italics when
doing so would not change the sense of the passage, as in the case of
proper names, but I have retained them to indicate, as did M ilton’s age,
citations of another source or from another language. Obvious
typographical errors I have corrected silently. All translations of
foreign texts are mine unless otherwise noted.
Throughout my dissertation, I will refer to M ilton’s system of
theology, which he entitled D e doctrina Christiana, as Christian
D octrine. This substitution is admittedly extra-Miltonic, but I wish to
17
avoid any confusion of titles with A ugustine’s D e doctrina Christiana,
which outside of the Bible itself is the single most cited text on biblical
hermeneutics during M ilton’s period. Because Christian Doctrine was
apparently composed over a period of several years and then not printed
until 1 825,1 will cite it without date, although its period of composition
is usually given as the later 1650’s.29 I will also say here that I assume
Milton to be the author of Christian D octrine. The question of
authorship has been raised recently by no less of an authority than
Professor Hunter.30 Until I have stronger evidence to the contrary, I
will continue to accept the attribution of Christian Doctrine to Milton.
In any case, the points which I raise in this dissertation do not depend
on Christian Doctrine as much as on M ilton’s assuredly canonical work.
All citations from the Bible will be from the Authorized (King
James) Version unless otherwise noted. In my discussion of the Bible,
I will follow the practice of most of M ilton’s contemporaries by treating
it as a unitary text, the various authors of which are stylistically distinct
29 For a discussion of probable dating, see Maurice Kelley, This Great
A rgu m en t, 8-24, and also his similar discussion in CPW VI:23-40. K el
ley repeats the assertion of James Holly Hanford that the main draft of
Christian Doctrine as dictated to his amanuensis Jeremie Picard "stood
com plete in the early sixties or before.” James Holly Hanford, "The
Date of M ilton’s D e Doctrina Christiana. Studies in Philology 17
(1920): 313.
30 W illiam B. Hunter, "The Provenance of the Christian D octrine."
SEL: Studies in English Literature. 1500-1900 32 (1992): 129-66 (with
John T. Shawcross and Barbara Lewalski) and "The Provenance of the
Christian D octrine: Addenda from the Bishop of Salisbury." SEL 33
(1993): 191-207.
18
but dogmatically harmonious. I will not, for example, attempt to sort
out "Pauline" thought from "Johannine" or other thought, as useful as
such an attempt might be for modern purposes.31 When M ilton’s
contemporaries were citing Scripture to prove an argument, they did so
without such discriminations, and M ilton’s extensive collection of proof
texts in Christian Doctrine likewise assumes the dogmatic unity of the
Bible. M ilton did, it is true, voice reservations as to the purity of the
New Testam ent text.32 But in context these reservations are balanced
by a confidence in and dependence on the Holy Spirit to guide the
individual reason in its interpretation, and do not represent a deviation
from biblicism but rather a variety of it.
31 For an analysis of those elem ents of M ilton’s thought which can be
identified as Pauline, see Timothy J. O ’K eefe, Milton and the Pauline
Tradition: A Study of Theme and Symbolism (Washington, D.C.:
University Press of Am erica, 1982). O ’K eefe indicates his debt to such
modern theologians as Lucien Cerfaux and Rudolf Bultmann (p. x).
32 "[T]he external scripture, particularly the New Testam ent, has often
been liable to corruption and is, in fact, corrupt" (Christian Doctrine
I:xxx: CPW VI:587).
19
Chapter One: Milton and "The Office of a Pulpit"
The subject of Paradise Lost, Milton tells us in the opening line,
is "Man’s First Disobedience" and its results, including his ultimate
redemption. The fact of Adam and E ve’s disobedience structures the
entire poem . Before their actual act of disobedience, Satan plans their
fall, God foresees it, and they remind one another that the fruit is
forbidden. The action of the poem culminates in their eating the fruit
and the immediate consequences of so doing. The long denouem ent
further stresses the effects or "fruit" of their disobedience. The
interdiction against eating the fruit is mentioned not once but again and
again throughout the poem , both before and after the Fall.
"Disobedience" is an odd word upon which to build an epic,
although we lose sight of this fact after 300 years of familiarity.
"Disobedience" focuses on a reprehensible trait in terms of its desirable
opposite. Grammatically the word is a privative form, indicating the
absence of obedience. We might as well expect Homer to talk about
A chilles’ lack of contentment or for Virgil to write about A en eas’s
peacelessness. Moreover, the Renaissance writers who recast the
classical epic in more or less Christian terms chose subjects which
praised the desirable traits of their heroes. For instance, the "moral" of
Spenser’s allegory is the valor and faithfulness of his heroes and
20
heroines who will enact "Fierce wars and faithful loves."1 Tasso
proclaims, "I sing of the pious army and the captain who liberated the
sepulcher of Christ."2 In Fanshaw’s 1655 translation of Os Lusiadas
(1572), Camoens promises an account of "Armes, and the Men above
the vulgar File....who sow’d and propagated where they past/T he faith
with the new Empire" (I.i.l, ii.2-3).3 M ilton is not unaware of this
heroic and laudatory tradition. He begins Paradise Regained by
praising Christ’s exceptional heroism:
Thou Spirit who led ’st this glorious Eremite
Into the Desert, his Victorious Field
Against the Spiritual Foe, and brought’st him thence
By proof th’undoubted Son of God, inspire,
A s thou art wont, my prompted Song, else mute,
And bear through height or depth of nature’s bounds
With prosperous wing full summ’d to tell of deeds
Above Heroic, though in secret done,
And unrecorded left through many an Age,
Worthy t’have not remain’d so long unsung.
(1.8-17)
Of course, Milton reworks the epic genre in many ways in Paradise Lost,
as the genre itself demands and as the opening twenty-six lines
1 Edmund Spenser. Fairie O ueen e. Prelude 1.9. Text: The Poetical
Works of Edmund Spenser, eds. J.C. Smith and E. de Selincourt (1912;
repr. London: Oxford University Press, 1948).
2 "Canto l’arme pietose e ’1 capitano/che ’1 gran sepolcro libero di
Christo," Torquato Tasso, Gerusalem m e liberata (1581), (I.i.l. Text:
Ed. Anna Maria Carini, Biblioteca de classic! italiani (Milan:
Feltrinelli, 1961).
3 Luis de Camoens, The Lusiad. or Portugals Historical! Poem: W rit
ten in the Portingall Language by Luis de C am oens. trans. Richard
Fanshaw (1655), ed. Jeremiah D.M. Ford (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1940).
21
announce, and Paradise Lost is not about Christ’s victory but about
M an’s fall, but a study of biblical epics and other works likewise fails to
reveal any analogues.4
M iltonists have long had difficulty with M ilton’s use of the term
"disobedience." For instance, when A.S.P. W oodhouse discusses the
first six lines of Paradise L ost, he identifies the theme of the epic as the
fall of man. The fall, he says, is a source of conflict and suffering, and
also necessitates divine redemption. W oodhouse does not discuss the
source of the fall, however, which is disobedience.5 Merritt Y. Hughes
asserts that the "use of the word and concept of disobedience" is
"vague."6 In the same collection of essays as Hughes, Irene Samuel
defines M ilton’s epic subject as "the losing of Paradise."7 Martin
4 Watson Kirkconnell. The Celestial Cycle: The Theme of "Paradise
Lost" in World Literature with Translations of the Major Analogues
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1952). Of the two which come
closest, Giovanni Soranzo’s I duo primi Libri dell’Adam o (1604)
begins with " L ’lnnocenza perduta. ed Adam o io canto." but here the
term is "innocence lost," not disobedience (p. 586). The other text,
Joseph Fletcher’s The Perfect-Cursed-Blessed Man (1629), begins
"Whenas by cursed disobedience/M an first did fall from perfect
innocence." The focus of Fletcher’s work, however, is perfection
rather than obedience or disobedience. The first part deals with
"Man’s Excellencie by his Generation," and the second "Man’s M iserie
by his Degeneration" (p. 609).
5 A.S.P. W oodhouse, "Milton," in The Poet and His Faith: R eligion
and Poetry in England from Spenser to Eliot and A uden (Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press, 1965), 110.
6 Merritt Y. Hughes, "Beyond Disobedience," in Approaches to "Para
dise Lost." ed. C.A. Patrides (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1968), 182.
7 Irene Samuel, "’Paradise L ost’ as Mimesis," in Approaches to "Para
dise L ost." ed. C.A. Patrides (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1968), 17.
22
M ueller is also troubled by the term "disobedience" and seeks to bring it
into greater agreement with the H om eric pattern of A chilles’ anger.8
More recently, Balachandra Rajan, in a perceptive reading of the
"minidrama" which is played out in the first five lines of the epic by the
individual nouns and adjectives, nevertheless fails to mention
"disobedience.”9 Gordon Teskey says that a question about M ilton’s
choice of subject is "too large, and too fundamental" to be asked, and he
instead seeks to frame the context of that choice in terms of
Renaissance critical theory.10 John T. Shawcross has recast the theme
of Paradise Lost as "the need for obedience."11 But any attempt to
8 " ’D isob ed ien ce’ here means an act of disobedience, just as menixs
means an action caused by wrath." Martin Mueller, " Paradise Lost and
the Iliad." Comparative Literature Studies 6 (1969): 293.
9 "If the dominant stress falls on ’M an’s,’ we are reading a poem som
berly hom ocentric in its allocation of destructiveness. If it falls on
’First’ we are reading a poem of the gestation of evil, with the allitera
tive movement through ’First,’ ’Fruit,’ and ’Forbidden’ compounding
the inexorable growth. ’T ree,’ ’tast,’ and ’mortal’ are the original of
this growth, though dramatically they are arrived at as its climax."
Balachandra Rajan, " Paradise L ost: The Uncertain Epic." Milton
Studies 17 (1983): 112.
10 "To ask how M ilton finally chose ’M an’s First D isob ed ien ce’ as the
subject of his epic is to address something too large, and too funda
mental, to be contained by the form of our question." Gordon Teskey,
"Milton’s Choice of Subject in the Context of Renaissance Critical
Theory." ELH 53 (1986): 53.
11 "While the subject of the poem is disobedience, it is really about the
need for and means of obedience." John T. Shawcross, "The Poet in
the Poem: John M ilton’s Presence in " Paradise L ost." CEA Critic 48-
49 (1986): 39. In With Moral Voice: The Creation of "Paradise L ost"
(Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1982), Shawcross argues
that the subject of the poem cannot be disobedience, since that would
make Book IX the climax of the poem (pp. 22-24).
23
rephrase the subject without the privative grammatical construction
("dis-") obscures an important clue as to M ilton’s rhetorical strategies.
Milton had intended to be a minister, that is, a preacher. Even
when he later abandons this intention, he still claims that poetic gifts
are "of power beside the office of a pulpit" and in fact discusses the task
of the poet in preacherly terms (CPW I:816ff). By focusing on
disobedience, Milton is operating in a recognizably hom iletic mode,
that which Reform ation sermon theorists called "correction." These
theorists took this mode directly from the Bible.
The aim of the corrective sermon is to dissuade the hearer from
sinful behavior. As Richard Bernard (1607) puts it, "Use of Doctrine is
corrective...when the lesson is used against corruption in maners, vice
and wickedness."12 This type of sermon called for the preacher to
identify deviations from the standard of virtue and to dissuade his
hearers from continuing in them. It was derived, as Bernard says, "by
the contrarie, from the use of instruction” (p. 67).
The terms used to describe the corrective sermon are frequently
grammatical privatives, terms reflecting the mere absence of good.
Thus when William Perkins (1592) defines correction, he calls it "that,
whereby the doctrine is applied to reforme the life from ungodlinesse
12 Richard Bernard, The Faithful Shepheard. or the Shepheards
Faithfulnesse. W herein is . . . Set Forth the Excellencie and N ecessitie
of the M inisterie (London, 1607), 67. Bernard recast this text twice, in
1609 and 1621.
24
and unrighteous dealing."13 M ilton’s tutor W illiam Chappell (1648)
advises, if somewhat opaquely, that the names of virtues may be used
both for instruction in virtue as w ell as for correction of vice: "[The
presence of the evil] may be taken from the proper adjuncts, and
opposites without a medium; because that from these we may always
argue, both affirmatively and negatively."14
M ilton employs other such privative constructions in Paradise
Lost to focus on reprehensible traits in terms of their desirable
opposites, as when he speaks of the "impious rage" of Satan (V:845), the
"distemper’d breast" of Adam (IX: 1131), "th’inabstinence of Eve"
(XI:476), and the "impenitence" of the antediluvian world (X I:816).15
13 The Arte of Prophecving. or. A Treatise Concerning the Sacred and
Only True Manner and M ethod of Preaching (1607) in W orks. 3 vols.
(London, 1612; Cambridge, 1613), 11.668-69. The bibliography of
Perkins is particularly vexed. The three volum es of this W orks, though
published in different years and in different places, are part of the
same publication, STC 19650. Volum es I and II were published in
London in 1612 by the Cambridge printer John Legatt, while Volum e
III was published in Cambridge in 1613 by C. Legge. Perkins’s Arte of
Prophecving is a translation of his earlier Prophetica. sive de unica
ratione concionandi (Cambridge, 1592).
14 The Preacher, or The Art and M ethod of Preaching: Shewing the
Most Am ple Directions . . . for Invention. M ethod. Expression
(London, 1656), 155. Chappell’s text originally appeared in Latin as
M ethodus concionandi (London, 1648).
15 This is not to deny that Milton employs such constructions for other
purposes. For instance, the prelapsarian serpent which Satan invades
is described as "Not yet in horrid Shade or dismal D en ,/N o r nocent
yet" (IX: 185-86). But very often, as indeed even here, the grammatical
negative is used in ominous or morally dubious situations.
25
Y et correction represents but half of M ilton’s epic; the other half
is consolation. Sin, the privation of virtue, brings "Death into the
World, and all our woe," but only until "one greater M an/R estore us,
and regain the blissful Seat" (1.3-5). This consolatory mode is present in
Paradise Lost even from the beginning as a counterpoint to correction,
and the epic ends on at least a provisional note of consolation. The
human pair leaves Eden "not disconsolate": "Some natural tears they
dropp’d, but w ip’d them soon" (XII.645).
M ilton’s consolatory movement in Paradise Lost has its parallel
in Reform ation hom iletics, which also has a sermon type for
encouraging the saints and assuaging their pains. Richard Bernard even
phrases his definition in terms of the very term which M ilton will later
adopt: obedience and its absence. "[The type is] Consolatorie .. . when
the doctrine is used to raise up the spirit with comfort, which is humbled
and cast downe, and to encourage such as be obedient."16 In fact, when
Bernard discusses consolation, he places it directly after correction. He
also includes in his discussion the suggestion that man suffers specific
privations which are rem edied by G od’s general providence:
The reasons of Comforts and Encouragem ents, particularly
must be framed, according to the discomforts and
discouragements: being divers, inward, outward, publike,
private, in bodies, in good name, goods &c. But generally from
Gods providence; his prom ises of helpe and blessings, his
minaces against the enem ies of the godly, his power, his
constancie. (69-70)
16 The Faithful Shepherd (London, 1607), 69.
26
But of all the English sermon theorists of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, the one who most insisted on combining
correction and consolation was W illiam Chappell, M ilton’s first tutor
at Cambridge. In contrast to other theorists, Chappell merges the two
into a single sermon type, "reprehension," and discusses this type even
before the others.17 He also discusses reprehension in The U se of
Holy Scripture (1653), which is Chappell’s account of the scriptural
authority underlying his preaching system. Chappell never actually
finished this text; it was published posthumously from his draft
manuscript. Significantly, the section on correction and consolation is
the only one which is finished.18
I will discuss hom iletics more specifically in chapter two, but the
question I wish to address in this chapter is whether the similarities I
have noted above between Paradise Lost and English Reform ation
hom iletics are significant or merely coincidental. I argue that they are
significant. According to the biographical and autobiographical
evidence available to us, M ilton may have been actively preparing for
ordination until the early 1640’s. M oreover, pace those critics who
stress M ilton’s "priestly" activity, the ministry to him would have meant
primarily preaching. Furthermore, M ilton believed that writing could
be a form of preaching, and that a "preacher" did not need to be
17 The Preacher (London, 1656), 153.
18 W illiam Chappell, The U se of H olv Scripture Gravely and M eth
odically Discoursed (London. 1653), 103-145.
27
formally ordained in order to preach. Rather, such a preacher is free
to appropriate hom iletics elsewhere, as Milton does in the digression
on poetry and the pulpit at the center of R eason of Church-
Government (1642).
I. M ilton and the Ministry: the Biographical
and Autobiographical Evidence.
At the end of the digression to R eason of Church-Government
(1642), M ilton claims that he has decided against entering the formal
ministry because in order to do so, he would have "to take an oath,
withall, which unlesse he took with a conscience that would retch, he
must either strait perjure, or split his faith" (CPW 1:823). This is
M ilton’s first explicit statem ent that he has decided against entering
the ministry. H e had, it is true, written to a friend about pursuing
beauty and becoming a poet, but neither these goals nor his "vehement
love of the beautiful" were incom patible with ordination.19 In spite of
the tentative nature of the evidence, critics have assumed that Milton
made an early decision not to enter the ministry, either during his
years at Cambridge, when he left in 1632, or during his time in the
country. M ilton’s own writings and the early biographies are nowhere
so clear about such an early date, or indeed whether he abandoned the
19 "Letter 8, to Charles Diodati, 1637," CPW 1:325-28; 326.
28
ministry, in a certain sense, at all. In this section I will re-examine
these assumptions in light of the available evidence.
There are a variety of opinions as to when M ilton decided
against entering the ministry. Harris Fletcher puts the decision as
early as 1627-28, since M ilton’s "metaphysical studies alone, begun in
his second year of residence...[were] enough to indicate that as early as
that he had decided against the church as a career," which is an odd
claim, since Fletcher notes that metaphysics was a standard second-
year topic and thus studied by all students who eventually entered the
ministry.20 If, on the other hand, Fletcher is referring to M ilton’s early
Platonism, that interest was hardly incom patible with the ministry. As
Douglas Bush has noted, "the main Platonist movement was strongly
Christian and to a large degree Puritan."21
David M asson judges that Milton abandoned his intention to
enter the ministry even before taking the M aster’s degree, basing this
decision on the "Letter to a Friend," which he dates in 1632 or 1633.22
As I will argue below, this letter is inconclusive. Christopher Hill
places M ilton’s decision not to sign the oath, as he puts it, "within
20 Harris Francis Fletcher. The Intellectual D evelopm ent of John
M ilton. 11:509. Compare 11:64, 67, 83, 86, and 182-200.
21 Douglas Bush, English Literature in the Earlier Seventeenth
Century. 1600-1660. 2nd edn., Oxford History of English Literature,
no. 5 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), 358.
22 David Masson. The Life of John Milton: Narrated in Connexion
with the Political. Ecclesiastical, and Literary History of His Tim e. 6
vols. and index (London, 1859-80, 1894; repr. New York: Peter Smith,
1946), 1:323. H ereafter cited as Masson.
three or four years" after 1629, since this would mean to "subscribe
slave and take an oath withal."23 But in point of fact, M ilton had
subscribed to the oath as it then stood, both when he took his B.A. in
1629 and when he took his M.A. in 1632. Hill may be taking the "oath"
in a broader or m etaphorical sense, as does Masson:
[This passage] requires som e latitude of interpretation. What
M ilton had in view, when he hesitated about becom ing a
clergyman, was, in all probability, less the letter of the articles
to be subscribed and of the oaths to be taken than the general
condition of the Church of England at the time when he had
time to form his resolution. (1:326)
M ilton’s actions are better explained, however, in terms of
contemporary events. The state of the church grew increasingly worse
it was not necessarily intolerable in 1632. The oath which proved
intolerable was that of 1640, as I will discuss shortly.
A.S.P. W oodhouse dates M ilton’s final decision during his
period of post-graduate study. W oodhouse’s date is also based on the
"Letter to a Friend" and its enclosed poem:
Only as he enters, at Horton, upon the definite preparation for
his life-work does renewed self-exam ination issue in the
renewed dedication of him self and his writing to the service of
God. The seal of it is Sonnet 7, with its resolve to live and work
’As ever in my great Taskm aster’s eye.”'24
W oodhouse does not indicate, however, in what way this sonnet shows
that M ilton has in fact already abandoned the ministry. More than
23 Christopher Hill. M ilton and the English Revolution (1977: repr.
New York: Viking, 1978), 39.
24 A.S.P. W oodhouse, "Notes on M ilton’s Early Development,"
University of Toronto Quarterly 13 (1943-44): 68.
30
anything the sonnet is concerned with G od’s tim etable for an implicit
but unnamed future vocation.
W illiam Haller, who insists that the decision to forgo the
ministry did not erase its impress upon Milton, puts the decision fairly
late, som etim e just before the 1638 publication of Lvcidas.25 H aller’s
choice of this date his reflects his assumption that the poem reflects
M ilton’s anger at already being "church-outed by the prelates." But
even if in Lvcidas M ilton is foretelling "the ruin of our corrupted
clergy, then in their height," he is not him self declaring against a
ministerial vocation so much as making a difference between good
clergy and bad and suggesting that things will shortly be rectified.
The oath to which M ilton refers in R eason of Church-
Government (1642) is probably the "Etcetera Oath," that part of the
Canons of 1640 which required the ministerial candidate to swear to
uphold episcopacy in ways which had not yet even been specified.26
Before 1640, the ordination of ministers was still performed according
to the more extensive Canons of 1604, which ratified the episcopacy of
the Church of England and codified its adminstration.27 These were
25 William Haller. The R ise of Puritanism. 289.
26 See also Ralph A. H aug’s notes to Reason of Church-Government
(CPW 1:823, n. 161), and John Spencer Hill, "Poet-Priest: Vocational
Tension in M ilton’s Early Development," Milton Studies 8 (1975): 41-
69. Hill argues strongly that M ilton to some degree intended to be a
minister up until the oath of 1640 (p. 53). He also sees no difficulty
with M ilton deciding at an early age to becom e both a poet and a
preacher.
27 JohnR .H . Moorman. A History of the Church in England (London:
Adam and Charles Black, 1953), 225-26. For the text of these canons,
see Edward Cardwell, Svnodalia: A Collection of Articles of Religion.
31
the canons which M ilton grew up with, and to which Puritan objections
were milder than to those of 1640, which were met by riots and other
civil unrest.
The most objectionable of the 141 canons of 1604 was
number 36, since it required an oath that the Prayer Book and polity of
the Church of England was in no way contrary to the Bible. W illiam
Riley Parker points out that M ilton subscribed his name to this oath
twice, once when receiving his B.A. at Cambridge, and again when
receiving his M .A.28 The details as to his subscription and its text are
provided by Masson, who identifies it as "the most important
formality" connected with graduation. The graduates, in the presence
of the Registrar, wrote their names under the three articles belonging
to Canon 36, which provided: 1) that the king has ecclesiastical as well
as temporal jurisdiction in England, 2) that the Book of Common
Prayer and its "ordering of bishops, priests and deacons" is lawful and
"nothing contrary to the Word of God"; and 3) the Thirty-Nine Articles
Canons, and Proceedings of Convocations. 2 vols. (Oxford, 1842),
1:165ff. The attempts of Cranmer and others to provide canons for the
sixteenth-century English church finally resulted in "certain canons" in
1571, which were however not ratified until 1597, when Q ueen
Elizabeth gave her consent to twelve of them. See Cardwell,
Svnodalia. 1:147-63, as well as the Historical Introduction to The
Canon Law of the Church of England. Being the Report of the
Archbishop’s Commission on Canon Law. Together with Proposals for
a R evised Body of Canons (London: Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge, 1947), 45-78.
28 Milton: A Biography. 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968),
1:113. H ereafter cited as Parker.
32
of R eligion are biblical (M asson 1:217). Under the three articles the
subscriber was to write: "I [first and last name] do willingly and ex
animo subscribe to the three A rticles above-m entioned and to all
things in them contained."29
To Puritans or precisionists who objected to the polity or
cerem onies of the Church of England, this was a sticking point of
conscience, and Archbishop Bancroft was wise not always to insist on
its enforcem ent.30 Before 1623, the text had been required only in
weightier graduations like divinity, but King James had insisted on
extending to all graduations.31 M ilton signed it twice, which has led at
least one critic in the past, Sten Bokvar Liljegren, to question his good
faith:
[A]t his departure from the university, when his conscience was
said to have prevented his entering the Church because he was
unable truthfully to subscribe to the established creed, it did not
hinder him from doing this very thing in subscribing to the 39
articles, an act accompanying the obtaining of the M.A.
degree.32
Liljegren’s interpretation, however, depends on an assumption that
Milton abandoned the ministry before he left Cambridge in 1632.
29 Charles Henry Cooper, Annals of Cam bridge. 5 vols. (Cambridge,
1842-52, 1908), III.9. According to The Canon Law of the Church of
England, this canon 36 was not amended until 1865 (p. 73).
30 David L. Edwards, Christian England (V olum e TwoL From the
Reform ation to the Eighteenth Century (London: Collins, 1983), 194.
31 Masson, I:217n.
32 Sten Bokvar Liljegren. Studies in M ilton (Lund: Gleerup, 1918),
xxx.
33
In regard to the oath, Parker defends M ilton by postulating that
it was possibly not taken very seriously by graduates and that "no
honest man would make a distinction between a subscription required
for graduation and a subscription dictating the scope of on e’s
preaching and ministerial activity" (11:776). Given M ilton’s character
and temperament, however, it is difficult to imagine him ever taking a
declaration of belief and allegiance lightly, whether others considered
it pro forma or not. It makes more sense to suppose that M ilton at this
point in his life had no serious objections against episcopacy as a form
of church government, especially if it continued to allow for
differences in opinion as to how episcopacy could be understood. The
full rigor of Archbishop W illiam Laud’s policy of "thorough" in
subjugating court and church to a narrow A nglo-C atholicism was not
to be felt until the de facto archbishop becam e archbishop indeed in
1633.33 Milton left Cambridge the year before.
For that matter, Parker reports that M ilton probably took yet
another oath. According to the biographer,
Cambridge M .A.s took a second oath, however, which custom
had obviously rendered meaningless: they swore to continue
their "regency" or active university studies for five additional
years. Under the original statutes this involved residence and a
further course of study in Hebrew and theology, leading, after
seven full years, to the degree of Bachelor of Divinity. In actual
fact no one now remained after the M.A. except those appointed
to fellowships or other offices and a few who pursued special
studies. M ilton prepared, therefore, to bid Cambridge farewell.
33 Masson, "The Reign of Thorough from 1632 to 1638," 1:664-69.
34
His plans envisaged a five-year "regency" of private reading, a
rigorous experiment in personal education. (1:113)
Harris Fletcher also reports this oath, on the authority of John Buck,
who drew up his recollections of Cambridge com m encem ents in
1665.34 Charles Henry Cooper, in his Annals of Cambridge, indicates
that the period of regency for master of arts was extended to five years
in 1570 (11:160).
While custom may have "rendered meaningless" this oath for
others, M ilton actually performed it. H e did spend another five years
studying. In fact, he spent more than five. According to Parker,
M ilton stayed at his father’s residence at Hammersmith from the
summer of 1632 until 1635, and then moved with the family to Horton,
where he lived from 1635 until he left for the Continent in April or
May of 1638 (1:119, 144, 169). Thus, the time of M ilton’s actual
retirement for study was nearly six years. The wording of his report of
this period in A Second D efense of the English People (1654),
however, is "five years," which were the terms of the oath:
At my father’s country place, whither he had retired to spend his
declining years, I devoted myself entirely to the study of Greek
and Latin writers, com pletely at leisure, not, however, without
som etim es exchanging the country for the city, either to
purchase books or to becom e acquainted with some new
discovery in mathematics or music, in which I then took the
keenest pleasure. When I had occupied five years in this
fashion, I becam e desirous, my mother having died, of seeing
foreign parts, especially Italy, and with my fathers consent I set
forth, accompanied by a single attendant. (CPW IV:613-14)
34 Harris Francis Fletcher. The Intellectual D evelopm ent of John
M ilton. 11:543.
35
This period of preparation is reported by M ilton’s early
"anonymous" biographer, but the report does not necessarily rule out
an eventual career in the ministry for Milton. The biographer
describes how M ilton went to his father’s house at Horton instead of
into a profession, but he also reports that while at Horton, Milton read
heavily in both divinity and secular literature.
After taking his degree of Master of Arts hee left the University,
and having no design to take upon him any of the particular
learned professions, apply’d himself e for five years, at his
Fathers house in the Country, to the diligent reading of the best
Classic Authors, both Divine and H um ane.35
The biographer’s "no design" is ambiguous; the biographer could be
referring to a permanent decision, but he could also be deferring to
M ilton’s later reconstruction of the situation in Second D efense
(1654), where he reports, "My father destined me in early childhood
for the study of literature" (CPW IV:612). In the earlier passage in
R eason of Church-Government (1642), however, M ilton reports
unambiguously that both he and his family had intended him for the
ministry:
[I]t were sad for me if I should draw back, for me especially, now
when all men offer their aid to help ease and lighten the difficult
labours of the Church, to whose service by the intentions of my
parents and friends I was destin’d of a child, and in mine own
resolutions, till comming to some maturity of yeers and
perceaving what tyranny had invaded the Church, that he who
would take Order must subscribe slave, and take an oath withall,
which unlesse he took with a conscience that would retch, he
must either strait perjure, or split his faith, I thought it better to
preferre a blam elesse silence before the sacred office of
35 H elen Darbishire. ed.. The Early Lives of M ilton (London: Con
stable, 1932), 19.
36
speaking bought, and begun with servitude and forswearing.
(CPW 1:822-23)
M ilton does indicate some hesitation about the ministry in his
celebrated "Letter to a Friend" (1633?), but this letter is less clear
about his hesitation than is often thought. In connection with this
letter, John and Alberta Turner report the majority opinion that
M ilton "had doubts about his qualifications for the ministry and
perhaps graver doubts about the ministry’s suitability to his own
temperament" ( CPW 1:318). What M ilton actually says to his
concerned friend, however, is that he is studying to prepare him self for
a particular but unspecified action rather than merely luxuriating in
"the endlesse delight of speculation" (320). He alludes to the parable
of the talents, just as he is later to do when he describes poetry as
being som ehow parallel with "the office of a pulpit." M oreover, he
indicates that the profession for which he is preparing is still the
ministry. True, he talks about the possibility of wearying a
congregation with his preaching (320-21), but it is preaching that he
talks about, and what his letter may be suggesting is that further study
is needed to prepare him for the ministry rather than som ething else.
The problem with the "Letter to a Friend" is that it is couched in
such delicate terms that it can be made to agree with whatever
preconceptions the critic brings, including my own. W e lack the letter
to which it responds; we lack even the identity of its author. What we
actually have of the letter are two drafts in manuscript, one much
revised and the other a cleaner but not fair copy, so establishing a text
37
for the letter presents herm eneutic decisions at the outset, and ones
which call for an opinion at the outset as to M ilton’s relation to the
ministry.36 Christopher Grose, for instance, notes that by emending
out the phrase "unweapon’d creature in the word," editors have
reduced some of the letter’s suggestion of ministerial vocation.37
We do know, however, that M ilton included with the letter
Sonnet 7, his first in English. This is the one beginning, "How soon
hath Time, the subtle thief of you th ,/S tol’n on his wing my three and
twentieth year!" H e laments his "late spring" which still no "bud or
blossom show’th" but argues that "semblance" is no guarantee of
"inward ripeness." In the sestet, however, he proclaims that he is
willing to wait on G od’s timing:
Yet be it less or more, or soon or slow,
It shall be still in strictest measure ev’n
To that same lot, however mean or high,
Toward which Time leads me, and the will of H eav’n;
A ll is, if I have grace to use it so,
As ever in my great task-M aster’s eye.
(9-14)
M ilton’s m ention of his age, 24, is probably a reference to entering the
ministry. Parker notes that the canonical age for admission to the
priesthood is twenty-four, and that most candidates entered within a
36 See W illiam A. Wright, ed.. Facsim ile of the Manuscript of M ilton’s
Minor Poem s (Cambridge, 1899), 6-7.
37 Christopher Grose, " ’U nw eapon’d Creature in the W ord’: A R evi
sion of M ilton’s Letter to a Friend." English Language N otes 21
(1983): 29-34. See also G rose’s discussion of the letter in M ilton and
the Sense of Tradition. 30-33.
38
year or two of this date (1:121; 11:782, n. 9). M ilton is asking for more
time, either for the ministry or for another vocation yet to be specified
by his "great task-Master."
M ilton suggests in A n A pology Against a Pamphlet (1642) that
he would have like to have stayed on at Cambridge as a fellow and that
a fellowship might have been offered to him:
[T]he Fellow es of that Colledge wherein I spent some yeares:
who at my parting, after I had taken two degrees, as the manner
is, signifi’d many wayes, how much better it would content them
that I would stay. (CPW 1:884)
Such a fellowship would have meant ordination as well. There were
only two possible open fellowships at Christ’s which concern Milton,
one in 1630 which went to Edward King, later eulogized as "Lycidas,"
and one in 1631 which went to Christopher Shute, both by intercession
of the court. Harris Fletcher discusses the selection process in some
detail, arguing that the county of origin was crucial and worked against
John M ilton.38 With regard to Shute’s election John P eile reports
finding a powerfully-worded reply by Thomas Bainbridge, master of
Christ’s, indicating that another person had a strong claim to the
fellowship. Peile argues that this person was John Milton, who "had so
far taken no step incom patible with taking Orders," though he admits
that Bainbridge might also have been referring to Samuel Bolton, the
future master of Christ’s.39
38 Harris Francis Fletcher, The Intellectual D evelopm ent of John
M ilton. 11:508-512.
39 John Peile, Christ’s C ollege. University of Cambridge C ollege H is
tories (London: F.E. Robinson, 1900), 149.
39
After his years of retirement, M ilton toured the Continent for
fifteen months, as he reports in The Second D efense (1654). H e had
intended to go on to Sicily and G reece, but instead returned home at a
leisurely pace because of the growing troubles. He also tells us that
when in Rom e he argued religion when the subject arose: "For I had
determined within myself that in those parts I would not indeed begin
a conversation about religion, but if questioned about my faith would
hide nothing, whatever the consequence" ( CPW IV:619). W hereas a
Protestant layman might with com plete propriety so discuss religion
and defend his faith, engaging in controversies was even more a
ministerial than a lay function, as I will show further in chapter three.
M ilton could have been preparing for this act both at Cambridge and
also at his father’s house while he was reading history and communing
with the Muses. H orton Davies notes that the preachers who were
preferred in earlier decades by King James were all good
controversialists, defending the royal position on Anglicanism against
both Catholics and Puritans: "To defend his median position he
needed good dialecticians and controversialists and to these he gave
preferment, as w ell as to good wits."40
H ere, then, is a possible scenario. M ilton swears to study five
more years, plus two more, according to Parker, in preparation for the
ministry. H e goes hom e, studies five more years (during which time he
defends him self against charges that he should already be ordained),
40 Horton Davies, Like A ngels from a C loud. 29.
40
and takes what he acknowledges to be a truncated tour of the
Continent, for which reduction he is careful to account. H e then
arrives in England and, as his seven years are up, is faced with the
impossibility of taking a newly-devised oath with which he does not
agree.
The so-called "Etcetera Oath" was included a set of 17 canons
passed by Convocation, that is, by the body of ruling clerics as opposed
to the civil Parliament, after the Parliament had been adjourned in
May of 1640 (the "short Parliament"). This revision of the existing
canons was a dangerous act. Charles I had called Parliament, after
over a decade of ruling without it, in an effort to finance his "Bishops"
war with Scotland, a war waged to force an episcopal prayer book and
polity on the Presbyterian kirk. Once summoned, however, the
Parliament voiced its reservations about the Laudian program and
other of Charles’s "illegal" methods of raising taxes, and it was
adjourned by the king while Convocation continued to m eet for an
additional three weeks. Besides granting the king a monetary
"benevolence," Convocation passed 17 canons which tightened even
further the control of the English church by a smug and insulated
Anglo-C atholic minority.41
The most objectionable of the canons was the sixth, which came
to be known as the "Etcetera Oath." It not only insisted that one swear
41 See M asson 11:131 and also W.S. Jordan, The D evelopm ent of R eli
gious Toleration in England. 2 vols. (1936, repr. G loucester, Mass.:
Peter Smith, 1965), 11:167-69.
41
on e’s allegiance even more explicitly to the Anglican administration,
but it left the extent of that administration open to wide
interpretation, since it trailed off in an "etc." The portion of the oath
which is relevant to this discussion is as follows:
Nor will I ever give my consent to alter the Government of this
Church, by Arch-bishop, Bishops, D eanes, and Arch-deacons,
&c. as it stands now established, and as by right it ought to
stand. (CPW 1:990-911
The Canons of 1640 were imm ensely unpopular. Bypassing
them, Convocation had challenged the legislative primacy which
Parliament had held since the R eform ation. The Canons led to riots in
London, and angry crowds even besieged Lambeth Palace (M asson
11:132-33). Twenty-two years later, they were declared illegal by the
body determining the shape of the restored Anglican church.42 But the
sixth canon was, in W.S. Jordan’s phrase, "the hornet’s nest." It
produced such vigorous opposition that the government waived the
oath in many cases, although it was still required for ministers "seeking
livings."43 In other words, a preacher could not be beneficed without
it, and could therefore not pastor a congregation without subscribing
to it. This is the background behind M ilton’s refusing to "subscribe
slave." This is the oath which caused him to claim that he had been
"church-outed by the Prelates."
42 David L. Edwards. Christian England. 311.
43 W.S. Jordan. The D evelopm ent of R eligious Toleration in England.
11.168 and n.2.
42
When M ilton claims at the end of the digression to R eason of
Church-Government (1642) that he had decided against entering the
ministry, there is no reason to suspect that this decision was not recent.
I have already shown that the oath on which he bases his decision is
probably the "Et Cetera O ath,” which was not instituted until 1640.
M ilton also says in the digression that he was yet ready for a career,
that his "circle of studies" was not yet com pleted fCPW 1:8071. Milton,
though already thirty-one years old at the time he published Reason of
Church-Government. was by no means a "time-happy spirit."
M oreover, his father was a notoriously late bloom er. According to
evidence com piled by Harris Fletcher, M ilton’s father did not
com plete his scrivener’s apprenticeship until he was in his mid
thirties.44
In addition, there is no reason that M ilton’s desire to be a p o et—
and especially a godly p oet— need displace a ministerial vocation.
John D onne continued to write poetry after he took orders, as did
George Herbert, Thomas Traherne, and G iles and Phineas Fletcher.
Parker also makes this observation: "there were plenty of examples
well known to him of ordained ministers who were also poets. There
was no essential conflict in the two careers, such as posterity might
imagine" (1:121). In fact, Parker postulates that the understanding to
which M ilton and his father came, as celebrated in Ad Patrem . was not
44 Harris Francis Fletcher. The Intellectual D evelopm ent of John
M ilton. 1:7-10.
43
so much that M ilton becom e a poet as that he becom e a Christian
author serving a m inisterial function outside the church:
M ilton . . . placated his father by giving up poetry for a time, and
then, applying him self to the study of Church history, convinced
him that a man of learning, made independent of ecclesiastical
control, could perform a wider Christian ministry as an author.
Parker denies that this choice ever involved a rejection of the Church
as avocation: "His activity during the Horton period--indeed, his
whole life— was a denial of so exclusive and restrictive a choice, which
posterity has stubbornly attributed to him" (1:153).
In the follow ing section, I will examine the wider context for
such open-ended vocational decisions. M ilton’s contem poraries
understood the ministry primarily as preaching, and he him self held to
the possibility that one could preach without ordination, and that
writing could be a form of preaching. This expanded conception of the
ministry will allow M ilton to assert that poetic gifts can serve beside
the office of a pulpit.
II. M ilton and the Ministry: the
Contemporary Context
A stress on M ilton’s "priestly" role has obscured the fact that for
him the ministry would primarily have meant preaching, as it would to
anyone stressing biblicism over ceremony. Furthermore, M ilton
believed that a "preacher" did not need to be formally ordained in
order to preach, and that writing could be a kind of preaching.
44
In M ilton’s day, the terms "preacher" and "minister" are so closely
related as to be nearly synonymous, especially among the biblicists. For
instance, The Faithful Shepheard (1607) by the godly but conformist
Richard Bernard advertises itself on the title page as being about "the
Excellencies and N ecessitie of the Ministerie," and it is entirely about
preaching. Likewise, the Presbyterian Thomas H all stresses the
importance of preaching, which he defines in terms of the Hyperian
sermon types, in his definition of the ministry:
This is an action of a Minister, soundly interpreting, and opening
the sence of Scripture by Scripture, in an authoritative way,
applying to the use of hearers by doctrine, Exhortation, Rebuke
and Comfort. This is the duty and formal act of the Ministry.45
Unlike Milton, however, H all also insisted on formal ordination. H e
continues his description of preaching by saying, "’tis a Pastoral act, and
is not com m on to every gifted Brother of the flock."
Biblicist Protestants in England placed a greater emphasis on
preaching than did their more cerem onial countrymen who follow ed the
Anglican tradition, although both parties agreed that the means of
salvation was "hearing" the word of God. According to the solifidianism
which characterized the Reform ation, an individual was saved by faith
45 Thomas Hall, The Pulpit Guarded with XX Arguments Proving the
Unlawfulness. Sinfulness and Danger of Suffering Private Persons to
Take U pon Them publike Preaching, and Expounding the Scripture
without a C all. 3rd edn. (London, 1651), 5. The first edition, also 1651,
lists only seventeen arguments. I list a later edition of H all’s work
because opponents respond to his twenty arguments rather than to his
seventeen.
45
alone, but the means of gaining that faith were auditory. As St. Paul
said,
with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
mouth confession is made unto salvation . . . For whosoever shall
call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall
they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall
they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall
they hear without a preacher? (Rom ans 10:10, 13-14)
John D ow nam e’s Summe of Sacred Divinity (1628) lists attendance at
sermons as the most important rule for understanding Scripture, after
an intention to understand it and a prayer for guidance from the Holy
Spirit:
Thirdly, wee are to frequent the H ouse of God, and to give
diligent attendance upon the Ministry and Preaching of the Word,
whereby the Doctrines delivered in the Scriptures, are beaten
out, and made familiar and plaine unto us: the same being also
the ordinarie m eanes, by which the holy Ghost doth use to worke
in our hearts all true and spirituall wisedom e (374-75).46
This emphasis on preaching as a primary means of grace informs the
early arguments of dissident leaders like Thomas Cartwright against
such establishm ent figures as Richard Hooker, who argued that the
Word of God could be as well dissem inated by the mere reading of
Scripture and official hom ilies as by preaching.47 H ooker’s position
46 John Downam e. The Summe of Sacred Divinity First Briefly and
M ethodically Propounded: And Then More Largely and Cleerelv
H andled and Explaned (London, [1628?]).
47 Richard Hooker. Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (15971. V:18-
22, The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard H ooker, ed. W.
Speed Hill, 4 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 1977), 11:65-110.
There are four different publication dates for Laws. Books I-V were
published in 1593 and Book V in 1597. Books VI and VIII were not
published until 1648, and Book VII not until 1661. Since the important
books for my discussion are I-V, I will give the publication date of Laws
as "1593, 1597."
46
reflected the uncom fortable reality that in the early days of the
Elizabethan settlem ent there were simply not enough com petent
preachers to fill all of the pulpits. Thomas Cartwright, on the other
hand, rejected the mere reading of the Bible or hom ilies, insisting that
"the ordinary ways whereby God regenerateth his children is by the word
of God which is preached."48
In point of fact, Anglicans placed a greater stress on preaching
than their opponents complained they did. The Canons of 1604
required a sermon every Sunday, either from the beneficed minister or
his substitute, but the sacraments only twice a year.49 It was R om e
which laid great emphasis on the sacraments, and most A nglicans were
as staunchly anti-Catholic as the Puritans; the conformists included
among their number such able controversialists against R om e as John
Whitgift and John D onne. M oreover, when the Anglican partisans
argued that prelaty was jure divino. one of their commons proofs was
the number of great preachers which prelaty had produced. In Joseph
48 Thomas Cartwright in The Works of John W hitgift. ed John Ayre,
3 vols. The Parker Society Publications, vols. 46-48 (Cambridge, 1851-
53), 111:35. Cartwright’s own publications have survived poorly, but it is
possible to reconstruct his argument in the A dm onition Controversy
from W hitgift’s response, since W hitgift cites Cartwright in full at the
beginning of each section of his point-by-point refutation. It was
crucially important in religious controversy accurately to report the
argument of on e’s opponent, as I will show in chapter three.
49 See canons 45, 46 and 56 in Edward Cardwell, Svnodalia. 1:273-74,
278.
47
H all’s first tract in what would becom e the Smectymnuan controversy,
for instance, he says
no one Clergy in the whole Christian world, yeelds so many
em inent Scholars, learned Preachers, grave, holy, and
accom plished Divine, as this Church of England doth at this
day.50
Even among writers placing them selves at the edge of the quarrel
over church government, the equation of ministry with preaching is
strong. John Knowles, a "reasonable" anti-Trinitarian, says in A M odest
Plea for Private M en’s Preaching (1648), "I am ignorant, what places are
called m inisterial unlesse Pulpits."51
M ilton felt a gifted individual could preach without ordination, as
did many. In fact, we can place his sentim ents on the issue of ordination
fairly precisely, because it was an issue debated throughout his
adulthood, and particularly during the Interregnum, when there were
insufficient means to regulate the local parishes. Ecclesiastical
regulation was particularly scanty during the 1650’s:
In practice clergymen with a wide variety of opinions . . . were left
free to preach. The only national authority was a com m ittee of
ministers and laymen given power to eject unsuitable ministers
and schoolm asters. There was no G eneral Assem bly supervising
the religion of England on the m odel provided by the G eneral
Assem bly of the Church of Scotland, and the Director of Worship
which Parliament had accepted in 1645 had left much freedom ill
the hands of parish ministers. In brief, the tidy Presbyterian
system which had been the aim of the majority when Parliament
50 Joseph Hall. An Hum ble Rem onstrance to the High Court of
Parliament by a D utifull D onne of the Church (London, 1640), 38.
51 John Knowles. A M odest Plea for Private Mens Preaching (n.p..
1648) 12.
48
had made its Solemn League and Covenant with the Scots in 1643
did not exist in England six years later.52
One major force working against the centralizing force of the
Presbyterians was Cromwell and his New M odel Army, which advocated
independency. W illiam H aller details the types of sermons preached by
New M odel ministers which stressed godliness without respect to
particular form. Crom well’s military successes also meant that his
advocacy of independency effectively becam e his enforcem ent of it, so
that "practically every one was now free to use whatever gifts he had for
attracting listeners eager to hear that Christ was at hand, no matter
what the learned or the well-placed might say to the contrary."53
The lack of any centralized authority meant that individual
ministers felt the need to validate their own ministerial authority in
terms of Scripture and to reject the excesses of enthusiastic cults who
claimed that anyone "with the Spirit" could preach. Ordained ministers
preached against "unlawful" preaching, unordained ministers decried
such "quenching the Spirit,” and both groups took their causes to the
press.54
52 David Edwards, Christian England. 288-89.
53 W illiam H aller, Liberty and R eform ation in the Puritan Revolution
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1955), 203.
54 Representative titles: Thomas Collier. The Pulpit-guard routed in
Its Twenty Strongholds (London. 16511: John Collinges. Responsoria
ad erratica pastoris (London, 1652), Vindiciae ministerii evangelici
(London, 1651), and Vindiciae ministerii evangelici revindicatae
(London, 1658); John Ferribv. The Lawful Preacher (London. 1652);
Thomas Hall, The Pulpit Guarded with XX Arguments (London, 1651);
D onald Lupton, The Freedom of Preaching, or Spiritual Gifts
D efended: Proving That A ll Men Endowed with Gifts and A bilities May
Teach and Preach the Word of God (London, 1652); John Martin,
49
In the early 1650’s, the legal question of ordination was often
debated as an issue in itself. In the later part of the decade, as the need
for a more satisfactory church settlem ent becam e apparent, a debate
developed which what Howard Schultz has identified as the "Learned-
Ministry Controversy,” and which treated issues of ministerial
education, m aintenance, and dignity.55 Learning, however, was always
an issue in the debate. In the early 1640’s, for instance, John Taylor
(the "Water Poet") was publishing anonymous tracts satirizing the
nonconformists who presumed to preach without adequate education, a
lack indicated by their low social standing. In The Brownist’s
Conventicle (1641), he complains about enthusiastic mechanics m eeting
"at a private house to heare a Sermon a brother of theirs neere Aldgate,
being a learned felt-maker." Taylor characterizes such enthusiasts as
Sam uel Petto, and Frederick W oodall, The Preacher Sent: or A
Vindication of the Liberty of Publick Preaching by Some M en Not
Ordained (London, 1658). These texts all concern the legal question of
ordination and contain little or no consideration of preaching as a
rhetorical act, even though James J. Murphy lists them as doing so in A
Short-Title Catalogue of Works on Rhetorical Theory from the
Beginning of Printing to A .D . 1700 (New York and London: Garland,
1981), 99-100, 145, 196, 200. Murphy cross-lists all these titles in his
"Index of Preaching Manuals" on p. 353. See also the official defense of
ordination by the Presbyterian establishm ent, in Provincial Assem bly of
London, Jus divinum ministrii Evangelici. or The Divine Right of the
Gospel-M inistrv (London, 1654).
55 Howard Schultz. M ilton and Forbidden Knowledge (New York:
M odern Language A ssociation, 1955), 184-218. See also Barbara Kiefer
Lewalski, "Milton on Learning and the Learned Ministry Controversy,"
Huntington Library Quarterly 24 (1961): 267-81.
50
"they that prate, not preach, like men raptur’d with their owne spirituall
non-sense."56
Taylor also published in 1642 An Apology for Private Preaching
and A n H onest Answer to the Late Published A pologie for Private
Preaching, both satiric in intent. The first "apology" claims to warrant
"those form es . . . which the malignant sect contem ne, and daily by
prophane pam phlets make ridiculous," and then proceeds to render
them even more ridiculous. Taylor presents such forms of preaching as
would be incongruous to auditors who expected ministers to be learned:
"Preaching" in a tub; "teaching" against the back of a chair; "instructing"
at a table’s end; "revealing" in a basket; "exhorting" over a buttery hatch;
and "reforming" on a bed side. Taylor is specifically backing the
episcopal party.57 In the preface to the second tract, Taylor inveighs
against those who would set up a new form of ministry and thereby
threaten both the old and the royal and episcopal system which
undergirds it. N evertheless, the central business of his tract is to
impugn the "unhallowed throats" of those who presume to teach without
learning.58
M ost of the educated ministers in England, of whatever stripe,
agreed that humane learning was necessary for ministry, especially since
56 John Tavlor. The Brownists’ Conventicle ([London], 1641), A ir , A2v.
57 John Taylor. An Apology for Private Preaching ([London]. 1642)
A ir .
58 John Taylor. An H onest Answer to the Late Published A p ologie for
Private Preaching, by T..I. ([London, 1642]), A2v.
51
the Scriptures were written in ancient languages and thereby needed to
be interpreted by those who could read them. Thus, Immanuel Bourne
advises "thirty congregations of antipedobaptists" to:
[Bjewail your ignorance that you had no more of humane
Learning, that you might have the more easily understood by the
help of the holy Spirit that Divine learning which is revealed in
the holy Scriptures written in the G reek and H ebrew tongue.59
B ourne’s vehem ent exasperation is typical of the university-educated
elite in the face of well-m eaning but ignorant local enthusiasts.
The concern for a learned ministry is a Reform ation issue
reflecting a stress on doctrine which I will further discuss in chapter
two. The Reform ation in England was begotten in learning, from early
m eetings at Cambridge to the later consolidations of such theological
giants as W illiam Perkins.60 One of the ironies of this learning is that it
led to the rejection of such extra-Biblical traditions as absolute clerical
celibacy, a tradition which would have reduced the cost of acquiring
such learning.61
59 Immanuel Bourne. A D efense and Justification of M inister’s
M aintenance by Tvthes. And of Infant-Baptism. Hum ane Learning, and
the Sword of the Magistrate (London, 1659), 6.
60 For a discussion of the W hite H orse m eetings at Cambridge, see
A .G . Dickens, The English Reform ation (1964; New York: Schocken,
1978), 68-70.
61 "[A]n incom e appropriate for a celibate, comparatively uneducated
priesthood was insufficient for the needs of married graduates with
fam ilies, conscious of their professional status." J.P. Kenyon, Stuart
England. 2nd edn., The Pelican History of England, no. 6 (London:
Penguin, 1985), 32.
52
We know M ilton’s positions on the various debates over the
ministry because he announces them. We know that he considered
ministerial learning to be important because in A n Apology Against a
Pam phlet (1642), he counters the suggestion that "learning would decay
with the removall of Prelates" fCPW 1:945). H e also addressed all three
of the issues which Howard Schultz includes in the "Learned Ministry
Controversy" (tithes, university learning, and m inisterial dignity) in
Consideration Touching the L ikeliest Means to Rem ove H irelings out
of the Church (1659).
In H irelings and elsewhere, M ilton advocates non-ordination but
not chaos. He says that preaching is a matter of God-given ability and
not a status conferred by a human hierarchy; he rejects unnecessary
dignity but not a learned ministry. In H irelings (1659), he insists that
ministers are like other men. In the primitive church, he tells us,
ministers were marked by superior knowledge of doctrine and personal
sanctity, not by their calling into a "peculiar tribe of Levites" (CPW
VII:319). In Anim adversions (1641), M ilton argues that ordination can
only be recognized, not conferred. The physical act of laying on of
hands "creates nothing, it conferres nothing." Instead, what makes a
man a minister is "the inward calling of God . .. and his own painfull
study and diligence that manures and improves his m inisteriall gifts"
(CPW 1:715).
The issue of preaching continued after the Restoration
settlem ent and thus while M ilton was writing his major poetry. Meric
Casaubon, a prebend of Christ Church Canterbury and a descendent of
53
the great Isaac Casaubon, complains in 1663 that many are still putting
an undue emphasis on preaching.62 John Eachard (1670-71) satirizes
ability of ministers to preach without adequate education.63 M ilton’s
nephew John Phillips participated in the version of this controversy in
the 1680’s, as had M ilton’s friend Andrew Marvell in the 1670’s.64
By rejecting a sacramental ordination, M ilton not only rejects
apostolic succession and thus the foundation of the prelatical authority
62 Meric Casaubon. The Question. To W hom It B elonged Anciently to
Preach, and W hether A ll Priests Might or Did: Discussed Out of
Antiquity: As A lso. What Preaching Is. Properly (London, 1663),
especially pp. 27-39.
63 John Eachard. Grounds & O ccasions of the Contempt of the Clergy
and R eligion Enquired Into (London, 1670) and Some Observations
U pon the Answer to an Enquiry into the Grounds & Occasions of the
Contempt of the Clergy (London. 1671).
64 John Phillips, Speculum Crape-Gownerum: or. A Looking-glass for
the Young A cadem icks. Now Fovl’d. With R eflections on Some of the
Late H igh-Flown Sermons. To which is added, an Essay Towards a
Sermon of the N ew est Fashion (London, 1682) and Speculum Crape-
Gownorum. the Second Part. Or. A Continuation of Observations and
R eflections U pon the Late Sermons of Some That W ould Be Thought
G oliah’s for the Church of England (London, 1682); Andrew Marvell,
The Rehearsall Transpros’d: or. Anim adversions U pon a Late Book-
Intituled. A Preface Shewing What Grounds There Are of Fears and
Jealousie of Popery (London, 1672) and The R ehearsall Transpros’d:
the Second Part. O ccasioned by Two Letters (London, 1673). Marvell
was an under-secretary to M ilton during the Protectorate and it was
possibly his intervention which kept the blind regicide from being
executed at the R estoration, or at least Edward Phillips reports as
much: "particularly in the H ouse of Commons, Mr. Andrew Marvel, a
member for Hull, acted vigorously in his behalf, and made a
considerably party for him." H elen Darbishire, Early Lives of M ilton.
74. See also Godfrey Davies, "Milton in 1660," Huntington Library
Quarterly 18 (1955): 351-63, and Parker 1:567-76.
54
which he never ceases to resist, but he also suggests that an unordained
person like him self can still perform the functions of a minister:
[0 ]n e man, and he with motive of gain, should not be stuck up in a
pulpit and have the sole right of addressing the congregation.
Instead each believer, according to his personal talents, should
have a chance to address his fellows, or to prophesy, teach, or
exhort (Christian D octrine. CPW VI:608).65
Further, M ilton also suggests that the ministry may be exercised by
writing. What M ilton identifies as "extraordinary ministers" in
Christian D octrine are men gifted by God to either set up or reform the
church "by preaching and writing" (CPW VI:570). It is possible that
M ilton includes him self in this description.
The distinction betw een "ordinary" and "extraordinary" ministers
was a com m onplace of Reform ation theology, intended to distinguish
betw een those foundational apostles and prophets who had heard
directly from God (extraordinary) and the ministers who follow ed the
apostolic age and were dependent on the text as established without
recourse to miracles (ordinary).66 By insisting that the "age of miracles
65 See also Christian D octrine I:xxix: "Any believer can be an ordinary
minister, whenever necessary, so long as he is provided with certain gifts
(which constitute his mission)" (CPW VI:570-71). M ilton later
indicates that "any believer" only extends to men; wom en are instructed
to keep silent in church. For this position, M ilton cites two proof texts,
I Corinthians 14:35, 35 and I Timothy 2:11, 12 (CPW VI:609). This ban
on fem ale ministers is the standard belief in M ilton’s day in all but the
most radical of churches, and hardly an example of misogyny.
66 The ecclesiastical distinction betw een "ordinary" and "extraordinary"
ministers should not be confused with those terms as used in the
Elizabethan court. E lizabeth’s G entlem en of the Chamber were
"ordinaries," while the hangers-on were "extraordinaries." The term
"extraordinary" as applied to the court, therefore, had the sense of
"supernummerary," whereas the "extraordinary" ministers in
ecclesiology were rather the foundational apostles and prophets of the
55
had passed," Protestants were able to depend on the Scripture as an
unchanging text without the accretions of tradition and human authority
which were proposed by the Rom an church. This is why, when later
Anabaptists, Quakers, and other enthusiasts declared that "they had the
spirit” and that the Scripture was a "dead letter," the more centrist
religionists concluded that they were Papists in disguise.
Some of the reformers, however, left them selves a loophole.
They them selves could play an extraordinary role in returning the
Church to its pristine state, if God so willed. Calvin him self allowed
this possibility:
Those who preside over the government of the church in
accordance with Christ’s institution are called by Paul as follows:
first apostles, then prophets, thirdly evangelists, fourthly pastors,
and finally teachers [Eph. 4:11]. Of these only the last two have
an ordinary office in the church; the Lord raised up the first three
at the beginning of his Kingdom, and now and again revives them
as the need of the tim es demands . . . I do not deny that the Lord
has som etim es at a later period raised up apostles, or at least
evangelists in their place, as has happened in our own day. For
there was need for such persons to lead the church back from the
rebellion of Antichrist. N onetheless, I call this office
"extraordinary," because in duly constituted churches it has no
place (IV .iii.4).67
early church age and therefore the sine qua non of Christian revelation.
St. Paul talks about the church being "built upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ him self being the chief corner
stone" (Ephesians 2:20).
67 John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian R eligion (15591. 2 vols..
trans. Ford Lewis Battles, The Library of Christian Classics
(Philadelphia: W estminster Press, 1960), 11:1057.
56
Christopher Grose has used the Reform ation concept of extraordinary
ministry to consider M ilton’s developing sense of vocation as tentatively
stated in "Letter to a Friend” and the digression in R eason of Church-
G overnm ent (1642), and most explicitly discovered in An A pology
Against a Pamphlet (1642). G rose links this concept of "apostleship"
(especially Chrysostom’s commentary on the Ephesians 4 passage) to
show the seriousness of such a calling, and that it might be this "talent"
which was "death to hide."68
For M ilton to transform the verbal act of preaching into a written
exercise would also be consistent with his claim in The Second D efen se
(1654) that for him writing was a more appropriate action than fighting:
"I did not avoid the toils and dangers of military service without
rendering to my fellow citizens another kind of service that was much
more useful and no less perilous" (CPW IV:552). That M ilton intended
to include his writing as a type of extraordinary ministry appears even
more possible when one considers how his text varies from its sources.
Christian D octrine is M ilton’s own system of theology, but he borrows
its organization and a great deal of its language from the theological
systems of W illiam A m es and Jean W olleb, as I will dem onstrate in
chapter two.69 W olleb does not explicitly rule out the possibility of a
68 M ilton and the Sense of T radition, pp. 30-33. See also "’U nw eapon’d
Creature in the W ord’: A R evision in M ilton’s Letter to a Friend,"
English Language N otes 21 (1983): 29-34.
69 W illiam A m es. The Marrow of Sacred Divinity (London. 1642),
trans. of M edulla S.S. T heologiae (London, 1629); Jean W olleb, The
Abridgem ent of Christian Divinitie (London, 1650), trans. of
Compendium theologiae Christianae (Cambridge. 1642). W olleb’s
Latin princeps was apparently Basel, 1633. The Bibliotheque N ationale
lists an edition printed in A m sterdam in 1637 as "editio secunda" (B.N.
57
latter-day extraordinary ministry, though he does put his description of
extraordinary ministers in the past tense: "They were extraordinary,
whom God raised upon extraordinary occasions, either to establish a
new government in the church, or else to repaire the old government
when it was decayed.” 70
Am es, however, is more explicit than W olleb, stating that major
reformers such as Wycliff, Luther and Zwingli may be included under
that category with certain reservations:
37. Extraordinary M inisters were Prophets, A postles, and
Evangelists.
38. W icliffe, Luther, Zwinglius and such like, that were the first
restorers of the G ospell, were not to speake properly,
extraordinary Ministers.
39. Y et they are not amisse called extraordinary by som e. 1.
Because they did performe som ething like those things which
were done by extraordinary M inisters of old. 2. Because in
respect of degree they received som e singular gifts from God, as
occasion did require . . . 3. Because order at that time being
disturbed and decayed, they were of necessity to attempt some
things out of the common course.71
A m es sandwiches his discussion of Scripture (Lxxxiv) betw een his
sections on extraordinary and ordinary ministry (xxxiii and xxxv), which
allows him to insist on the extraordinary revelation which produced the
D 2 .12319). If so, W olleb’s chef-d’ouevre was not published until
several years after his death in 1626.
70 The Abridgem ent of Christian Divinitie (London, 1650), I.xxvi,
p. 171.
71 Am es, Marrow of Sacred Divinity (London, 1642), I.xxxiii.24-40, pp.
147.
58
Bible. That is, he begins his section on Scripture by defining
extraordinary ministers as those w hose speeches or writings comprise
Holy Scripture: "Extraordinary M inisters were raised up by God, to
instruct the Church not only by lively voyce, but also by D ivine writings,
that there might be a perpetuall use, and fruit of this Ministery in the
Church, even when such M inisters were taken away."72 Thus, M ilton
gets the phrase "by preaching or writing" from A m es, but rem oves it
from A m es’s context of "writing" as understood to be the Scripture
itself. By moving the m ention of "extraordinary ministers" and
"preaching and writing" out of the im m ediate context of the canonical
text, M ilton can suggest not only that his writing is a m inisterial act but
that it might also help achieve the further reform ation of the church.
The fact that poetry is the means for this reform ation, as
enunciated in M ilton’s fam ous digression in The R eason o f Church-
G overnm ent (1642), does not thereby remove him from the realm of the
ministry. Indeed, he discusses poetry in terms of a parallel function to
the pulpit. In the follow ing section I w ill examine the digression in
terms of its explicit biblicism, and I will argue that it shows M ilton still
thinking in m inisterial terms as he prepares to enter his life ’s work.
72 A m es, Marrow of Sacred Divinity (London, 1642), I.xxxiv.1, p. 148.
59
III. M ilton’s Poetic Program
The R eason of Church-Government U rg’d Against Prelaty
appeared in January or February of 1642, apparently in response to a
collection of pro-episcopal tracts.73 It is the first prose work to which
M ilton put his nam e.74 Its organization into two books, one dismissing
the theory of prelaty and the other its administration, is similar to the
bipartite structure of his earlier Of R eform ation (1641). B etw een the
two books of the latter R eason , however, M ilton digresses for som e nine
pages as to the important poetic program which he has interrupted in
order to come to the defense of the church against what he feels to be
the tyranny of prelaty.
The digression does not necessarily support a reading that M ilton
is abandoning the ministry for poetry. Rather, as I shall show in this
section, he is planning to appropriate the "office of a pulpit" into his
poetry. H e distances him self both from the court poetry and from the
Laudian pulpit, and for similar reasons. In addition, he privileges
73 Certain Brief Treatises. W ritten by D iverse Learned Men.
Concerning the A ncient and M oderne Governm ent of the Church
(Oxford, 1641). For a discussion of both this text and the dating of
M ilton’s tract, see CPW 1:737-39.
74 H e had already published anonymously Of R eform ation. Of
Prelatical Episcopacy, and Anim adversions U pon the Remonstrants
D efence Against Smectvmnuus. and probably the historical postscript to
the first Smectymnuan answer, all of which appeared in 1641.
60
Scripture over classical texts, far more so, in fact, than the author of
another discussion of poetry, Sir Philip Sidney. Even the notable
presence of C icero’s D e officiis here serves specifically Christian, and
Protestant, purposes.
M ilton’s discussion of poetry occurs in the center of a rejection of
prelaty, and it derives much of its significance from the antiprelatical
arguments which precede and follow it. My primary focus here will be
on those elem ents of the digression itself which reveal M ilton’s
vocational plans, although I will also refer to the larger context as it is
relevant.75 The digression has three main sections. In the first, M ilton
discusses his accountability before God to use his talents. In this
section, he m erges the parables of the talents and the pearl of great
price (CPW 1:801-810). In the second section he defends against
possible charges that he has entered the controversy through envy or
gall. A s I shall show in chapter three, this is an important disclaim er for
the Christian controversialist to make. Instead, M ilton argues, he
intends to fulfill his destiny of becom ing a great national poet (CPW
1:810-816). The final section is M ilton’s discussion of how poetic gifts
are "of power beside the office of a pulpit" (CPW 1:816-23). In this final
75 For more extended discussions of the w hole work, see for instance
John F. Huntley, "Images of Poet and Poetry in M ilton’s The R eason of
Church-Governm ent" in M ichael Lieb and John T. Shawcross, eds.,
A chievem ents of the Left Hand: Essays on the Prose Style of John
M ilton (Amherst: University of M assachusetts Press, 1974), 83-120;
and Stanley Fish, "Reason in The R eason of Church G overnm ent." in
Self-Consum ing Artifacts (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1972), 265-302.
61
section, M ilton separates him self from both court poets and Laudian
preachers, separations which com plem ent each other. H e separates
him self from the "libidinous" or "parasitic" poets by defining the role of
true poetry to exclude them, and he will redefine the pulpit to include
poetry.
His reason for rejecting the court poets is that they turn m en from
virtue, which is the purpose for which God gives poetic gifts in the first
place. H e identifies five major and apparently progressive activities for
these gifts, and each of them has virtuous action as its topic or aim
(1:816). First, they are of power to insem inate and germ inate the ideas
of virtue like so many seeds ("to im breed and cherish . . . the seeds of
vertu, and publick civility"), an action for which he will invoke the
similarly gendered Spirit at the beginning of Paradise L ost. Second,
they are of power to treat the auditor’s psychological ills and restore his
em otions to their proper state ("to allay the perturbations of the mind,
and set the affections in right tune"; that is, "in right tune" for virtuous
action). Third, once the audience has been thus prepared, poetic gifts
are of power to produce worship, "to celebrate in glorious and lofty
Hymns the throne and equipage of G ods A lm ightinesse, and what he
works and what he suffers to be wrought with high providence in his
Church." A ll of the attributes of God celebrated here are active
("works," "suffers to be wrought") or at least action as potential ("Gods
Alm ightinesse"). Fourth, poetic gifts are of power to extol the
derivative achievem ents of G od’s people ("to sing the victorious agonies
62
of martyrs and Saints, the deeds and triumphs of just and pious Nations
doing valiantly through faith against the enem ies of Christ").
But M ilton does not allow his list of poetic activities to remain at
this triumphant level. Rather, his progression of infinitive clauses,
which has moved from the inception of virtue to the triumphs of God
and man, now leads to an ultim ate decline, for the fifth activity is "to
deplore the general relapses of Kingdoms and States from justice and
Gods true worship." Long before he writes Paradise L ost. Milton
includes reprehension as one of the subject matters of poetry.
To the five activities I have already described, M ilton adds a
summary category:
Lastly, whatsoever in religion is holy and sublime, in vertu
am iable, or grave, whatsoever hath passion or admiration in all
the changes of that which is call’d fortune from without, or the
wily suttleties and refluxes of mans thoughts from within, all
these things with a solid and treatable sm oothness to paint out
and describe. (CPW 1:817)
H ere, M ilton both alludes to a familiar Pauline exhortation and
renders it more strict. In Philippians 4:8 the apostle says, "Finally,
brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest,
whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever
things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any
virtue, and if there by any praise, think on these things." St. Paul’s
language suggests that any type of knowledge which leads to virtuous
action is acceptable, regardless of its source, and suggests some of the
scriptural warrant for the R eform ation’s retention of classical culture.
M ilton clearly echoes the structure of this passage but renders it more
63
narrow by placing religion at the front of it, m entioning holiness,
sublimity, gravity, and suggesting that one may might be led astray by
that which looks harmless ("wily suttleties"). M ilton will repeat this
warning later in his work, such as his warning against the wily
subtleties of Satan in Paradise L ost, but in the im m ediate context he is
also warning against the traditional but nonscriptural elem ents which
episcopacy had introduced into church worship and discipline.
A ll of this M ilton has listed as activities for which "poetic gifts
. . . are of power beside the office of a pulpit." H e does not speak here
of poetry or of being a poet, but rather of potentials or officia for
which he, and presumably the other less prudent poets of the court,
will be held accountable, just like the servants in the parable of the
talents. These talents all concern the production of poetry which
focuses on virtuous action. In the follow ing chapters, I will be showing
how both English Reform ation theology and preaching move from an
original focus on belief to a focus on practice. H ere, when M ilton
speaks of teaching, the lesson is not dogmatic theology but rather "the
whole book of sanctity and vertue." W hen he speaks about poetic
delight, it is to cause "the paths of honesty and good life," which only
appear to be "rugged and difficult," to appear as they are in truth, "easy
and pleasant."
M ilton m entions both intellectual and social activities. He
proposes civic pastim es which may "civilize, adorn and make discrete
. . . minds," by "the learned and affable m eeting of frequent
Academies" and by "the procurem ent of wise and artfull recitations
64
sweetned with eloquence and graceful inticem ents to the love and
practice of justice, tem perence and fortitude" (1:819). In this last
passage, he contrasts wisdom from the other three cardinal virtues, an
intellectual virtue as against three practical ones. H e underscores this
when he sums up the nature of the poetic m essage as "wisdom and
vertu."
In his use of the four cardinal virtues he follow s C icero’s
discussion of virtue in D e officiis. a crucial ethical text during the
R enaissance. Cicero was the classical author most im itated, translated
and published, and D e officiis ("Of Duties") was the most popular of
his texts. It is in this text where he discusses ethics in terms of the good
and the expedient, and where he form ulates the four chief or cardinal
virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude and tem perance. Cicero
distinguishes the intellective activity of prudence with the practical
activities of the others:
[I]n that category . . . which was designated first in our division
and in which we place wisdom and prudence, belong the search
after truth and its discovery; and this is the peculiar province of
that virtue. For the more clearly anyone observes the most
essential truth in any given case and the more quickly and
accurately he can see and explain the reason for it, the more
understanding and wise he is generally esteem ed, and justly so.
Before the three remaining virtues, on the other hand, is set the
task of providing and m aintaining those things on which the
practical business of life depends (I:v.15-17).
But M ilton’s use of Cicero is a specifically Christian one. H e moves
im m ediately from the m ention of Ciceronian virtues into a scriptural
means of ratifying them, Solom on’s prosopopaeia for wisdom. " She
crieth without, she uttereth her voice in the streets, in the top of high
65
places, in the chief concours. and in the openings of the G ates"
(Proverbs 1:20-21), and all of her counsels deal with the types of
appropriate behavior suggested by the rest of the cardinal virtues.
M oreover, M ilton’s discussion of the good leaves no room for
the expedient. H e has nothing but scorn for poetry which flows at
wast[e] from the pen of some vulgar Am orist, or the trencher fury of a
riming parasite." It is these writers whose m otivation is greed or lust
who are corrupting the youth of England. In contrast to his prophet’s
ability to make the path of virtue "easy and pleasant," these "libidinous
and ignorant Poetasters" make virtuous literature seem "harsh and
sowr" (1:818). N ot only does he reject their productions but also their
idolatry of classical models. His poetic afflatus is not "to be obtain’d
by the invocation of D am e Memory and her Siren daughters" (1:821),
but rather from divine inspiration linked with industrious study "into
all seemly and generous arts and affaires." In a sense, M ilton rejects
prelaty here as well, because he is rejecting the heavily classical m odes
of court poets who celebrated the Caroline court and thus, indirectly,
the prelatical system which it favored.
But he also draws closer to the world of preaching and theology.
His ordering of primary inspiration and subordinate humane learning
is closer to the hierarchy of Reform ation Bible herm eneutics than to
any elem ent of H elicon or W hitehall. Most discussions of
Reform ation herm eneutics consider divine inspiration to be the sine
qua non of accurate exegesis. A s Thomas W ilson the divine explains in
Theological R ules (London, 1615), "The holy spirite is both author and
66
interpreter of Scripture, which as it is inspired by the holy ghost so by
his enlightning, it must be belieeved and practised.’’ 76 The first two
rules of Thomas H all’s Centuria sacra (London, 1654) are to be in tune
with the Scripture’s spirituality and to beg for the direction and aid of
the spirit of G od.77 Henry Lukin gives similar advice in 1669: ”[I]t is
by the special illum ination of the Spirit, that we must understand
things Spiritually .... Yea, Prayer doth help much in understanding
the Letter of the Scripture; there are many difficulties which a man
may best overcom e on his knees."78
In addition to the aid of the spirit, discussions of R eform ation
herm eneutics insist on the accurate interpretation of texts by m eans of
skills drawn from the verbal arts of grammar, rhetoric and logic. As
W illiam A m es expressed it:
[TJhere is som e knowledge at least of these tongues necessary to
the exact understanding of the Scriptures: for the Scriptures are
76 Thomas W ilson. Theological Rules, to G uide U s in the
Understanding and Practice of Holy Scriptures. Two Centuries:
Drawne Partly Out of Scriptures Them selves: Partly Out of
E cclesiastical Writers Old and New (London, 1615), 2. The author of
this text should not be confused with the Thomas W ilson who wrote The
Arte of Rhetorique (London, 1553).
77 Thomas Hall, Centuria sacra: A bout One Hundred Rules for
Expounding and Clearer Understanding of the Holy Scriptures. In
Vindiciae Literarum. The Schools Guarded: Or. the Excellency and
U sefulnesse of Humane Learning in Subordination to Divinity, and
Preparation for the Ministry (London, 1654), 76.
78 Henry Lukin, An Introduction to the Holy Scripture. Containing the
Several Tropes. Figures. Proprieties of Speech U sed Therein: with
Other Observations Necessary for the Right Understanding Thereof
(London, 1669), 31.
67
understood by the same m eanes that other humane writings are,
many by the skill, and use of Logick, Rethorick, Grammar, and
those tongues in which they are expressed: except in this, that
there is a singular light of the spirit alwayes to bee sought for by
the godly in the Scriptures.79
M ilton’s own list of the humane aids appears in Christian D octrine
1:30:
The requisites are linguistic ability, knowledge of the original
sources, consideration of the overall intent, distinction betw een
literal and figurative language, exam ination of the causes and
circumstances, and of what com es before and after the passage
in question, and comparison of one text with another. (VI:582)
In addition, the m ention of "gifts" is frequent in discussions of
Reform ation preaching and ordination; they are not com m on to
discussions of R enaissance poetics. One of the issues of the
controversies over ordination in the 1650’s was whether gifts alone
qualified a man to preach. M ilton said that they did. John Collinges,
on the other hand, contends in 1651 that
it is Sinfull and unlawfull for any private persons, (how well
gifted soever, the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost being
now ceased) being not solem nly set apart for the work of the
Ministry, in orderly Churches at the publike m eetings of the
Church, and Congregation, to take upon them ordinarily to
preach the G ospell, to interpret Scriptures, to take Texts, open
and apply them, & c.80
But the idea of preacherly gifts is an old idea by the 1650’s. The
Continental Lutheran theorist Hyperius, whom I will discuss in detail
in chapter two, lists various gifts, beyond learning and sanctity of life,
79 W illiam A m es. The Marrow of Sacred Divinity (London. 1642), 171.
80 John Collinges. Vindiciae m inisterii evangelici (London, 1651), 22.
68
which the preacher requires. A ll of them can be listed under "power in
teaching": power (dunam isl. boldness of speech (parrhesial. might
(oxosia). Spirit (pneum oe) and "the dem onstration of the spirit and
power" ( apodeixis pneum atos kai dunam easl.81 John W ilkins (1646)
also discusses preaching as a "gift," and one of technical mastery at
that:
This service of preaching may be considered under a double
notion, as a Duty [and as a] Gift. It is here insisted upon onely
in the second sense, and may be thus described. ’Tis such an
expertnesse and faculty in the right handling and dividing the
word of Truth, as may approve us to be W orkmen that need not
to be ashamed [II Timothy 2:15].82
For M ilton to speak of "poetic gifts" in conjunction with the pulpit,
then, is to further tie his discussion of poetry to that pulpit.
It could be argued M ilton’s virtuous poetic program is merely
another insistence on the ethical utility of poetry, such as that
enunciated in Sir Philip Sidney’s A D efen ce of Poesy (1580?), rather
than a program for appropriating pulpit practice. Sidney does speak of
the sacred poetry of the Bible, and he claims that poetry’s chief ability
is to make virtue desirable. M oreover, he proposes that the true poets
are vates. who "range, only reined with learned discretion, into the
81 Andreas Gerhard Hvperius. Of Framing of Divine Sermons, or
Popular Interpretation of the Scriptures, trans. John Ludham
([London?], 1577), 4ff. The Latin princeps is D e form andis concionibus
sacris. seu de interpretatione scripturarum populari (Marburg, 1553).
82 John Wilkins. Ecclesiastes (London. 1646), 3.
69
divine consideration of what may be and should be" (218).83
Sidney’s discussion of poetry, however, is different from
M ilton’s in several ways. For one thing, Sidney does not discuss poetry
in terms of a heavenly talent. In fact, he discusses poetry far less than
he does poets. These he does not distinguish in terms of how much
they might encourage their auditors to virtuous action, since it is
Sidney’s argument that it is the special aptitude of poets to make
virtue desirable, and that they do so far better than either historians or
philosophers (219-26).
Sidney does distinguish various kinds of poets, but only in terms
of gradations, not in terms of their own obedience to their calling, and
his focus is not the godliest poet. H e lists divine (biblical) poets as
"chief" yet hurries past them and the "philosophical" poets, who write
that which is poetic in form only, and luxuriates on the third, or "right
poet." It is this third poet who produces poetry in recognizable genres,
"heroic, lyric, tragic, comic, satiric, iambic, elegiac, pastoral, and
certain others" (218), genres which M ilton reserved for those poets
who did not abuse their G od-given abilities. It is the vatic poet rather
than the scriptural one for whom Sidney has the most interest and the
most praise.
83 Sir Philip Sidney. A D efen ce of Poesy (1590?). in Sir Philip Sidney:
A Critical Edition of the Major W orks, ed. Katherine Duncan-Jones
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 212-250; 218. For a discussion
of the possible dates of com position of this posthum ously-published
work, see D uncan-Jones’s note at p. 371.
70
This is not to overlook the fact that Sidney is writing a polem ic
of his own in a different era and to a different audience. H e also may
have decorous qualms about naming sacred matters very often in his
text, since when he refers to Scripture, he alm ost apologizes for its
mention: "And may not I presum e a little further, to show the
reasonableness of this word vates. and say that the holy D avid’s Psalms
are a divine poem?" (215) "Certainly, even our Saviour Christ could as
w ell have given the moral com m onplaces or uncharitableness and
hum bleness [in his parables]" (223). For whatever his reasons, Sidney
is taking a far different position on the nature of poetry than M ilton
does later in R eason of Church-Government (16421. Sidney’s
authorities are alm ost all classical, whereas M ilton rejects "Dame
M emory and her Siren Daughters." Sidney celebrates the conventional
poet as vates: M ilton warns that he will be judged by his fruits.
A nother objection which could be raised to my reading of the
digression is the marked presence of C icero’s D e officiis. Not only
does M ilton discuss poetry in terms of C icero’s cardinal virtues, but he
discussed the pulpit as an "office."
"Office," however, is also a technical term in ecclesiology, since
the ministry was commonly referred to as an "office." Calvin, for
example, says in his Institutes (1559) that "in the office of the pastors
also there are these two particular functions: to proclaim the gospel
and to administer the sacraments" (IV .iii.6).84 The Presbyterian Book
84 John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian R eligion (1559). trans. Ford
Lewis Battles, 11:1059.
71
of D iscipline (1560) warns that "None ought to presume to enter into
any office E cclesiastical without . . . good testim ony before God, who
onely knows the hearts of men."85 The Anglican Canons of 1604
expressly used the term "office" in its restriction of the ministry.
Canon 23 provided:
It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of
publique preaching, or ministring the Sacraments in the
congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute
the sam e.86
The London Provincial A ssem bly’s 1654 defense of ordination (partly
written by Smectymnuan Edmund Calamy), listed contem pt for
ecclesiastical office among the m eans of destroying the ministry:
By setting up the basest and m eanest of the people, and such as
have no Arts nor knowledge in the Tongues, to be Preachers,
that thereby they might make the world believe, That the
M inisterial Office is of all others the lowest and the basest.87
One of the preaching texts published in the 1650’s was Officium
concionatoris ("The Duty of Preaching"!. In fact, the m inisterial
positions in I Timothy 3 are rendered "offices" in all of the English
translations of the Bible, as in "If a man desire the office of a bishop,
85 First and Second Booke of D iscipline, as It Was Formerly Set Forth
in Scotland by Publicke A uthoritie. A nno 1560 (London, 1641), 81.
86 Edward Cardwell, Svnodalia 1:98.
87 Provincial Assem bly of London, Jus divinum ministerii evangelici.
Or. The D ivine Right of the Gospel-M inistrv (London, 1654), C3r. See
also Dictionary of N ational Biography, s.v. "Calamy, Edmund, the elder
(1600-1666)."
72
he desireth a good work" (3:1, King Jam es).88
M oreover, D e officiis itself was received in the R enaissance as a
quasi-Christian text, approaching (however rem otely) the Scriptures.
In the preface to his sixteenth-century translation of D e officiis.
N icholas Grimald says that C icero’s ethical treatise contained "the
whole trade how to live among m en discreetly and honestly: and so
rightly poynting out the pathway to all vertue, as none can be righter,
onley Scripture excepted."89 According to Grimald, Erasmus
compared Cicero with a minister: "O Lord, what an equitie, what an
holynesse, what sinceritie, what veritie .... H ow like a divine doth he
teach" (B lr).
In this section, I have shown that M ilton’s digression in R eason
of Church-Government (1642) does not suggest that he is abandoning
the ministry for poetry, but rather that he is turning poetry to account
for the ministry. In his digression, the relation which obtains betw een
poetic gifts and Cavalier poets is one of separation and difference, and
so is the relation betw een the "sacred office of speaking" and what had
been, retrospectively, the Laudian pulpit, since M ilton has published
R eason after Laud and several other bishops are already in prison.
M ilton will neither descend to the greedy im proprieties of the court
88 The Latin Vulgate and the Junius-Trem ellius both have latinized
versions of the original term ep iscop e.
89 Cicero. D e O fficiis. trans. by N icholas Grimald as Marcus Tullius
C icero’s Three B ookes of D uties to Marcus his Sonne ([London], 1583),
A2v.
73
poets, nor enter a pulpit ministry so controlled "that he would take
Orders must subscribe slave." On the other hand, he will not cease
writing poetry just because court poets have abused their gifts, and he
will also continue to think in terms of the pulpit. H e ends the
digression on this note: "Howsoever thus Church-outed by the Prelats,
hence may appear the right I have to m eddle in these matters, as
before, the necessity and constraint appear’d" tCPW 1:823).
But M ilton’s context leaves the meaning of "these matters" open
to debate. If he is referring to the digression only, he could m ean
preaching, Christian poetry, or som e com bination of the two. If he is
placing his remark within the larger context of the tract, he could mean
the writing of prose controversies. It has been noted by Christopher
Grose that M ilton’s autobiographical and vocational com m ents in
R eason of Church-Government (1642) are nowhere as clearly
articulated (and possibly not as clearly understood by their author) as
those in An Apology against a Pam phlet (1642).90
In fact, it is possible that when M ilton talks about poetic gifts
being "of power beside the office of a pulpit," he uses the m ultivalent
90 "Milton had presented him self in the R eason as a m ost reluctant tuba
dom ini: som eone of ’green years’ led by the genial power of nature to
literature and to prose only by divine command, interrupted like the
swain in his occupation of writing and study and speaking ’out of mine
own season’ .... The anonymous A pologist strikes us as altogether a
more impressive character than the John M ilton of two months earlier.
His manner and his retrospections point to a moral and vocation
integrity that is never in question." M ilton and the Sense of Tradition.
68. See also the extended discussions of the two pam phlets in chapters
three and five of Tradition.
74
preposition "beside" to keep his relation with the pulpit under his own
control until he decides what it is. The only other syntactical hint he
provides in the im m ediate context is the similarly multivalent "and"
("These abilities . . . are the inspired guift of God. . . and are of power
beside the office of a pulpit," CPW 1:816). A ll that this syntactical hint
tells us is that M ilton does not insist at this point on any disjunction
betw een poetry and preaching.
M ilton also renders the connection betw een poetic gifts and the
office of a pulpit ambiguous by using an equivocal referent ("this") to
close his discussion of recreative civic pastimes: "Where this may not
be not only in Pulpits, but after another persuasive m ethod, at set and
solem n Paneguries, in Theaters, porches, or what other place, or way
may win most upon the people to receiv[e] at once both recreation &
instruction, let them in autority consult" (CPW 1:819-20). To what
does his "this" refer? In the preceding passage, he has m entioned, in
order of proximity, 1) a wish that wisdom and virtue may be heard
everywhere; 2) a list of possible pastim es for the general public; 3) his
program for the poet. These parallel concerns nevertheless have
different valences, and the agency by which these different aims will be
accom plished is not specified. It may be that M ilton is depending on
his more learned reader to supply this inform ation for himself, but it
could also be that M ilton is keeping the relationship ambiguous. Both
the "poetic gifts" he discusses and the "office of a pulpit" are jji
p oten tia. Their value depends upon their use.
75
N evertheless, when M ilton arrives at the "clearer" statem ent of
the A pology, he is still talking in ministerial terms. W hen, for
instance, he defends his vehem ent tem peram ent in terms of the
division of Christ’s ministry into the leaders of his church, the types of
tem peram ent parallel four of the five types of sermons proposed by the
artes praedicandi: correction, consolation, doctrine, and reproof.
Some of these ministers, M ilton says, are "to be severe and ever of a
sad gravity that they may win such, & check som etim es those who be of
nature over-confident and jocond"; this is correction. Others "were
sent more cheerefull, free, and still as it were at large, in the midst of
an untrespassing honesty . . . that . . . they who are too scrupulous, and
dejected of spirit might be often strengthen’d with wise consolations
and revivings"; this is consolation. "Some also were indu’d with a staid
m oderation and soundnesse of argument to teach and convince the
sober-minded"; this is doctrine. M ilton also includes a discussion of
reproof:
In times of opposition when either against new heresies arising,
or old corruptions to be reform ’d this coole unpassionate
m ildnesse of positive w isdom e is not anough . . . then Z eale
whose substance is ethereal, arming in com pleat diamond
ascends his fiery Chariot drawn with two blazing M eteors figur’d
like beasts . . . shaking loosely the slack reins drives over the
heads of Scarlet Prelats, and such as are insolent to m aintaine
traditions. (C P W I:900)91
91 M ilton’s list of preacherly tem peram ents does not include
instruction, but he may be including instruction with doctrine, as
opposed to "uses."
76
Characteristically, M ilton’s "Zeale," a sudden and vehem ent
proposopopeia in the midst of ministerial duties, dem onstrates his
love of the transcendent and the vatic. But he also raises the passions
at the same time that a good preacher would: when he came to the
"application" of his sermon. M ilton did not abandon the ministry.
Prohibited from the "sacred office of speaking," he embarked upon
what he had form ulated as the sacred office of writing instead.
In the follow ing chapter, I will discuss the ars praedicandi of
M ilton’s time and show how it was driven by a Protestant
understanding of religion. I will also show how the preaching m odel
which resulted from the intersection of a revived classical rhetoric
with the bibliocentrism of the R eform ation subordinated the classical
m odel to the scriptural. Finally, I will show how M ilton’s
understanding of preaching parallels that of his Cambridge tutor
W illiam Chappell.
77
Chapter Two: M ilton in the Context of
Reform ation A rtes Praedicandi
M ilton organizes two of his prose works in terms of a dichotomy,
the first m ember of which is always "faith" or doctrine and the second,
"practice" or behavior. In R eason of Church-Government (1642), he
uses Book I to claim that correct church polity is taught in the Scripture
as doctrine, while in Book II he urges that the established Church of
England has becom e too worldly in its practice. In similar fashion, he
uses this dichotomy to organize Christian D octrine, his com pendium of
theology. H e treats all doctrinal issues in the first book: the nature of
God, the "administration of redemption," and so forth. In the second
book, he treats all the practical issues of the Christian life, such as good
works, virtues, and duties toward on e’s neighbor.
This division of religion into "faith and practice"— that is, into
creed and action, into belief and perform ance, or, as M ilton liked to put
it, into "doctrine and discipline"— is a fundam ental concept of the
English R eform ation, an outgrowth of the solifidianism and
bibliocentrism of Luther and other reformers. The concept of faith
before works underlies discussions of religion in R eform ation England,
and the various synonyms for faith and practice run like warp and woof
through the fabric of English religious literature, including the work of
78
M ilton. H e even enunciates this dichotomy in one of his title, The
Doctrine and D iscipline of Divorce (1643).
This division of religion into the elem ents of faith and practice
also profoundly affects the preaching manuals popular in R enaissance
England, and particularly the all-im portant manual of Andreas
Hyperius of Marburg, D e formandis concionibus sacris. This ars
praedicandi was published in 1553, translated into English in 1577, and
universally replicated in later English artes praedicandi. It was
Hyperius who provided the rhetorical rationale from which W illiam
Perkins, Richard Bernard, and others constructed the Puritan sermon of
doctrines and uses, but the popularity of Hyperius was by no means
lim ited to the Puritans. His discussions and innovations were also
adopted by such Anglican loyalists as Matthew Sutcliff and John
Wilkins.
In this chapter I will first dem onstrate the R eform ation division
of religion into faith and practice, then show how that division is
encoded in the preaching manual of Andreas Hyperius, a manual with
far-reaching consequences for English hom iletics. I will then locate
M ilton within this larger context, showing how his discussion of the
pulpit parallels a preaching manual written by his tutor W illiam
Chappell.
79
I. Faith and Practice: The R eform ation Dichotom y
"What evangelic religion is," John M ilton says in 1659, "is told in
two words, faith and charitie; or b eleef and practise."1 The division of
religion into doctrinal and practical issues is a fundam ental concept of
the English R eform ation.
Although numerous phrases are em ployed by M ilton and his
contem poraries to express this dichotomy, these expressions all refer to
the same central Protestant understanding about the ordering of truth
and experience. The terms vary, but they all refer to the same concept.
In fact, the concept itself is derived from variously worded Scriptural
statem ents, all of which are interpreted as referring to the same truth.
M ilton him self discusses both the concept and its derivation in
the opening chapter of Christian D octrin e. First, he identifies the
dichotomy: "The parts of Christian doctrine are two: faith, or
knowledge of God, and love, or the worship of God" (CPW 6:128).2 He
then provides eight different Scriptural references to prove that he is
1 A Treatise of Civil Power (1659), CPW 7:255.
2 See also Jean W olleb. The A bridgem ent of Christian Divinity
(London, 1650), "Praecognita" p. 11: "The parts of Divinity are two:
The first is of the knowledge of God; the second, of the worship of God.
The first containeth faith, or the things to be b eliev’d; the second,
works, or the things to be performed." The system atic divinity of the
Continental theologian Jean W olleb or W ollebius is one of M ilton’s two
m odels for his Christian D octrin e. The other m odel is W illiam A m es’s
M edulla ss. theologiae (London, 1629), translated into English as The
Marrow of Sacred Divinity (London, 1642).
80
follow ing the Biblical m odel by discussing religion as "faith and
practice." Each of these passages use different but parallel terms for
what he interprets as the same dichotomy of faith and practice:
Gen. 17.1: walk in sight of me and be p erfect:
Psal. 37.3: have faith in God, and do go od :
Luke 11.28: blessed are those who hear and ob ey:
A cts 24.14; I. as one who b eliev es, and 24.16: I train m yself:
II Tim. 1.13: hold fast the pattern of words with faith and love.
which is in Christ Jesus:
I Tim. 1.19: keeping faith and a good con scien ce:
Titus 3.8: that those who have believed may be eager:
I John 3.23: that we should believe and love.
(CPW V I:128-29)3
Similarly, seventeenth-century English writers use a variety of terms to
encode this fundam ental dichotomy. For instance, Richard A llestree
calls it "saving Faith and Manners." (150).4 G eorge H erbert calls it
"doctrine and life" in "The Windows":
D octrine and life, colours and light, in one
W hen they com bine and m ingle, bring
A strong regard and aw: but speech alone
D oth vanish like a flaring thing,
And in the eare, not conscience ring
(11-15).5
3 W illiam A m es’s Marrow of Sacred Divinity (London. 1642) includes
all of these references except for Luke 11:28 and I John 3.23 (pp. 3-4).
See also M edulla (London, 1629), 4.
4 Richard A llestree. The Lively Oracles Given to U s. Or. The
Christians Birth-right and Duty, in the Custody and U se of the Holy
Scripture (Oxford, 1679), 150.
5 Text: The Works of G eorge H erbert, ed. F.E. H utchinson (Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1941), 68.
81
Robert M ossom in Sion’s Prospect includes three different form ulas of
the faith-practice dichotomy on one page, referring to it variously as
"judgment and conversation," "faith [and] manners," and "mind and
manners."6
Sir Thom as Browne’s R eligio M edici (1642) deals with "faith" in
the first book, and in the second with "that other Vertue of Charity,
without which Faith is a m eer notion."7 Browne’s R eligio belongs to
the same genre of Reform ation theology as M ilton’s Christian
D octrine, with the difference that Browne presents him self a layman
who is com fortable with receiving scriptural exegesis which has already
been perform ed by the clergy and who is therefore free to muse on the
philosophical im plications of such systems of divinity. M ilton, on the
other hand, takes the m inisterial stance of doing his own exegesis and
gathering his own proof texts.
Both M ilton and Browne, however, follow the same general
principle of organization. Systems of R eform ation theology were
usually structured according to a bipartite division betw een doctrine
and practice. The second book of such com pendia usually follow ed the
organization of the Ten Commandments. For instance, the second
6 R obert M ossom . Sion’s Prospect in Its First View. Presented in a
Summary of D ivine Truths (London, 1651), 7.
7 Sir Thomas Browne, The Major W orks, ed. C.A. Patrides (London:
Penguin, 1977), 133. I list the publication date as 1642 although the
princeps was unauthorized. Browne brought out an authorized version
in 1643 (p. 57).
82
book of W olleb’s The Abridgem ent of Christian Divinitie (London,
1650) discusses each of the com m andm ents in order. Som etim es the
second book of such a theological system was divided into duties to
God (the "first table" of the D ecalogu e) and then duties to man (the
"second table"). One example of this division is A m es’s The Marrow of
Sacred Divinity (London, 1642), the second book of which first
discusses "observance toward God," and then "justice and charity
toward our neighbor." Even Browne in his serene musings alludes to
this underlaying structure when he refers to the "narrow way" by which
divinity has codified the many acts of charity (137). In all these
system s--M ilton’s, Brow ne’s, A m es’s, and W olleb’s--the practical
section is perhaps half as long as the doctrinal section.
The terms for the dichotomy betw een doctrine and behavior
differed, but the order was always the same: belief before practice,
faith before charity, doctrine before discipline. The emphasis placed
on either may have varied with affiliation, but the ordering was
insisted upon as representing larger truths about religion. W hen
Thomas Fuller, for instance, argues that heresy is a danger even worse
than schism, he explains that heresy is a sin against faith, w hile schism
is but a sin against charity, for "though those two Graces be sisters and
twins, yet Faith is the eldest and choycest."8
8 Thomas Fuller. Joseph’s Party-Coloured Coat. Containing a C om
ment on Part of the II. Chapter of the I. Epistles of S. Paul to the
Corinthians (1640), in The C ollected Sermons of Thom as Fuller. P .P .
1631-1659. ed. John Eglington Bailey and W illiam E.A. Axon, 2 vols.
(London, 1891), 1:118.
83
This insistence that belief precedes practice is rooted in the
solifidianism of Martin Luther and the early reformers. It is
exem plified in Luther’s revolutionary reading of such verses as
Rom ans 3.28, "A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
The turning point for Luther, based on his own words, was his sudden
understanding of Rom ans 1.17, "The just shall live by his faith."9 In
other words, one cannot achieve salvation by good works (practice),
but only by faith (belief). Luther’s solifidianism marks a radical break
with the theology of preceding centuries, in which faith was either a
m ental acceptance of essential articles which the church taught about
God, or just the first step toward a salvation which was "perfected" by
works. For the reformers, faith is itself the source of righteousness.
For the R om an Catholics, then and now, faith is not sufficient for
salvation unless it is perfected by charity.10
9 Martin Luther, Tischreden 11.1681 and III.3232A, B and C in
D. Martin Luthers W erke. 61 vols. (Weimar: Herm ann Bohlau, 1883-
1983), hereafter cited as W A . Robert H erndon Fife discounts the his
toricity of these later rem iniscences, stressing instead the gradual
developm ent of Luther’s thought. Fife, however, also notes that Luther
preaches on this text in his Sermon on St. A ndrew ’s Day, Novem ber 30,
1516 (W A 1:10Iff). Robert H erndon Fife, The R evolt of Martin Luther
(1957; New York: Colum bia University Press, 1968), 197-98, 233 nn. 53-
54. For an extended discussion of Luther’s understanding of faith, see
Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Schultz
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 43-63.
10 "Faith." W illiam E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, A Catholic D iction
ary. Containing Some Account of the D octrine. D iscipline. Rites.
C erem onies. Councils, and R eligious Orders of the Catholic Church.
4th edn. (N ew York, 1884), 337. This entry also directs the reader to the
decision of the Council of Trent on the subject: Concil. Trident. D e
Justific. sess. v i.
84
This is not to say that Catholic writers ignored the issue of faith,
once it had been raised by Luther, but rather that they refused to
discuss it apart from works. G iovanni Bona (1609-1674), an exact
contemporary of M ilton, insists on the importance of "works" at the
same time that he places "faith" in the primary position:
Faith is the Basis of all other Virtues, and the foundation of
Christian Life; without which, no man can please God. This is
the w isdom e that has subdued the World, to which, we are firmly
to adhear, without any unnecessary Curiosity, or disquisition.
But we are to do, as w ell as believe; for Faith, without works is
dead.11
Similarly, the Jesuit N icolas Caussin places "faith" first but stresses the
im portance of "charity":
Faith is. . .the first-born of virtues, the beginning of spiritual
life, the life of the understanding, as charity is the life of the
will, the pillar of the cloud which hath two faces, the one dark,
because it believeth the things which are not apparent, the other
lightsom, for that it believeth with an infallible assurance.12
The Augsburg Confession, written in 1530 by Philip M elanchthon,
hints that no such Catholic statem ents about faith would have been
made had it not been for Lutheran preaching: "Henceforth do these
11 Giovanni Bona, M anuductio ad coelum: or. A G uide to Eternity:
Extracted out of the Writings of the Holy Fathers and A ntient
Philosophy (London. 1672), 160. This work was very popular in
seventeenth-century England. Wing lists eight editions under various
titles (W ing nos. B-3545 through B-3552).
12 N icholas Caussin. The Holy Court. Trans. Sir T.H. & Others
(L o n d o n ,1650)62.
85
begin to make m ention of faith, of which for long since there was
astonishing silence."13
A t first glance, it seem s as though both the reformer and the
Catholic are saying the same thing. Both are saying that faith precedes
works. The difference is that the Catholic sees works as a means of
salvation, while the reform er sees works as a result of salvation. Thus,
according to Catholic theology, a saint by his good works can lay up
"excess merit" which can be assigned by the Church to another
Catholic; this is the theory behind papal indulgences. According to the
R eform ation, however, a fallen human being can do no good works
whatsoever until he has been regenerated, after which that person
does good works because he or she has been refashioned to do them.
One of the reform ers’ favorite Scriptural passages states this doctrine
succinctly:
For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of
yourselves: it is the gift of God: N ot of works, lest any man
should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ
Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we
should walk in them (Ephesians 2.8-10).14
13 Article XX: " Praeterea incipiunt fidei m encionem facere. de qua
olim mirum erat silentium ." Philip M elanchthon. C onfessio fidei exhib-
ita invictiss. Imp. Carol v. Caesari Aug. in Com iciis A ugustae (W itten
berg, 1530), B4r. For further comparisons of Catholic and Protestant
discussions of faith, see numerous passages in Jaroslav Pelikan,
R eform ation of Church and D ogm a (1300-1700). vol. 4 of The Christian
Tradition: A History of the D evelopm ent of D octrine (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1984).
14 For this passage, see for instance the Scots C onfession of 1560:
"[T]he cause of gude workis we confes to be nocht our fre wyll, bot the
spirite of thee lorde Jesus (Joan 15.1-8), quhoo, dweling in our hartis be
trew faith, bryngis furth sic gude workis, as G od hes preparit for us to
walk into (Ephe. 2.10)." Bekenntnisschriften und Kirchenordnungen
86
The solifidianism of Luther and other reformers would have
been im possible without a concom itant biblicism .15 Sola fide required
sola scriptura to sweep away what the reformers saw as the
m eretricious accretions of human tradition which obscured and
vitiated the m essage of salvation by faith. M ilton will be operating in
this tradition when he decries the "human inventions" of episcopal
church governm ent and ceremony, saying:
instead of shewing the reason of their lowly condition from
divine example and command, they seek to prove their high pre
em inence from humane consent and autority. But let them
chaunt while they will of prerogatives, we shall tell them of
Scripture; of custom, we of Scripture; of A cts and Statutes, stil
of Scripture, til the quick and pearcing word enter to the
dividing of their soules, and the mighty weaknes of the G ospel
throw down the w eak m ightines of mans reasoning. (CPW 1:827)
In response to the claim of reformers that the Scriptures were
the unique, sufficient and authoritative word of God, their Catholic
opponents eventually claim ed at the Council of Trent that the Latin
Vulgate was the authoritative version of the Bible, without actually
rejecting the originals in H ebrew and G reek scriptures, although this
is in practice what the decision m eant.16 Practice was relegated by the
nach G ottes Wort reform ierten K irche. ed. W ilhelm N iesel (Z ollikon-
Ziirich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1938), 94.
15 "We cannot discuss Luther’s understanding of faith without referring
to G od ’s word. Each is closely connected with the other. We cannot
therefore discuss Luther’s understanding of the word of God without
referring to faith." Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther. 43.
16 For a discussion of the m ariological and sacramental doctrines
upheld by the Vulgate but not the original scriptures, see Jaroslav
Pelikan. R eform ation of Church and D ogm a (1300-1700). 306-310. For
further discussions of the philological concerns of R enaissance
humanists in scriptural translation, see Jerry H. Bentley, H um anists and
87
reformers to the secondary or derivative role which they saw it take in
Scripture. The Augsburg C onfession (1530) insists that faith must
issue in good works ("fides ilia debeat bonos fructus parere"! but that
we cannot claim to be justified before God because of them ("non ut
confideam us per ea opera justificationem coram D eo m ereri."17
Similarly Calvin lists "the duties of piety toward God, of charity toward
men, and. . .holiness and purity" as the fruits of repentance, not
repentance itself (Inst. Ill.iii. 16.).18
A nother prime example of the R eform ation distinction between
faith and practice is in Luther’s commentary on G alatians 2:6, "Those
who were of repute added nothing to me." This is one of the places in
the New Testam ent where the new-com er defends his apostleship by
claiming that the other apostles found him to be as w ell instructed as
they were. St. Paul does not him self contrast faith and practice at this
point, but in his gloss on the verse, Luther says that it is inappropriate
to be humble in matters of doctrine.19 This is because doctrine is a
Holy Writ: New T estam ent Scholarship in the R enaissance (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1983).
17 Article VI. Philip M elanchthon. C onfessio fid ei. (W ittenberg, 1530),
A8r.
18 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian R eligion (1559), trans. Ford
Lewis Battles, 1:609.
19 Martin Luther, Luther’s W orks, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan and H elm ut T.
Lehmann, 55 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1955), 26:98-100,
hereafter cited as LW. See also W A 40:179-82. The English Puritan
W illiam Perkins makes a similar distinction for the G alatians passage.
H e explains in 1604 that St. Paul’s "they com m unicated nothing to me"
means that the other apostles could teach him nothing "in respect of
doctrine or judgment," not that they could not give him som e comfort or
exhort perseverance. Such nondoctrinal blessings, says Perkins, can be
88
m atter of faith, not of charity. Luther not only em phasized the
sufficiency of faith without works for salvation, but he made a point of
refusing to discuss behavior in his controversies with other
theologians. A s he wrote to Jerom e Emser:
I do not deal with [som eon e’s] life, I deal with his teaching. An
evil life is most harmful to itself. But evil teaching is the
greatest evil on earth, and it leads souls to hell in large numbers.
I do not care whether you are godly or evil. I shall attack your
poisonous and deceitful teaching, which opposes G od ’s word,
and, with G od’s help, I shall counter it w ell.20
The R eform ation insistence that faith precedes works is also encoded
in the creedal statem ents of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
For instance, the La R ochelle C onfession of 1559 states: "It is by faith
that we receive the grace to live holy lives."21 Many of the Calvinist
confessions discuss the dichotomy of faith and practice when they
discuss the sufficiency of Scripture. For example the Scots C onfession
of 1560 says: "[W]e beleve and confesse the Scripture of God
conferred by "the m eanest believers." W illiam Perkins, A Com m entarie
or Exposition upon the Five First Chapters of the Epistle to the
Galatians . . . Now Published for the B enefite of the Church, and C on
tinued with a Supplem ent upon the Sixth Chapter, by R odolphe Cud-
worth. Bachelor of D ivinitie (1604, 1612), in Works (London and Cam
bridge, 1612-13), 11:194.
20 Martin Luther. Concerning the Answ er of the Goat in Leipzig (1521).
LW 39:130.
21 "Or nous recevons par fov la grace de vivre sainctem ent." La
R ochelle C onfession, A rticle 22. Bekenntnisschriften und Kir-
chenordnungen. ed. W ilhelm N iesel, 71.
89
sufficient to instruct and mak the man of God perfect."22 The Second
H elvetic C onfession of 1566 has similar language: "[I]n this Holy
Scripture, the universal Church of Christ has the m ost com plete
exposition of all that pertains to a saving faith, and also to the framing
of a life acceptable to God."23 The later W estm inster C onfession of
Faith (1648) insists that the Scriptures contain "the whole counsell of
G od, concerning all things necessary for his own Glory, m an’s
Salvation, Faith, and Life" (I.vi).24
The Thirty-Nine A rticles of the A nglican Church (1562) also
discuss the dichotomy and Scripture together, although its statem ent is
less direct: "As for the other [apocryphal] bookes (as Jerom sayeth)
the Churche doth reade for example, and for good instruction of
lyving: But yet doth it not applie them to establish any doctrine."25 In
this creedal statem ent the terms are inverted only in space, for
doctrine still receives priority over behavior. Such inversions can be
used to stress the necessity of works while still giving the primacy to
22 Bekenntnisschriften und K irchenordnungen. ed. W ilhelm N iesel,
104.
23 " Et in hac scriptura sancta habet universalis Christi ecclesia plenis-
sime exposita. quaecum que pertinent cum ad salvificam fidem . turn ad
vitam D eo placentem . recte inform andam ." Bekenntnisschriften und
K irchenordnungen. ed. W ilhelm N iesel, 223.
24 The C onfession of Faith, and the Larger and Shorter Catechism
(London, 1651), 6.
25 Edward Cardwell, Svnodalia 1:57. See also Charles Hardwick,
A History of the A rticles of R eligion: To Which Is A dded A Series of
Docum ents, from A .D . 1536 to A .D . 1615: Together With Illustrations
from Contemporary Sources (London, 1888).
90
faith, as in the apothegm in Richard Bernard’s The Faithful Shepheard
(1607): "A godly life is a Seale to sound doctrine" (p. 93). Richard
H ooker insists on the priority of faith over practice:
Because therefore want of the knowledg of God is the cause of
all iniquitie amongst men, as contrariwise the verie ground of all
our happines and the seed of whatsoever perfect vertue groweth
from us is a right opinion touchinge thinges divine, this kinde of
knowledg we maie justlie set downe for the first and chiefest
thinge which God im parteth unto his people, and our dutie of
receivinge this at his m ercifull handes for the first of those
religious offices wherewith we publiquelie honor him on earth
(V.xviii).26
In spite of the differences in phrasing betw een the exact Calvinist
statem ents cited above and the more diffuse phrasing of the Anglican
article, both groups placed faith before practice, although the
difference betw een the two forms of Protestantism would also be
reflected in degrees to which various English reformers would take
biblical absolutism .
Calvinism was marked from its outset by "creedal formulae" and
"systematic exposition of doctrine."27 The Thirty-Nine Articles, on the
other hand, had their origin almost entirely in the Augsburg
Confession (1530), M elanchthon’s early apology for Lutheran theology
which was presented to the H oly R om an Emperor Charles V. The
26 Richard H ooker. Of the Laws of E cclesiastical Polity (1593. 1597),
Ed. W. Speed H ill, 11.65.
27 Erwin Iserloh, "Denominations in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Centuries," in R eform ation and Counter R eform ation, eds. Erwin Iser
loh, Joseph G lazik and Hubert Jeden, vol. 5. of History of the Church
[trans. of R eform ation. K atholische R eform und G egenreform ation.
vol. 4 of Handbuch der K irchengeschichte. 2nd edn. (Freiburg, 1967)]
(New York: Seabury Press, 1980), 425.
91
creedal statem ents of these two systems reflect their different
relations to the prudential concerns of time, place and persons. The
Augsburg C onfession is linked to its occasion, which is the defense of
the new Lutheran theology before a potential political ally, and it is an
apology of this new theology against specific charges brought by its
opponents. The Calvinist creeds, on the other hand, are absolute
dogmatic statem ents made without reference to time, place or persons,
and recognizing no authority other than God, the Scriptures, and the
particular church com posing the statem ent.
This distinction is an important one for English church history
because the earliest impress of Protestantism in England was
Lutheran, follow ing the covert im portation of Lutheran texts in 1520
or earlier.28 This early Lutheran influence died out only after most of
the permanent ecclesiastical reforms in liturgy and organization had
been m ade.29 Thus, even though the next generation of English
divines were alm ost entirely Calvinist in doctrine, the government of
the church retained much of its ancient structure, reflecting Lutheran
conservatism instead of Calvinist reform. By and large, the English
refused to abandon the original hierarchy of bishop, priest and deacon
28 A .G . Dickens. The English R eform ation. 68.
29 See Charles Hardwick, A History of the A rticles of R eligion , for the
relation betw een the Thirty-Nine A rticles and the Augsburg Confession
(pp. 13-30). For a m ore recent discussion and review of literature
regarding this relation, see Basil H all, "The Early R ise and Gradual
D eclin e of Lutheranism in England (1520-1600)," in R eform and
Reform ation: England and the Continent c. 1500 - c. 1750. Studies in
Church History: Subsidia, no. 2, 103-131 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1979).
92
in favor of the parity of ministers which marked Calvinist polity. On
the other hand, the increasingly Calvinist cast of the English clergy
meant that many of them were unhappy with what they saw as remnants
of "popery" in the church. This dissatisfaction erupted in its most
violent form in the 1640’s.
The distinction betw een Lutheranism and Calvinism in England
is also important to my discussion of preaching because it determ ined
to som e extent w hether a preacher would lean toward the absolute
biblicist position of Calvin or toward the more prudential exegesis
favored by M elanchthon. A s I will suggest in the follow ing section, the
M elanchthonian tradition had som e survival in English preaching
manuals, although it was largely overwhelm ed by the greater biblicism
of Andreas Gerhard Hyperius.
In this section I have shown that the reformers thought of
religion as a com bination of first faith and then practice, and that this
assumption surfaced in such various verbal pairs as "faith and
practice," "doctrine and discipline," and "faith and charity." The
reformers based this assum ption about the nature of religion on what
they found in the Scriptures apart from tradition; their solifidianism
was made possible by their biblicism . In the follow ing section I will
show how this solifidianism and biblicism produced a new type of ars
praedicandi in England.
II: Hyperius and Protestant Sermon Manuals
93
A ndreas Gerardus Hyperius (1511-64), a Flem ish Lutheran
scholar transplanted to Marburg by the fortunes of the R eform ation,
published his influential D e formandis concionibus sacris in 1553. It
was translated into English in 1577 by John Ludham, under the title Of
Framing of D ivine Sermons, or Popular Interpretation of the
Scriptures.30 A lthough relatively unknown today, this preaching
manual was to exert such a profound influence on English hom iletics
that its im portance can hardly be overstated. It was a com prehensive,
bihlicist ars praedicandi which at once both cogently restated and also
extended R eform ation preaching theory.
Hyperius articulated into a single, coherent text the various
R eform ation instincts about hom iletics. H e also proposed the five
sermon types which were to be universally replicated ever after in
English R eform ation artes praedicandi. Yngve Brilioth names
Hyperius as "the first proper theoretician of the evangelical sermon."31
The im portance of Hyperius to English hom iletics is reflected
not only in the extent to which his work was appropriated by English
30 The STC lists the English translation of his manual as The Practis of
Preaching. No. 11758, s.v. A. Gerardus. I examined the variant copy
belonging to the Henry E. H untington Library, STC 11758.5, accession
number 20932. For the Latin, I exam ined a m icrofiche of the 1652 M ar
burg edition belonging to the Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, M is
souri. H yperius’s given name was A ndreas Gerhard. Since he was
originally from Ypres, he becam e known as Hyperius.
31 Yngve Brilioth, A Brief History of Preaching, trans. Karl E. M attson,
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965), 125.
94
sermon theorists but also in the explicit hom age paid to him. His
preaching text, translated by John Ludham, included the text of a
laudatory and informative oration delivered at H yperius’s funeral by his
H essian nephew, Wygand Orth (Wygandus Orthius), an oration which
furnishes most of our knowledge of H yperius’s life.31 From Orth, for
instance, we learn that Hyperius spent several years in England (ca.
1537-41), where he sought and received the patronage of Charles
Blount, the son of Erasm us’s fam ous patron W illiam Blount (O ration.
b4). Orth is not the only writer to consider Hyperius a major figure.
Thomas Fuller considered Hyperius important enough to include an
account of his life in A b el Redevivus (1 6 5 1).32 N icholas Becket,
translating an earlier and less rigorous preaching manual,
acknowledges the im portance of H yperius’s, listing it first among "many
excellent works of this argument, Hyperius, Erasmus, Hem m ingius,
Daneus, and our good countreyman M aister Perkins."33 M ilton may
31 An Oration, as Touching the Life and D eath of the Fam ous and W or
thy Man D. Andrewe Hyperius. Penned and Pronounced in a Solem ne
A ssem blie of A ll the States of the Citie of Marpurge. by Wygandus
Orthius: And D on e Into English by John Ludham (15771. Orth (1537-
66) was not only H yperius’s nephew but also his co-worker in som e m in
isterial capacity. H e only survived his uncle by two years; I have found
no other extant writing by him.
32 Thomas Fuller. A b el Redevivus: or the D ead Y et Speaking. The
Lives and D eath of the M odern D ivines (1651), ed. W illiam N ichols, 2
vols. (London, 1867), 11:261-271.
33 Preface, Pierre Gerard, A Preparation to the M ost H olie M inistrie.
trans. N icholas B ecket (London, 1598), A3r. Pp. 184-247 of this text
concern "what is to be observed in making of sermons."
95
have known the ars praedicandi of Hyperius. Ludham ’s translation was
dedicated to Andrew N ow ell, one-tim e dean of St. Paul’s School,
M ilton’s alma mater.34
W e lack exact figures for the number of H yperius’s numerous
C ontinental publications which made it to England, but his popularity
in general might be reconstructed by the number of his English
translations and translators. John Ludham also produced The Course
of Christianity (1579), which was a guide to daily Scripture reading and
m editation, and A Special Treatise of G od ’s Providence (1588?, repr.
1602), which may have been written by another hand but was attributed
to Hyperius at the tim e.35 One "J.H." translated The Foundation of
Christian R eligion. U sed in the Primitive Church: Expounded in
34 In our time, Hyperius has received som e recognition. Frederick B.
Tromly, in his study of the E lizabethan controversy over funeral
sermons which supposedly contained vestiges of paganism and
Catholicism , has recognized the im portance of H yperius’s text to the
reform ed preaching tradition. "’According to Sounde R eligion ’: The
Elizabethan Controversy over the Funeral Sermon." Journal of
M edieval and R enaissance Studies 13 (1983): 293-312. Barbara K.
Lew alski’s discussion of Hyperius is likewise restricted to his treatm ent
of the funeral sermon, but she also remarks on his importance: "The
most com plete statem ent of the Protestant theory of the funeral sermon
and the best explanation of the Protestant m odel for this genre are to be
found in A ndreas H yperius’ . . . The Practis of Preaching." D o n n e ’s
"Anniversaries" and the Poetry of Praise (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1973), 180.
35 The Course of Christianity (STC 11755) is the English version of D e
sacrae scripturae lectione ac m editatione quotidiana (B asel, 1653);
according to the STC, A Special T reatise (STC 11760) is often
attributed entirely to P. Baro, who certainly authored the "Certaine
Sermons and Questions" which is appended.
96
Catechizing (1583). H. Tripp translated an early work as The R egim ent
of Poverty (1572).36 Thom as Newton was responsible for the Englishing
of The True Trvall and Exam ination of a M an’s Owne Selfe (1586, repr.
1587, 1602L and R. Vaux for Two Comm on Places Taken Out of
Andreas Hyperius (1581), one on cosm ology and the other on "whether
the devils have b een shewers of magical arts."37 The works translated
into English, including his preaching text, are directed to or concern a
popular audience; his more recondite philosophical and theological
works are in Latin, including m ethods for studying divinity, Bible
com m entaries, and annotations on A ristotle’s N ichom achean E thics.
Two Latin editions of his commentary on Rom ans, the text of the Bible
most esteem ed by him, appeared in London in 1577 and 1583.38
Hyperius eventually prepared com m entaries on all of the Pauline
epistles, at least one addition of which was published in Zurich in 1584.
B esides his theological output, Hyperius wrote widely on other
topics. Henry M iddleton printed his com pendium on A ristotle’s Physics
in 1583.39 Thom as Fuller indicates a similar breadth of publication;
36 Latin original: Andreas Hyperius. Form a subvientionis pauperum
(Antwerp, 1531).
37 The True Trvall (STC 11761.3, 11761.5 and 11761.7) and Two C om
m onplaces (STC 11762) may be works from one of his collections;
38 In D. Pauli ad R om anos epistolam exegem a. STC 11757 (1577) and
11757.5 (1583). A ccording to the British Library, the printer was in
London. BM 1011.C.20, s.v. "Gerardus, (A ndreas) Hyperius."
39 STC 758. The British Library also reports an addition of the Physics
for 1585, BM 520.a.31.(1.), s.v. "Gerardus, (A ndreas) Hyperius."
97
besides various separate publications, there were two volum es which
included "On the Institution of Colleges," "A Trial of Students," and
discussions of physics, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry,
cosm ographie, optics, and astronomy. According to Fuller, most of
H yperius’s Bible com m entaries were published posthumously: Isaiah,
G alatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy,
Titus, Philem on, Jude and H ebrews.40
Hyperius is also w ell represented in major works of biography
produced in his native Belgium . The eighteenth-century biographer
Jean-Frangois Foppen (1789) reports that besides his titles on divinity
(all placed on the Index), Hyperius wrote on rhetoric, dialectic, physics
and cosmography.41 According to the twentieth-century Belgian
biographer Eugene de Seyn, H yperius’s R hetorica appeared in Zurich
in 1566, and his D ialectica was published the same year in an
unspecified place; an anthology of 14 shorter works appeared in Basel
in 1570.42
40 Thom as Fuller, A b el Redevivus (London, 1651), ed. W illiam
N ichols, 11:270.
41 Jean-Francois Foppen. B ibliotheca B elgica sive virorum in Belgio
vita, scritisque illustrmm catalogus librorumque nom enclatura con-
tinens scriptores a clariss. viris. 2 vols (Brussels, 1789), 11:53.
42 A ndreae Hvperii varia opuscula theologica in totius christianae
reipublicae utilitatem conscripta nuncque primum in lucem ed ita. D e
Seyn also reports that a more extensive bibliography is available from
"Paquot," probably Jean-N oel Paquot (1722-1803), w hose major work
was M em oires pour servir a l’histoire litteraire des 17 provinces des
Pavs-bas (Louvain, 1763-70), available in either 18 vols. 8° or 3 vols.
folio. D e Seyn quotes Paquot on Hyperius as follows: "His writings
dem onstrate that he worked extremely hard, that he had read much, and
that he lacked neither judgm ent nor penetration." ("Ses ecrits montrent
98
This, then, was an important author, and one who was well-
received in England. In fact, Hyperius seem s to have been more
popular in England than in the Germany where he labored for over
twenty years, at least in terms of hom iletics. H is preaching text was not
translated into German until this century.43 His relative lack of
standing in Germany may have been due to the powerful and enduring
presence of M elanchthon, w hose m ethodology and writing was more
explicitly rhetorical than the biblicist Hyperius, as I shall discuss further
below.
Hyperius organizes his preaching manual into two books. In the
first, he provides a short overview of his preaching system. H e begins by
differentiating "popular" preaching, intended for the com m on capacity,
from the heavily logical preaching of the universities. H e then treats of
the contents and ends of sermons and their various types (doctrine,
reproof, instruction, correction, consolation), and also how to extract
simple or com plex sermon them es from a given passage of scripture. He
concludes the first book with one chapter each on am plification and
moving the passions. In the much longer second book, Hyperius treats
each of the serm on types in turn, showing how a single passage of
. . .qu’il etait extrem em ent laborieux. qu’il avait beaucoup lu. et qu’il ne
manquait ni de judgem ent, ni de penetration.)
43 D ie H om iletik und die K atechetik. verdeutscht und mit Einleitung
versehen von E. Chr. A chelis [H om iletik] und Eugen Sachese
[Katechetik] (Berlin, 1901).
99
scripture can serve the various uses of doctrine, reproof, instruction,
correction and consolation. H e also considers a "mixed" type of sermon,
in which two or more of the serm on types may be com bined.
By the time Hyperius wrote his manual, the larger theoretical
form ulation of R eform ation preaching theory was already in place.
Reform ers already assumed that preaching was the most important
activity of the clergy. They also insisted that preaching meant scriptural
exegesis, that is, the explanation and proclam ation of the Word of God
itself. In addition, they asserted that the Scriptures were not merely a
source of theological matter, but were also them selves a m odel for
preaching. Furthermore, as I have shown above, these R eform ation
writers made a sharp distinction betw een faith and practice. "Faith"
includes the teaching of dogm atic truth and the refutation of error.
"Practice" addresses proper Christian behavior and church discipline.
R eform ation preaching theorists also em ployed, as did
R enaissance preachers in general, a revived classical rhetoric, and
especially the form oration.44 The sermon was no longer arranged
44 Yngve Brilioth claims that Hyperius originated not only the five
types of sermon application, but also the basic schem e of sermon divi
sion: reading of the text, invocation, introduction (exordium ),
announcem ent of the subject and divisions (propositio sive divisio).
treatm ent of the subject (confirm ation, argum entation (confutation, and
conclusion (conclu sion. Yngve Brilioth. A Brief History of Preaching.
125. This adaption of the classical oration, however, was already in
place by H yperius’s time. It varies little from that of Reuchlin, who lists
the lec tio , divisio. confirm atio. confutatio. and conclusio. Liber con-
gestorum de arte praedicandi (London, 1570), A5r-B7r. Erasmus also
names the parts of the classical oration in E cclesiastes, book II.
100
according to the elaborate, logical divisions of the later M iddle A ges,
but rather in terms of a recognizable prooem ium . narratio. divisio or
propositio. confirm atio. confutatio. and peroratio.45
H yperius’s preaching manual em bodies all of these R eform ation
convictions about preaching. Hyperius privileges preaching over the
sacraments, arguing Christ sent his disciples first to teach and only then
to baptize.46 H e defines preaching as scriptural exegesis even in the
subtitle of his work, or Popular Interpretation of the Scriptures. For
Hyperius, as for other reformers, the efficient cause of the sermon is the
correct interpretation of the Scriptures; the preacher is enjoined to
diligent study leading to correct exegesis by the text itself, in such verses
as II Timothy 2:15: "Study to shew thyself appproved unto God, a
workman that needeth not to be asham ed, rightly dividing the word of
truth." (This stress on interpretation may partly explain why
45 G erald R. Owst notes that "Tracts by Englishm en on the form al art of
preaching, on dilating and dividing the serm on are so numerous from
the second half of the thirteenth century onward, that the practice might
almost be looked upon as a speciality of the pulpits." "Sermon-Making,
or the Theory and Practice of Sacred Eloquence," in Preaching in
M edieval England: An Introduction to Sermon Manuscripts of the
Period c. 1350-1450 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926),
309-359, 314. For the organization of m edieval sermons in general, see
for instance Robert of Basevorn’s Forma praedicandi. trans. L eopold
Krul, in Three M edieval Rhetorical A rts, ed. James J. Murphy
(Berkeley, Los A ngeles and London: University of California Press,
1983), 109-215. See also Th.-M Charland, Artes praedicandi: contribu
tions £ l’histoire de la rhetorique au moven age. Publications de
l’lnstitut d’Etudes M edievales d’Ottowa, no. 7 (Paris: 1936).
46 Hyperius. Of Framing of D ivine Sermons (London, 1577), 3.
101
R enaissance discussions of preaching spend so much time on invention
and so little time on delivery.) The preacher can em ploy other texts, but
only if they agree with the Scriptures and assist in its exegesis:
this Caution is in any w ise to bee marked and taken heede off,
nam elye that nothinge bee brought in or aleadged, but that
which is certaine, substancial, sounde, taken out of the holy
Scriptures, oute of interpretors worthy credite, or out of the
chiefe and m oste allowable Historyographers, and by all m eanes
agreeinge with the doctrine expressly contayned in the volum e
of the Sacred Bible. (Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 15)
A s W illiam Perkins put it: "the word of God is the w hole and only
matter, about which preaching is exercised: it is the field in which the
preacher must exercise himself."47
Such an insistence on text-based preaching rather than
administering sacraments or doing good deeds is already an insistence
on doctrine over behavior, an insistence which Hyperius makes
explicit. H e, too, enunciates the R eform ation dichotom y of faith and
practice:
what things soever pertayne to sincere religion and Christian
piety, are referred either unto gnosis that is to say, knowledge or
science, or else unto praxis, that is action or doing (Of Framing
of D ivine Serm ons. 19).
In fact, Hyperius is so preoccupied with doctrine that he tends to
discount the necessity of practice:
There is good hope, that the godly may there very w ell profit and
go forward where as consent and agreem ent is found in sound
doctrine, which alone is of great im portance to the establishing
47 W illiam Perkins, The Arte of Prophesying, in Works (London and
Cambridge, 1612-13), 11:650.
102
of G od ’s church, and to the amplifying thereof. (Of Framing of
Divine Serm ons. 110)
His solifidian em phasis is everywhere evident. H e insists throughout
his sermon manual that one is justified or reconciled to G od by faith
alone w ithout works, the them e of St. Paul’s epistle to the R om ans and
the central tenet of the Reform ation. Rom ans is the Scriptural text
m ost expounded by Hyperius, and the solifidian St. Paul— "of all
Preachers the Lode star" (Of Framing of Divine Serm ons. 18)— is the
preacher most held up for em ulation. Hyperius also praises those
other epistles of St. Paul which argue m ost for the ascendancy of faith
overworks: I Corinthians, G alatians, Ephesians and Hebrews.
W illiam Perkins describes the doctrine in these epistles as follows:
1. To the R om an, of justification, sanctification, and the duties
of the Christian life.
2. The first to the Corinthes. concerning the reform ing of the
abuses of the Church of Corinth.
4. To the G alatians about justification by faith without the
works of the Law.
To the H ebrew es. concerning the person and offices of Christ,
and of faith bringing forth fruit in good works.48
Perkins, incidentally, notes that the m ost doctrinal books of the Old
Testam ent are Psalms and Isaiah, the "doctrines" of which are heavily
cited in the New Testam ent: "For there are no bookes of the olde
Testam ent, out of which we can read more testim onies to bee cited
then out of these. There are about threescore places alleadged out of
48 w illia m Perkins, The Arte of Prophesying, in Works (London and
Cambridge, 1612-13), 11:649.
103
Esav: and threescore and foure out of the Psalmes" (W orks. 162-13,
11:651).
Hyperius also employs a revived classical rhetoric, and in
practice he adopts the classical form oration for sermons, but in doing
so he departs in two important ways from other artes praedicandi.
First, he focuses almost all of his discussion on the confirm atio. since
this stage, as he says, varies most from serm on to sermon: "But when
we were come to confirm ation, w ee adm onished that there was no
small diversity to be seene in this, and no little study and dilygence
required to the apt & convenient pertraction thereof" (Of Framing of
Divine Serm ons. 53). Second, he proposes categories of confirmatio
which are drawn not from Cicero or Q uintilian but directly from the
Bible itself, which he claims is the better source. There are five of
these types of confirm atio in H yperius’s work, four of which are taken
from one of St. P aul’s pastoral epistles; from, in fact, one crucially
important passage:
A ll 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 Timothy 3:16-17)
Hyperius glosses the G reek terms in verse 16 to argue that they
are divisible as follows: doctrine (didaskalial and reproof (elen ch os)
refer to sermons which teach correct doctrine and reprove false;
instruction (p aid eia) and correction ( epanorthosis) refer to sermons
which inculcate good behavior and correct bad. Thus, says Hyperius,
the didascalic and redargutive types represent the gnosis, or belief,
104
and the other types the praxis figured forth in St. Paul’s ratio, "after
the m easure of knowledge, fruitful unto good works" (Of Framing of
D ivine Serm ons. 19).49 That is, these types refer to doctrine and
practice.
To these four types, Hyperius adds a fifth, that of consolation
(paraclesisl. which he obtains from Rom ans 15:4:
For whatsoever things were written aforetim e w ere written for
our learning, that we through patience and comfort [paraclesis]
of the scriptures might have hope.
The addition of this serm on type to the other four, Hyperius explains,
makes up the three major Christian concerns of faith (doctrine), hope
(consolation) and charity (correct behavior). H e resists collapsing the
five serm on types into three, however, citing the ap ostle’s authority
and also the demands of perspicuity (Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons.
20-21). The fact that Hyperius maintains the distinction betw een
instructive and corrective m odes in both doctrine and practice will
49 C olossians 1.10. H yperius—or Ludham — reverses the actual order of
the words. In the G reek, the condition of being fruitful
(karpophorountes) is m entioned before having full knowledge
(ep ig n oseil. In the King Jam es V ersion the verse reads, "That ye might
walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good
work, and increasing in the knowledge of God." For fruitfulness to
depend on knowledge is consistent with the R eform ation stress on faith
before works. This reading is perm itted, however, by the context of the
preceding verse, in which the A postle prays that God would fill the
C olossians with the knowledge of His will through all spiritual wisdom
and understanding. The order of this text is similar to that of I Timothy
4:16, "Watch your life and doctrine closely," in which practice precedes
faith in the verse itself but w hose larger context (in this case, I Timothy
4:1-9) is a warning about abandoning the faith.
105
make it easier for us to locate the influences of hom iletics on M ilton,
who favors the corrective m odes. M oreover, the consolatory sermon
type is im ported from another place in Scripture and, as I shall show in
Section III, serm on theorists differed on how they treated it. The
diverging treatm ents of consolation will also allow us to locate the
im m ediate influences on M ilton from this hom iletic tradition with
som e accuracy.
Hyperius insists that his m ethod of sermon construction already
exists in the H oly Scriptures and was practiced by those church fathers
who were generally approved by R eform ation divines, such as
Augustine, John Chrysostom and Gregory of Nazianzus. Such a
bibliocentric m ethod, he insists, is superior to any derived from G reek
and Rom an rhetoric, because the differences betw een preaching and
classical oratory render the latter problem atic for the pulpit. The
"action of a Preacher in the Churche of God," he explains, is by no
means the same as "the action of a R hetorician in the guyld hall." H e
rejects the efforts of those theorists "that endeavor to bringe those
three kindes of cases, I m eane D em onstrative. D elib erative, and
Judiciall. oute of the prophane market place, into the sacred and
reverend churche, and set them forth unto preachers to be im itated
and followed" ( Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 17).
These rhetorical cases, he complains, fail to com prehend all of
preaching. W hat the orators understand as judicial rhetoric could be
handled under his types of redargution and correction, and
deliberative and dem onstrative under his institution, but this
106
regrouping still leaves no place for his types of doctrine and
consolation. These last two, Hyperius complains, have b een given to
philosophy (Of Framing of Divine Serm ons. 19-20). M oreover, the
preacher is in the position of judge, not advocate. H e may rebuke,
command and threaten, whereas the orator is often forced to flatter
and beg (Of Framing of Divine Serm ons. 42).
One could raise the question as to whether the supposedly
superior rhetorical structure of Scripture is borrowed from the
classical education of St. Paul, the "lode-star" preacher in H yperius’s
pantheon and the author of most of the New Testam ent. Many later
R eform ation theorists would reply to this kind of chicken-egg question
that the Greeks got their culture from the H ebrews in the first place.
M ilton’s Christ returns the same reply to Satan in Paradise R ega in ed :
A ll our Law and Story strew’d
With Hymns, our Psalms with artful terms inscrib’d
Our H ebrew Songs and Harps in Babylon,
That p leas’d so w ell our V ictor’s ear, declare
That rather G reece from us these Arts deriv’d.
(IV .334-38)
Lawrence A. Sasek has argued that this brief allusion represents a
widely accepted idea in M ilton’s time. H e lists various seventeenth-
century authors who propound the theory of H ebraic anteriority,
among them the French scholars Sam uel Bochart and Pierre D aniel
H uet, and especially the Englishm an Theophilus G ale, who devoted
his life to establishing the theory and who sums up his research in The
Court of the G en tiles (1669 and later).50
50 Lawrence A. Sasek, "Milton’s Criticism of G reek Literature in Para
dise R egain ed ." in Essays in H onor of Esm ond Linworth M a n ila , eds.
107
The larger question which faced the reformer who w ished to
conform human speech to scriptural patterns was whether to employ
such "human learning" as university training in rhetoric at all,
especially in light of St. P aul’s own dissuasive against it:
And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of
speech or of wisdom , declaring unto you the testim ony of God.
For I determ ined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus
Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in w eakness, and
in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my
preaching was not with enticing words of m an’s wisdom , but in
dem onstration of the spirit and of power. (I Corinthians 2:4)
The marginal reading for "enticing" in the King James V ersion is
"persuasible," and the Latin rendering for "enticing words" (G reek,
peithos . . .logoisl in the Protestant Junius-Trem ellius translation is
peritus dicendi. or "skilled in speaking," a descriptive form ula going
back at least to Cato and cited by Q uintilian in his description of the
orator as vir bonus dicendi peritus. "the good man skilled in
speaking."51 Thus this passage, taken in isolation, seem ed to imply
that the truly spiritual preacher could not employ rhetoric. The
biblicist preacher, however, usually balanced this passage with other
Thomas A ustin Kirby and W illiam John Olive (Baton Rouge: Louisiana
State University Press, 1970), 160.
51 "Sit ergo nobis orator, quern constituim us. is. qui a M. Catone finitur,
vir bonus dicendi peritus" (XII.i.1). ("The orator then, whom I am con
cerned to form, shall be the orator as defined by Marcus Cato, ’a good
man, skilled in speaking.’") Quintilian, Institutio Q ratoria. 4 vols. trans.
H .E. Butler (Cambridge, Mass.: L oeb Classical Library, 1920), IV:354-
55.
108
counsels to limit but not reject the role of rhetorical training in the
pulpit. That is, it was to be used as long as it did not conflict with the
revelation of G od or w eaken o n e’s presentation of it. In Puritan
circles, St. Paul’s words were taken to m ean that the "plain"
presentation of the gospel should not be com prom ised by inserting
phrases from the learned languages or distorted by pretty but
m eaningless ornam entation.
The Puritan preacher John Preston m akes this position clear
both in his life and his personal example. H e was him self no mean
speaker; when at Cambridge, he delighted King James him self with his
witty defense of the reasoning capacity of dogs. H e becam e a chaplain
to Prince Charles and, as H aller reports, a determ ined wire-puller for
the Puritan cause. H is life was the high-water mark of Puritan
influence at court. But he never abandoned his dedication to "spiritual
preaching."52 In "The Paterae of W holesom e Words," which appeared
in the sermon collection R iches of Mercv to M en in M isery, he
counsels the preacher to use human learning to prepare the
understanding to deliver divine truth, just like the Israelites went to
the Philistine smiths. Human learning may even be used in preaching,
but not untransmuted:
not in the substance and words of the Author, for that is to
m ingle chaff with wheat. It is certain, all our w eapons must be
spiritual, yet we may sharpen our w eapons at the forge of
heathen Writers .... W hen we give hay unto our beasts, we look
not for hay again, but for fruit, w ool and milk. So we must not
52 W illiam H aller. The R ise of Puritanism . 70-74.
109
utter them in the same words, but digest and turn them in
succum et sanguinem . that the understanding may be
strengthened, and then we may deliver them the better . . .Paul is
plain for it, I cam e not in the excellency of speech or w isdom :
where two things are spoken against (1.) the m ingling of the
Words with corrupt glosses, (2.) delivering it so m ingled.53
Preston also cites the example of the Israelites receiving gold from the
Egyptians. The Israelites later put the gold to use in their T em ple, but
not until they had m elted it down.
A s much as Hyperius insists that his hom iletic theory agrees with
the Scriptures and with the practice of the early church fathers, his
division into five sermon types is probably his own innovation.
H yperius’s dependence on the Scriptures for his system of classification
stands in contrast to the authors of earlier R enaissance artes
praedicandi. For instance, Johann R euchlin does not restrict the
preacher’s m aterial to Scripture. H e says rather, "His m aterial is
everything which offers itself to our daily im provem ent, and it is the
preacher’s task to speak eloquently of it."54
Hyperius did, however, certainly get the idea of extracting
"themes" or "commonplaces" from the Scriptures from R euchlin’s
53 John Preston, "The Paterae of W holesom e Words," in R iches of
Mercy to M en in Misery, or Certain Excellent Treatises Concerning the
Dignity and Duty of G od’s Children (London. 1658). 311. Cf. I Samuel
13:19-20: "Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of
Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or
spears: But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen
every many his share."
54 "M ateria est omnis res quae se offer ad faciendum nos quotidie
m eliores. de qua noverit bene dicere praedicator." Liber congestorum
de arte praedicandi Joanni R euclini P horcesis. (London, 1570), A3r.
110
nephew, Philip M elanchthon, the author of the Augsburg confession
and the German educational system. M elanchthon had codified
Luther’s theology in his Loci com m unes (1521), which is not a series of
generalizations backed by proof texts like M ilton’s Christian D octrin e.
but rather a coherent exposition of theology which cites few actual texts
but is obviously derived from num erous ones.55 M elanchthon stressed
that correct m ethods of interpretation were key not only to
understanding texts but also to creating them. K ees M eerhoff has
recently shown how for M elanchthon, the analysis and production of
texts "form an inseparable whole."56
Just so, Hyperius shows how to derive a sermon them e from a
given Scriptural passage, express it in a single sentence, and thus be
able to determ ine what kind of serm on to preach:
If thou takest in hande any parte of the sacred Scripture to
expound, it is verilye thy duty, to bestow e som e time in readinge
and perusing it over oftner then once or twice, attentively
weighing and considering everye part and parcell thereof, with all
the causes and circum stances of the same. Then thou shalt
dilligently recount and gather with thy self, what the authors
m eaning is in the w hole, and so far forth as may be, thou shalte in
a brief sentence comprise the summe and effect therof. This
sentence shal be the state of the whole. Again, when thou hast
55 A recent edition is Philip M elanchthon, Loci Comm unes. 1543. trans.
J.A.O. Preus (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1992). M elanchthon’s first
edition of the Loci com m unes was published in 1521; the final edition,
much enlarged, was published in 1558.
56 K ees M eerhoff, "The Significance of Philip M elanchthon’s R hetoric
in the Renaissance," in R enaissance R hetoric, ed. Peter Mack (New
York: St. M artin’s, 1994), 49.
I l l
once expressed the state, it is an easye m atter to be seene,
whither in it bee com m ended any true doctrine, or any false
doctrine confuted, whither men bee excited to the doinge of
good actions, or reproved for their evile deedes, to bee shorte,
whither there bee any thinge therein prepared for consolation.
(Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 51)
Throughout his preaching manual, Hyperius discusses Biblical
statem ents about religion in terms of discrete "places" or
"commonplaces," that is, of loci com m unes. H e also betrays the
categorizing influence of M elanchthon’s teacher, R udolphus Agricola,
when he insists that there are certain theological com m onplaces which
are "usurped in no other discipline" (Of Framing of Divine Serm ons.
54) or when he complains that philosophy has taken over teaching and
consolation (Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 19-20)57
M elanchthon had also already proposed a simpler division of
sermon types in his various brief statem ents on preaching. For
instance, in D e officiis concionatoris (1529) he announces the
57 Peter Mack, however, rejects the assum ption that A gricola had an
overwhelming or consistent influence on M elanchthon: "There is no
doubt that M elanchthon read D e inventione dialectica carefully and
repeatedly. D ifferent details from it appear in all his works on dialec
tic. But it would be wrong to say that he follow ed it closely, or to imply
that a student who had read M elanchthon on dialectic would thereby
have been introduced to the doctrines of Agricola. M elanchthon treats
him as a guide to a general view of dialectic, but the exact configuration
he gives that view changes considerably. H e speaks of him as a source
for the topics and invention, but even in those areas he frequently takes
a different line, opposing him or ignoring his views. With successive
revisions M elanchthon’s dialectic contains few er A gricolan elem ents
and com es to include m ore elem ents from A ristotelian and scholastic
manuals." R enaissance Argument: V alla and A gricola in the Tradi
tions of R hetoric and D ialectic (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 333.
112
"didactic" serm on for teaching doctrine as to either faith or practice
and the "adhortative" sermon for urging that such doctrine be
accepted. This latter sermon type he further distinguished as being
either "epitreptic," or leading to belief, or "paraenetic," or urging
proper behavior.58
Apparently M elanchthon never explicitly proposed the five-fold
division based on II Timothy 3:16 and Rom ans 15:4, or at least not in
print, although he at least im plied such a division.59 In D e officiis
concionatoris (1529), he says that objurgation is included in
exhortation, and that its contrary is consolation.60 In another
discussion of preaching, D e m odo et arte concionandi (ca. 1537-39),
M elanchthon m entions the passage from II Timothy but omits
precisely the language which so intrigued Hyperius, the m ention of
types. That is, M elanchthon does not m ention doctrine, reproof,
58 " Ex officiis concionatoris facile quot sint genera concionum colligi
potest. Sunt enim haec tria: didacticum. epitrepticum . quod ad
credendum. paraeneticum . quod ad m ores hortatur." ("From out of the
duties of the preacher the types of preaching may be easily gathered.
These are three: teaching, epitrepticum for believing, paraeneticum for
urging morals.") D e officiis concionatoris (15291. in Supplem enta
M elanchthoniana. ed. Paul Drews and Ferdinand Cohrs, 5 vols. (1929;
repr. Frankfurt: Minerva, 1968), 11:5-6.
59 M elanchthon’s commentary on II Timothy; covers only the first two
chapters of the four-chapter epistle. Enarratio Epist. secundae ad
Tim otheum in Corpus R eform atorum XV, ed. Charles G ottlieb
Bretschneider (1848; repr. New York and London: Johnson, 1963),
1381-96.
60 " Nam adhortatio objurgationem complectitur: et illi contrariam con-
solationem ." Philip M elanchthon, Supplem enta M elanchthoniana. 11:5.
113
correction, or instruction in righteousness. This om ission is even
clearer in that M elanchthon continues citing the follow ing verse:
" Omnis scriptura. divinitus inspirata. utilis est etc.. ut sit hom o
perfectus ad omne opus bonum " ("All scripture, which is divinely
inspired, is useful etc. so that the man is perfect toward every good
work").61 The "etc." marks all of the uses of Scripture which Hyperius
identifies as serm on types. It is this "etc." which provides Hyperius
with his preaching manual.
A s a student, Hyperius may w ell have conferred with
M elanchthon. A lthough H yperius’s form al studies were done in Paris
while he was still R om an Catholic, he habitually visited other scholars
and universities as a youth; he studied philosophy for three years at the
C ollege of Calvi and theology for three years at the University of Paris
faculty. During his college years, he spent his annual three-m onth
vacation from January to March visiting other universities. Orth
reports that within three years Hyperius saw alm ost all of France and
Italy betw een the A lps and Bologna. H yperius’s visit with
M elanchthon, if it occurred at all, might have taken place in 1537,
when Hyperius toured Germany as a young divinity student. These
travels included C ologne, Marburg, Erfurt, Leipzig and W ittenberg.
After he was suspected of Protestantism , the young Hyperius went to
England for a period of about four years (ca. 1537-41). During this
61 Philip M elanchthon. Supplem enta M elanchthoniana. 11:52.
114
time, he also he visited both Oxford and Cambridge (Orth, O ration.
b3-4).
It was not M elanchthon’s early and diffuse discussion of
preaching which influenced English hom iletics, but rather H yperius’s
full and detailed exposition of M elanchthonian principles. W e can see
the difference if we consider the English reception of another
M elanchthonian preaching text, E cclesiasten by N iels H em m ingsen or
H em ingius, a Scandinavian Protestant. M ilton praises H em ingius as
"an approved author, M elanchton’s scholar" (Tetrachordon. CPW
11:610). E cclesiasten was a latter portion of H em m ingsen’s D e
m ethodis libri duo, first published at R ostock in 1555, not long after
the Latin princeps of H yperius’s text in 1553. The English version was
actually available sooner, translated as The Preacher by John H orsfal
by 1574, or three years before the appearance of Ludham ’s Hyperius.
But The Preacher (and presumably, the original E ccleasiasten l seem s
to suffer from being bifurcated from the earlier parts of its parent text,
where the term inology and theoretical basis would have been
established.62
A lthough H em m ingsen adopts H yperius’s five-fold serm on
division, he superim poses it over M elanchthon’s form at of teaching
and exhorting. Thus on the one hand he says, "There are generally two
62 A s of this writing, I have not been able to examine the Latin version
to determ ine how important the introductory m aterial is to the preach
ing section.
115
kinds of preaching, the one appertayneth to teaching: the other to
exhortation," but at the same time he cites Christ’s own examples in
preaching and "the tradition of Paul" (i.e., II Tim. 3:16, 17) to prove
that serm ons either teach (instruct or chide) or exhort (persuade,
rebuke, comfort) (The Preacher. 17). H em m ingsen divides the word of
God (i.e., sermon m aterial) into approximately M elanchthonian
categories: gnosticon (know ledge), practicon (practice) and
protrepticon (exhortation).
N one of the strictly M elanchthonian touches in H em m ingsen’s
text have much impact on later English hom iletics, although it seem ed
to have sold w ell on the C ontinent.63 W hen later theorists such as
W illiam Perkins and Richard Bernard dom esticate the Continental
preaching texts available to them, it is H yperius’s five sermon types
which they adopt, not H em m ingsen’s protrepticon or M elanchthon’s
paraeneticon. Hyperius dom inates English discussions of preaching
from at least as early as the 1590’s, as I will show shortly.
A far more im posing potential rival to Hyperius than either
H em m ingsen’s confused and foreshortened text or M elanchthon’s
63 Harry Caplan and Henry H. King report the follow ing editions of
both the com plete parent text and the excised portion on preaching:
D e m ethodis lihri duo, quorum . . .posterior ecclesiasten. sive m eth-
odum theologicam interpretandi concionandique continet: R ostock
1555; W ittenberg 1559, 1562, 1569; Leipzig 1565, 1570, 1578; B asel
1572: Pastor, sive pastoris optimus vivendi agendique m odu s: C open
hagen 1562, 1590; W ittenberg 1562; Leipzig 1574, 1585; G eneva 1579;
Erfurt 1585; R ostock 1585, 1590. German: Leipzig 1562, 1566; W itten
berg 1564; Hamburg 1639. English: 1574, 1576. "Latin Tractates on
Preaching: A Book-List," Harvard T heological R eview 42 (1949): 190.
116
diffuse discussion of hom iletics is Erasm us’s E cclesiastes (1535).
Erasm us’s treatm ent of hom iletics is even more extensive than
H yperius’s. In four sizable books, Erasmus makes every attempt to be
com prehensive. The first book he devotes to urging the im portance
and dignity of the preaching task, a com m on topos in the hom iletic
texts of the period. In the second two books, he treats extensively the
technical aspects of pulpit rhetoric, especially the sermon form and
the m inutiae associated with each division thereof. The final book is
devoted to the doctrinal m aterial which should be included in sermons.
Erasm us’s E cclesiastes is im m ediately understandable to
historians of rhetoric because of its extended and explicit classicism,
and it contrasts starkly with H yperius’s Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons.
H einrich F. Plett, to cite but one historian of rhetoric, devotes three
pages to discussing E cclesiastes, w hile on Hyperius he says more
simply that:
It is one of the least-known hom iletic treatises of sixteenth-
century England. Its distribution and and its influence on
further preaching theories are difficult to estim ate; for the most
part its discussion is so fragmentary that it should play no role
here.64
64 "Es ist eine der w enigen uns bekannten hom iletischen Abhandlunger
im England des 16. Jahrhunderts. Verbreitung und Einfluss w eiterer
Predigttheorien sind schwer abzuschatzen: m eist handelt es sich um
fragm entarische Bem erkungen. die hier keine R olle spielen so llen ."
H einrich F. Plett, Rhetorik der A ffekte: Englische W irkungsasthetik
im Zeitalter der R en aissan ce. Studien zur englischen P hilologie, N.S.
18 (Tubingen, 1975.), 35. Cf. P lett’s more extensive discussion of
Erasmus at pp. 37-39.
117
But H yperius’s text is not so much a fragmentary discussion as an
alternative system to classical rhetoric. Take, for instance, H yperius’s
treatm ent of the passions. A ristotle had devoted the second book of
his R hetoric to a discussion of the various em otions which would sway
an audience. Hyperius provides a similar study of passions in the final
section of his first book.65 H ere he discusses the im portance of moving
the congregation, lists the main passions, and explains how they may
be m oved. John R ainolds, in his sixteenth-century lectures on
A ristotle’s R h etoric, so acknowledges H yperius’s discussion:
W ho does not know that .... A ristotle [teaches about stirring
the passions] in this treatise, just as Q uintilian does in book 5,
and as the Orator does everywhere? A ugustine most certainly
teaches so in D e doctrina Christiana (book 4, chapter 13), and
which very teaching Erasmus seem s to have borrowed in
E ccleasiastes (book 3), as does Hyperius in The Practice of
Preaching (book 1, chapter 15). Hyperius contends that
eccleasiastical eloquence is proper w hen it im pels som ething
which ought to be done; that not only does it teach in order to
instruct, and delight in order to hold listeners, but it also bends
the w ills of listeners in order to vanquish them .66
65 "Of moving of affections." Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. I.xvi, 41-
50.
66 John Rainolds. John R ainolds’s Oxford Lectures on A ristotle’s
R h etoric, trans. Lawrence D. G reen, 151. Rainolds delivered the le c
tures at Corpus Christi C ollege during the 1570’s (p. 9).
118
In this com m ent, Rainolds m akes his sole com m ent on Erasm us’s
E ccleasiastes. and then to say that Erasmus is copying som eone else.
H e devotes more attention to the work of Hyperius, here and in a later
lecture where he praises H yperius’s sermon types as a superior divisio
cau sae: "Certainly for us (if I am any judge) a division much more
suitable not just for theology, but for philosophy, rhetoric, and
dialectic, would be the division which the very learned Andreas
Hyperius has in the Practice of Preaching" (Oxford L ectures. 255, 257).
W hile is true that Hyperius, in his discussion of the passions,
restricts the "necessary" ones to sorrow and indignation for o n e’s
offenses, loathing and hatred for sin, love of virtue, fear of G od ’s
judgm ent and punishm ent, hope of mercy, and com passion and love for
o n e’s neighbor, he nevertheless provides a list of illustrative scriptural
com m onplaces extensive enough to rival A risto tle’s list of situations
for moving the passions. Such lists of scriptural com m onplaces, as it
happened, helped endear Hyperius to the English, who were
predisposed to be strongly biblicist. It is because of this predisposition
that Erasm us’s E cclesiastes had far less impact on English hom iletics
than one trained to look for continuities in the rhetorical tradition
would suppose. Its classicism , one of its strong points in one sense,
works against it in the more biblicist setting of the English
Reform ation. Erasmus makes far less distinction betw een classical,
secular rhetoric and a rhetoric drawn from Scripture than does
Hyperius. For the theoretical portion of E cclesiastes (Books II and
HI), Erasmus takes his major headings from such works as A ristotle’s
119
R h etoric. C icero’s D e oratore. the anonymous A d H erennium . and
Q uintilian’s D e institutione oratoria. For instance, he discusses
sacred oratory in terms of judicial, persuasive and encom iastical types
(Il.xvii-xx), of the duties to teach, delight and move (ILxxi-xxiv), and of
the five offices of oratory, that is, invention, disposition, style, memory
and delivery (xxv).
Hyperius, as we have seen, is far more critical of these borrowed
categories, claim ing that they are m ore appropriate for civic oratory
than for sacred. H e structures his discussion of preaching around the
exegesis of Scripture and the specific lessons to be drawn from it. He
spends three-quarters of his text discussing the various "places" of
confirm ation under each of his five serm on types, because as he says
this is the place in the serm on where m ost diversity is encountered:
we have shewed certayne briefe and ordynary form es of
exhordium s. propositions, divisions, and conclusions: But when
we were com e to confirm ation, w ee adm onished that there was
no small diversity to be seen e in this, and no little study and
dilygence required to the apt and convenient pertraction
thereof. (Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 53)
Erasmus is just as tied to classical rhetoric in details as he is in overall
design. H e discusses, for instance, artificial and inartificial proofs in
the same terms as the classical theorists. Artificial proofs are to be
derived from the circum stances of person and matter or cause. Of
these, the personal circum stances are similar to those listed for
encom ium in the anonymous A d H erennium : descent, birth, country,
sex, age, education, bodily condition, fortune, place, character,
studies, passions, prom ises and acts, em otion, counsel, name (Il.xcix-
120
cxii).67 Hyperius, on the other hand, generally provides no form ulae
other than those derived from Scripture itself.
This is not to suggest that Hyperius ignores rhetorical theory
altogether. H e devotes the first nine leaves of B ook 1 to an overview
of various rhetorical considerations. In these first pages, he m entions
such things as the five parts of oratory, the three levels of style, and
"the w hole craft of varying the oration by schem es and tropes." H e
approves of any help from rhetoric which does not contradict Biblical
counsel. For instance, "the Preacher may use all the furniture of
amplifying that the Schole of Orators m inistreth unto hym" (Of
Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 37). H e even begins his text with a
comparison betw een the narrow m ethods of the schools and the
bountiful rhetoric of those who want to preach in church, a comparison
which suggests the characterization, attributed to Z eno, of logic as a
closed fist and rhetoric as an open palm. H e com pares scholastic with
"popular" preaching (the kind handled in his text) as follows:
The first is exercised within the narrow com passe of the Scholes:
the second taketh place in the large and spacious tem ples. The
one is strict and straight laced, savoring Philosophical!
solytarinesse and severitie. The other stretched forth, franck
and at lybertie, yea and delightinge in the light and (as yet would
say) in the court of Orators. In that are mani things created
after the rule of Logical brevitie and sim plicitie: In this,
67 Ad H erennium III.vi.10 lists the follow ing qualities and their con
traries: descent (genus), education (ed u catio). wealth ( divitiae). kinds
of power (p otestates). titles to fam e (gloriael. citizenship (civitas).
friendships (am icitiae), agility (velo citasl. strength (viresl. beauty
(dignitasl. health (valetu d ol. wisdom (prudential, justice (justitial.
courage (fortitudo), tem perance (m odestial.
121
R hetoricall bountie and furniture m inistreth much grace and
decencie. ( Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 1)
Hyperius does not reject scholastic logic as a m ethod, but finds it guilty
by association with Catholic casuists and counsels the preacher against
drawing attention to the use of it lest that preacher appear just as
sophistical.
Overall, Hyperius realizes that classical rhetoric cannot be
adopted uncritically for use in Christian speaking and writing, and he
betrays the same uneasiness about rhetoric which troubled A ugustine
in his D e doctrina Christiana, where the earlier theorist said:
I must thwart the expectation of those readers who think that I
shall give the rules of rhetoric here which I learned and taught
in the secular schoools. And I adm onish them not to expect such
rules from me, not that they have no utility, but because, if they
have any, it should be sought elsew here. (IV .i)68
Indeed, much like Augustine, Hyperius refers to "the rhetoricians" as if
they are finally outsiders: "To be short, whatsoever is necessary to the
preacher in disposition, elocution, and memory, the rhetoricians have
exactly taught all that in their workhouses" (Of Framing of D ivine
Serm ons. 9. Hyperius adds these authorities in at the beginning and
m akes occasional reference to them throughout, and he does urge the
preacher to consider time, place and persons throughout the text, but
he always insists that adequate rhetorical practice can be derived from
the Scriptures them selves, or at least ratified there. H e even insists
68 A ugustine. On Christian D octrin e, trans. D.W . R obertson (New
York: M acmillan, 1958), 118.
122
that this is true when the preacher must counter false opinion and it is
necessary for him to employ the full panoply of logical and rhetorical
w eapons taught in secular and pagan authors:
H e shall use all the order and conning in confutation, which we
see to be prescribed to the orators, and he shall frankly use
negation, elevation, translation, excusation, digression,
regression, inversion, distinction, absolution, conquestion,
investigation of the matter and form of arguments after the
manner of logic, and whatsoever else is of this kind. For of all
these things examples may be showed in the serm ons of Christ,
the prophets and apostles. (Of Framing of Divine Serm ons. 34-
35)
H yperius’s discussion of the passions is also typical of his ambivalent
stance toward rhetoric. On the one hand, he counsels the preacher to
use "all the cunning in moving of affections" which he could learn from
the rhetoricians (Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 42). On the other
hand, a plain, artless speaker who is gifted by God can achieve the
same result:
N either doth this excellent gifte happen to any other, then unto
those that are seriously occupied with Gods business, which
thing is the cause why the A p ostle so studiously setteth the same
( ad oppositum ) against the faculty of w ell speakinge which the
R hetoricians doe challenge to them selves as their owne proper
right. ( Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 44)
The biblicist preachers of R eform ation England, concerned that they
not be m erely employing "cunning words of m en’s wisdom" which
St. Paul had already warned against, would be far more inclined
toward a preaching manual which claim ed to have its m aterial directly
from Scripture.
123
A nother point against Erasm us’s E cclesiastes is its lack of
overall coherence, which has been noted by modern scholars and was
also acknowledged in Erasm us’s own day. The author spent over
sixteen years on the work, and eventually attem pted to do too much.
James M ichael W eiss relates how Erasmus expressed his
dissatisfaction with the work "with more than rhetorical modesty":
H e surveyed the time since 1519 and told how he made notes for
the work only occasionally and in random order. H e criticized
the repetitions, the gaps, the unclear passages, the general lack
of polish. Indeed, he suggested that he finished the work only to
avoid accusations of bad faith and to prevent an edition pirated
from his notes.69
W eiss also cites evidence from a letter in which Erasmus says, "The
truth is, it was not done diligently nor in order but scattered here and
there, by whatever in my thinking offered itself to me at the time."70
By contrast, H yperius’s text is em inently coherent. His
presentation m oves sm oothly and consequentially from one point to
the next. H e is always rem inding the reader where he is in the
discussion, where he is taking it, and his reasons for making each point
69 James M ichael W eiss, " E cclesiastes and Erasmus: The Mirror and
the Image." Archiv fur R eform ationsgeschicte 65 (191 A): 86. See also
R.G . K leinhans, " E cclesiastes sive de ratione concionandi." in Essays on
the Works of Erasm us, ed. R.L. D eM olen (N ew Haven: Y ale University
Press, 1978), pp. 352-66.
70 " Verum id factum est nec diligenter. nec ordine. sed sparsim. ut quid-
quam sese cogitationi per occasionem offerebat." " E cclesiastes and
Erasmus: The Mirror and the Image," 85-86. W eiss’s source is the
standard Leyden ("LB") edition of Erasmus, D esiderii Erasmi
R oterodam i Opera O m nia, ed. Johannes Clericus, 1704, V.767.
124
or providing any example. Thomas Fuller (1651) praised H yperius’s
ability in this respect. According to Fuller, Hyperius had all the
requirem ents of a teacher, including learning, experience and "an
excellent faculty and method."71 Orth notes that his uncle was a grave
and steady teacher, always able to m aintain a uniform order in his
teaching and to keep the discussion on point ( O ration. b7).
Finally, in contrast to the solifidianism of the Reform ation,
Erasmus stresses works rather than faith. His aim is piety, not
reform ation. For instance, in the fourth and final book of
E cclesiastes, which is a com pendium of serm on m aterial for the
preacher, Erasmus does include som e theological issues such as the
tripartite nature of God, but he only does so after an extensive
discussion of the law and the seven deadly sins. According to Robert
G. K leinhans, Erasm us’s end of preaching was not reform ation of
doctrine, but rather the creation of a society where piety could
flourish, and Erasmus refused to accept the contention of his
contem poraries that the doctrine of justification was the central issue
of Christianity; he was thus out of step with both Protestantism and the
Council of Trent. Rather, he stressed the attainm ent of peace through
virtue which could be had by union with Christ through m editation
upon the docum ents of the early church’s witness to him. His primary
suggestion for the im provem ent of preaching was the episcopal
71 Thom as Fuller, A b el Redevivus (1651), ed. Nichols (London, 1867),
11.270.
125
establishm ent of com petent training.72 Other scholars have pointed
out Erasm us’s use of m edieval m aterial.73
Erasmus actually does propose five serm on types in
E cclesiastes, but they have nowhere near the same im portance to his
text as H yperius’s. Erasm us’s types (suasoria, laudatio. exhortatio.
consolatio. and adm onitum : II.li) are not drawn from II Tim othy 3:16,
and he has no serm on types for teaching doctrine. Rather, all his
sermon types urge appropriate behavior, and his suasoria (persuasion)
com prehends exhortatio. consolatio. and adm onitum :
W hom [the preacher] exhorts, he urges to hear. W hom he
consoles, he urges to mourn m oderately. W hom he rebukes, he
urges to acknowledge his sin and repent, for he who engages in
Christian rebuke is not aiming at anything else. It is from the
suasatory type that the preacher is mainly directed, and because
he intends to persuade, he considers what he is going to say,
what it is and of what quality, who they are whom he advises, and
who he is him self who persuades.74
72 R obert G. K leinhans, " E cclesiastes sive de R atione C oncionandi."
253, 261. Erasm us’s desire for an episcopal preaching establishm ent
was later realized, at least in Milan, under Borrom eo. See Joseph M.
Connors, "Saint Charles B orrom eo in H om iletic Tradition." The
A m erican E cclesiastical R eview 138 (1958): 9-23.
73 G.J. Engelhardt, "Medieval V estiges in the R hetoric of Erasmus,"
PM LA 63 (1948): 739-44.
74 " Ouisquis . . .exhortatur. suadet. ut audeat. Qui consolatur. suadet.
ut m oderatius doleat. Oui objurgat. suadet. ut agnoscat culpam suam.
et resipiscat: nec enim aliud spectat. quisquis objurgat christiane. D e
genere suasorio illud in summa praecipitur. ut dicturus expendat. quid
et quale sit, quod persuadere distinat. qui sint. quibus consulit. et quis
sit ipse, qui suadet." E cclesiastes II.li.
126
W hen Erasmus does quote from II Tim othy 3:16, it is only in the
context his adm onitio. and then he translates the verse so as to make it
concerned entirely with justitia with no reference to doctrina: "The
Scripture is divinely inspired to be used in teaching, arguing,
correcting and instructing what things belong to righteousness"
(E cclesiastes. ILlxxi).75 Erasmus does say that the preacher "should be
w ell versed in teaching, persuading, exhorting, consoling, counselling
and admonishing" (E cclesiastes. II:xviii) 76 H e does not, however,
connect these activities with II Timothy 3:16, and he certainly does not
reify these activities into serm on types, which M elanchthon at least
begins to do and which Hyperius certainly perfects.
To summarize the foregoing discussion, H yperius’s preaching
text was more popular in England than other artes praedicandi. He
cogently restated earlier discussions of R eform ation preaching,
particularly M elanchthon’s, and his biblicism made him far more
attractive to English preachers than the pious classicism of Erasmus.
H yperius’s classification of serm on types had a profound effect
on later hom iletics. In Continental Lutheran churches, for example,
75 "Scripturam divinitus inspiratam utilem esse ad docendum . ad
arguendum. ad corrigendum et ad eruditionem . quae est in justitia." By
contrast, the Vulgate limits justitia to the last item only: " ad docendum .
ad arguendum. ad corrigendum, ad erudiendum in justitia." which
agrees with the original G reek construction: pros paideia ten en
dikaiosune. The King Jam es V ersion renders this "instruction in
righteousness."
76 " A ttam en ecclesiastes potissim um versatur in docendo. in suadendo.
in exhortando. consolando. consulendo et adm onendo."
127
the division of texts into teaching, rebuttal, training, correction, and
comfort was "changed to the fivefold application. According to this
m odel, every sermon if possible ought to draw out of every text this
w hole series of applications. This is the w ell-known usus quintuplex
(’the fivefold application’)."77 H yperius’s manual was also apparently
published in G eneva in 1563 f E nseignem ent a bien form er les saintes
predications et serm ons!.78 Hyperius also had som e m easure of
influence in Catholic countries in that his preaching text was cribbed,
title and all, by an Spanish A ugustinian monk nam ed Laurentius
Villavicentius in 1564.79 V illavicentius transformed H yperius’s
aggressively Protestant work into a Catholic one by editing out the
Protestant doctrinal discussions (i.e., most of the text). V illavicentius
also added a third book which included a section on the traditional
four-fold interpretation of Scripture, and this addition further
obscured the innovations of the original.
77 Yngve Brilioth. A Brief History of Preaching, p. 126.
78 Cited in Caplan and King, "Latin Tractates on Preaching," s.v. H yper
ius, Andreas Gerardi (p. 191). Caplan and King also indicate at that
entry that H yperius’s work was also discussed in a festschrift for the
tricentennial of a French H ugenot institution: Edouard Vaucher,
"Andre Gerard d’Ypres et la theologie pratique."
79 D e form andis sacris concionibus. sive de interpretatione scrip-
turarum populari. libri tres (Antwerp, 1564). I exam ined the C ologne
edition (1575) at the B ibliotheque N ationale in Paris. The Cologne ed i
tion ( D .11654) is com bined with D e recte form ando studio theologico
libri quatuor. of which more in my main discussion.
128
V illavicentius’s unattributed borrowing may have been
understandable after the Council of Trent and the advent of the Index,
but the fact that he put his own name on the title page infuriated at
least one later Catholic, Louis E llies D u Pin (1657-1719), the
indefatigable French ecclesiastical historian. Du Pin understood from
V alerius A ndreas that V illavicentius had copied D e form andis: he
knew from his own exam ination that V illavicentius had also copied
H yperius’s text on theological study, D e recte form ando studio
theologico libri quatuor:
This Monk made him self, without much Labour, the Author of a
very good Book; Of the Wav of Forming T heological Studies . . .
In which he only copied from one end to the other a D iscourse of
a D ivine . . . one A ndreas Hyperius; striking out som e Passages,
in which that A uthor spake openly like a Lutheran, and adding
som e others, to prove the D octrines of the Church.
A s a Catholic, D u Pin did not object to V illavicentius’s editing out of
the work those contents "which had been mischievous" or suppressing
the name of a Protestant author in order to get it past the licensers, but
he found it "intolerable" for V illavicentius to print it over his own
name. "Villavicentio put in even H yperius’s Preface, only striking out
som e Lines in the beginning, and changing som e Words, that his theft
might not im m ediately appear."80
80 Louis E llies du Pin, A New E cclesiastical History of the Sixteenth
Century. Containing an Impartial A ccount of the R eform ation of R e li
gion. and Other E cclesiastical Affairs: Especially the R ise and Progress
of the D octrines of Luther. Calvin. Zwinglius. &c. Together with the
Lives and Writings of the E cclesiastical Authors. W ho Flourished In
That T im e. 2 vols. (London, 1706-10), II.v.158.
129
Du Pin’s assessm ent that Hyperius had written "a very good
book" is no small praise. He him self had widely examined theological
texts and writers for his extensive N ouvelle bibliotheque des auteurs
ecclesiastiqu es. which went into 58 volum es in octavo betw een 1686-
1704 and was translated into various English collections not long
thereafter, along with his own book-length "method" for theological
study.81 D u P in’s reception suggests that H yperius’s work might have
had greater impact in Catholic countries had not the Council of Trent
made the publication of Protestant works dangerous. A s it was,
V illavicentius’s publication of the text over his own name has further
obscured what impact Hyperius did have and also played havoc with
bibliography; at least one historian of rhetoric has tried to account for
V illavicentius’s preaching art as a Catholic text.82
81 Louis E llies du Pin, A C om pleat M ethod of Studying Divinity: or. A
Regular Course of T heological Studies. D igested into a New M ethod
(London, 1720).
82 "Brother Lawrence takes care to mark the distances betw een th eo l
ogy, which is the science of the elite and form ulated in a concise and
narrow style, due to the severity of a contem plative retreat which only
the peaceful and orthodox Spain made possible, and its servant oratory."
("Frere Laurent prend bien soin de marquer les distances entre la
theologie. science d’une elite, form ulee dans un style concis et serre.
accorde a la severite d’une retraite contem plative que seule la paisible
et orthodoxe Espagne rend possible, et sa servante oratoire."! Marc
Fumaroli, L ’A ge de l’eloquence: R hetorique et «res literaria» de la
R enaissance au seuil de l’epoque classique (G eneva: Droz, 1980), 126.
In reality, Hyperius him self makes the distinction betw een "narrow"
school preaching and "bountiful" oratory, and he insists throughout his
text that theology belongs to the educated, as I will show in Chapter
Three. In addition, as D u Pin notes, V illavicentius was not a practicing
erem ite but rather a preacher to Philip II of Spain. Louis E llies du Pin,
A New E cclesiastical History of the Sixteenth Century (London, 1706-
1710), II:v.l58. Posthum ous criticism of V illavicentius’s plagiarism
130
But it is the profound impact of H yperius’s text in England with
which I am mainly concerned. D e form andis concionibus sacris was
probably known in England in its Latin original before it was published
in English, and H yperius’s five serm on types were prom ulgated
extensively in manuals published after 1553. D ebora K. Shuger notes
five copies of Hyperius in Latin in the "Dead D on Box", a typescript of
wills and inventories of faculty and students who died at Oxford
betw een 1550 and 1600.83 The five types were com m onplace enough
by 1635 that W illiam W hately could m ention them in passing, as when
he exhorts lay p eop le to m editate on the serm ons they have heard. He
lists the sermon types as if they are already w ell known:
And after you have heard, consider with your selves what you
have heard; and ponder upon it as upon a thing that much
concernes you, and lay the precepts, reproofs, threats, prom ises,
might be tem pered by the fact that he seem ed to admire H yperius’s
m ethod. A lso, his adm iration for the Flem ish Lutheran may have been
heightened by his own schooling in the Low Countries. The year before
he brought out his crib of D e form andis concionibus sacris. V il
lavicentius also published a series of notes for Sunday serm ons, Tabulae
com pendiosae (Louvain, 1563), a remarkable text which I examined at
the B iblioteca N azionale in Turin (shelf mark A .II.48). A ll of the
sermons and serm on illustrations which Villavicentius suggests are
based exclusively on Scripture, and the serm ons could even be divided
into types of doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction and comfort. On
the other hand, the Spanish preacher waited until the year of H yperius’s
death (1564) to publish his crib.
83 D ebora K. Shuger, Sacred Rhetoric: The Christian Grand Style in
the English R enaissance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988),
113-4. Shuger also notes the pervasiveness of sermon types in later
Protestant artes praedicandi. although she does not trace this classifica
tion to Hyperius (p. 68).
131
and exhortations thereof unto your soules; saying each to
him self, I see this is a dutie; have I not om itted it? O yes, I have;
and so fall a begging pardon for form er om issions.84
W hately’s "precepts, reproofs, threats, prom ises, and exhortations" are
synonyms for the sermon types of doctrine, reproof, correction,
consolation and instruction.
The impact of H yperius’s m ethod can also be seen in how much
of his presentation is included in subsequent texts. W illiam Perkins, in
The Arte of Prophesying (1592), includes not only the five sermon
types, but also their rationale; he says that the application (spiritual
use) of any serm on is either "mental" or "practical":
M ental is that which respecteth the mind and it is either
doctrine or redargution .... P ra ctica l. . .is that which
respecteth the life and behaviour. And it is instruction . . .and
correction. (W orks. 1612-13,11:668)
O fficium concionatoris (1655) divides serm ons into noetica
( didascalia and redargutiol and practica finstructio. con solatio. and
correction.85
The earlier sermon manuals, such as Richard Bernard’s manual
The Faithful Shepheard (1607), even preserve H yperius’s explanation
of the five types in terms of faith, hope, and charity. Bernard cautions
that the scriptural text chosen for the sermon "must be a Text to get
faith, to ground hope, and to settle love" (18). W hen he concludes his
84 W illiam W hatelv. The New Birth: or. a Treatise of R egeneration
(1618; London, 1635), 131.
85 Officium Concionatoris (1655; Cambridge, 1676), 31. I exam ined the
H untington Library copy of the 1676 edition, accession number 446864.
132
discussion of the "uses" of reproof, correction, instruction and comfort,
he says, "And thus much for these several uses, w hereof the first
concerneth Faith: the second and third, Love and Charitie: and the last
Hope" (70).
Virtually all of the sermon manuals after 1590 refer to
H yperius’s five serm on types, even the late m anuals of Jam es Arderne
(1671) and Joseph G lanvill (1678).86 Arderne starts his listw ith
exhortations to goodness (instruction) and also the identification of
bad behavior (correction), then m oves to issues of doctrine or "truth of
belief,", then reproof or "confutation of errors about doctrine,", then
finally com fort.87
G lanvill finds the Hyperian system confusing and wants to
reduce "numerous coincident U ses, of Inform ation, Confutation,
Instruction, R eproof, Exhortation, D ehortation, Comfort, D irection
and the like" into a simpler system of "Inference, A dvice and
Motives."88 A lthough G lanvill rejects what he saw as an
overelaboration of preaching, his conception of the sermon still bears
86 James A rderne. D irections Concerning the M atter and Stile of
Sermons. W ritten to W.S. a Young D eacon (1671), ed. John Mackay,
Luttrell Society Reprint no. 13 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1952); Joseph
Glanvill, An Essay Concerning Preaching: W ritten for the D irection of
a Young Divine: and U seful A lso for the P eople, in Order to Profitable
Hearing (London, 1678).
87 James A rderne. D irections Concerning the M atter and Stile of
Sermons (1671), ed. John Mackay, 15-18.
88 Joseph Glanvill. A n Essay Concerning Preaching (London, 1678), 52.
133
the imprint of the Hyperian types, which provided a remarkably
flexible framework which English authors could adjust to their own
needs.
Puritan preachers expanded H yperius’s developm ent of the
confirm atio into what becam e known "doctrines and uses," or the
progression from precept to application in the serm on. W illiam
Perkins’s The Arte of Prophesying (1607; Latin 1592) sum marizes this
progression in "The Order and Summe of the sacred and onely m ethod
of Preaching":
1. To read the text distinctly out of the canonical Scriptures.
2. To give the sense and understanding of it being read, by the
Scripture itself.
3. To collect a few and profitable points of doctrine out of the
natural sense.
4. To apply (if he have the gift) the doctrines rightly collected, to
the life and manners of men, in a simple and plain speech.
(Works, 1612-13,11:673)
Earlier in his text, Perkins discusses preaching in terms of H yperius’s
types.
W illiam A m es explains the difference betw een doctrines and
uses in The Marrow of Sacred Divinity (1642):
In declaring what truth there is in the text, first it ought to be
explained, and then afterward what good doth follow from
thence. That part is spent in doctrines, or docum ents, this in use
of derivation of profit from those doctrines.
A m es then cites his proof text: II Timothy 3:16 (176). Richard
Bernard goes further than his other Puritan colleagues by separating
doctrine from the other four terms (i.e., redargution, instruction,
correction and com fort), which becom e what he call "uses" of that
134
doctrine.89 H e also distinguishes uses from "applications," as did
many. A use is a general truth which can be derived from a given
doctrine. This truth is stated in the third person and is thus far less
troubling to the auditors than the application, or the same truth stated
in the second person.90
H yperius’s influence was not restricted to the Puritans.
M atthew Sutcliff brought out a precis of his text in 1602.91 Sutcliff was
by no m eans a precisionist but rather a court preacher who published
against Thom as Cartwright in 15 90.92 Sutcliff apparently discovered
H yperius’s preaching text in the decade follow ing this publication,
since in the earlier Treatise he describes preaching in M elanchthonian
terms as either exhortation or doctrine (22-23), w hereas William
Perkins brought out his Hyperian Prophetica. sive de unica ratione
concionandi in 1592, fully ten years before Sutcliff’s version.
Indeed, although the exact nature of the m ovem ent of
89 Richard Bernard, The Faithful Shepheard (London, 1607), 57-70.
90 Richard Bernard, The Faithful Shepheard (London, 1607), 70-71.
Thomas G ranger’s, The A pplication of Scripture: or. The M anner How
to U se the Word to M ost Edifying (London, 1616) is entirely about the
application portion of the Puritan serm on.
91 M atthew Sutcliff, D e recta studii theologici ratione liber unus. eidem
etiam adjuntus est brevis de concionum ad populum form ulis. & sacrae
Scripturae varia pro auditorum captus tractatione. libellus (London,
1602). The preaching portion is pp. 74-88.
92 M atthew Sutcliff, A Treatise of E cclesiastical D iscipline (London,
1590).
135
H yperius’s text to England is unclear, the primary credit for H yperius’s
subsequent popularity in England is probably due to Perkins.93
A m oderate Puritan, Perkins rem ained in the establishm ent fold and
thus was an acceptable figure to Anglicans, but his writings were
profoundly influential am ong the m ore radical. H e was also,
ultim ately, an influence on M ilton. A s a fellow of Christ’s C ollege,
Cambridge (d. 1602), he tutored W illiam A m es, an editor of Ramus
and also the author of The Marrow of Sacred Divinity (1642), one of
M ilton’s sources for Christian D octrin e. But the greater influence on
M ilton with regard to the preaching arts was A m e s’s student, W illiam
Chappell, who wrote a preaching manual which has remarkable
sim ilarities to M ilton’s own practice. I shall discuss M ilton’s
connection with Chappell in the follow ing section.
III. M ilton and the Sermon M anuals
In the preceding section I discussed the preaching manual of
Hyperius and its transm ission to England. In the next chapter, I will
examine its im portance for the conduct of English religious
93 Perkins’s contribution to English hom iletics should not be obscured
by the ghost entry for O fficium concionatoris. Cambridge 1567, in
James J. Murphy’s R enaissance Rhetoric: A Short-Title C atalog. 16.
This ghost is the result of a m isreading of the Caplan-King list of
preaching texts in Latin, which however lists O fficium as 1655. There is
no listing for the O fficium through 1640 per Pollard and Redgrave, nor
does W ing list an edition before 1655 (0 -1 5 7 ). There are also editions
in 1656 and 1676.
136
controversy. In this section, however, I want to look at another
important elem ent of H yperius’s text, and that is his consolatory
sermon. It is this sermon type which allows us to pinpoint the
im m ediate influences on M ilton’s thinking about "the office of a pulpit"
and its particular power, because serm on theorists diverged most
markedly in discussing it. M ilton believed that correction and
consolation belonged together. The only sermon theorist who also
thought so was M ilton’s Cambridge tutor W illiam Chappell.
Hyperius drew four of his five serm on types from II Timothy 3:16,
but his fifth type, consolation (paraklesis in the G reek), represents an
interesting anomaly. Hyperius added it not only because, as he said, it
was necessary to make up the biblical ratio of faith, hope and charity,
but also because G od’s comfort was a com m on fact of the Christian life,
so com m on in fact that he said consolation needed less identification
than the other types (Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 18-19). The
scriptural source he lists for this type is R om ans 15.4: "For whatsoever
things were written aforetim e were written for our learning, that we
through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."
H yperius’s type of consolation found its way into all subsequent English
artes praedicandi. usually with the scriptural warrant. For instance,
when W ilkins explains that consolation is one of the major purposes of
the Scriptures, he cites R om ans 15:4 for his authority.
But consolation was already a fam iliar, widespread and even
hybrid topic by the tim e of Hyperius. It had figured heavily in classical
rhetoric as w ell as in m edieval serm on manuals. For instance, one of
137
the recurring illustrations in R obert of Basevorn’s Form a praedicandi is
a sermon based on "the just is delivered out of distress" (section
X X X V Iff).95 Boethius, "the last of the Rom an philosophers, and the
first of the scholastic theologians," made Lady Philosophy into a
consoling (and also corrective) figure in what was to be one of the most
popular works of the M iddles A ges, The C onsolation of Philosophy .96
C onsolation is also not unknown in M ilton studies; Christopher Fitter
has claim ed to trace in Paradise Lost what he calls "an approved topos
of exile consolation: descended from H ellenistic rhetoric; elaborated in
Plutarch, Cicero and Seneca; and extended into R enaissance literature
from sentential collections and proverbial lo re ."97
W e can also see the hybrid nature of consolation in R hetorices
contractae. a school rhetoric by the Dutch scholar Gerardus Vossius
(1577-1649) which went through many printings in England. V ossius
lists various types of oratorical activities: anger and com m endation
( 11.2 1 ), rousing and conciliation ( 11.2 2 ), adhortation and dehortation
(11.24), request (11.25), invective and objurgation (11.26), and
expostulation, exprobation, and deprecation. A m ong these he also lists
95 R obert of Basevorn, The Form of Preaching (Form a praedicandi).
ed. Jam es J. Murphy, 169-215.
96 H.F. Stewart and E.K. Rand, "The Life of Boethius, in Boethius: The
T heological Tractates and The C onsolation of Philosophy, trans. H.F.
Stewart, E.K. Rand, and S.J. Tester (1918; repr. London: H einem ann,
1978), xii.
97 Christopher Fitter, " ’Native S oil’: The R hetoric of Exile Lament and
Exile C onsolation in Paradise L ost." M ilton Studies 20 (1984): 148.
138
consolation (11.24), and it is the only activity which he discusses in
connection with Christianity:
[This activity] is for us worshippers of Christ the Preserver,
because not only is such one instructed in prudence, but also in
the Christian religion. But Christians are trained by the
calam ities of this age, rather than perishing along with the world.
By consolation one will also be able to experience the
com m onplace of divine providence in evil.98
The other activities of adhortation, dehortation, objurgation,
expostulation, exprobation and deprecation resem ble H yperius’s types
of instruction and correction, but V ossius does not discuss them in
Christian terms. Nor is he writing a preaching manual.
In a sense, consolation also serves the function of pleasing
(deiectare) am ong the three offices of rhetoric, w hile doctrine and
reproof serve to teach (docere) and instruction and correction, always
aim ed at producing good behavior, to move (m overe). This equation
betw een H yperius’s faith, hope and charity and C icero’s three offices of
rhetoric is not as far-fetched as it might sound. In his Art of R hetorique
98 "Ouartum nobis quidem Christi Sospitatoris cultoribus illud est.
quod non m odo quis civili est prudentia instructus: sed Christiana etiam
religione sit imbutus. A tqui ea Christiani conditione facti sunt, ut
calam itatibus huius seculi exerceantur. ne cum mundo pereani [marg.: I
Cor. 11.32]. D elibari quoque hie poterit locus communis de providentia
divina in m alo■ ,, Gerardus Joannes Vossius, R hetorices contractae sive
partitionum oratorium libri V. Ex decreto illustr. ac pot. H olandiae. &
W estfrisiae D P . ordinum in usum scholarum eiusdem provinciae
excussi (1606; Oxford, 1672), 185. R hetores contractae was long in use
in Dutch and German schools. N ouvelle biographie generate depuis les
temps les plus recules jusqu’a nos jours, ed. H oeffer, 46 vols. (Paris,
1854-66), s.v. "Vossius, Gerard-Jean." It was also popular in England,
going through eight editions in the seventeenth century.
139
(1553), the earliest com plete rhetoric in English, Thomas W ilson
stresses the function of delectare as follows:
assuredly nothyng is more nedefull, then to quicken these heavie
loden w ittes of ours, and muche to cherishe these our lom pishe
and unweldie Natures, for excepte m en finde delite, thei will not
longe abide: delite them, and winne theim: w earie theim, and you
lose theim forever.
And W ilson specifically applies this need for delight to preaching:
m en com m onlie tary the ende of a m erie plaie, and can not abide
the halfe hearyng of a sower checkyng Sermon. Therefore euen
these auncient Preachers, must now and then plaie the fooles in
the pulpit, to serve the tickle eares of their fletyng audience, or
els thei are like som etym es to preache to the bare walles, for
though their spirite be apt, and our will prone, yet our flesh is so
heavie, and humours so overwhelm e us, that we cannot without
refreshyng, long abide to heare any one th in g."
By H yperius’s standards, such "playing the fool" would belong only to
civic oratory, because the preacher does not need to win his
congregation, either by flattery or "delight." But both Hyperius and
W ilson are agreed that human beings stand greatly in need of
encouragem ent.
Thus, consolation already had various valences before Hyperius
included it in his preaching system. It even had different valences
within what becam e the Hyperian tradition. It not only stood for the
"hope" in the faith-hope-charity triad, but it could also link the other
two m em bers of that triad, especially in what M ilton’s contem poraries
99 Thomas W ilson. The Arte of R hetorike. for the U se of A ll Sutche as
A re Studious of E loquence. Sette Foorthe in Englishe bv Thomas
W ilson. 1553. And Now Newly Set Foorthe A gain, with a Prologue to the
R ead er. 1553 (London, 1580), 3-4.
140
called "cases of conscience." A s W illiam A m es describes the
conscience, it concerns both the intellect (for it must reason) and the
will (for it must lead to right action). This leads A m es to define
conscience as a "practical judgment":
By the definition of C onscience, it appeareth that C onscience is
not a contem plative judgm ent, whereby truth is simply discerned
from falsehood: but a practical judgment, by which that which a
man knoweth is particularly applyed to that which is either good
or evill to him, to the end that it may be a rule within him to direct
his w ill.100
The consolatory m ode governed such questions of conscience. As
Officium concionatoris puts it: "The consolations of the sw eetest gospel
are so tem pered that they are applied to the perturbations of the
conscience, showing that the fate of the im penitent can in no way touch
u s."101 This application of the consolatory m ode is seen in the
num erous works of Puritan casuistry which marked M ilton’s ethically-
am biguous century, such as A m es’s C onscience with the Power and the
Cases (1643) or Baxter’s m onum ental Christian Directory (1673).102
C ontinental titles on casuistry included Johann A lsted ’s Summa casuum
conscientiae (1628), and in England there were W illiam Perkins’s A
100 W illiam A m es. C onscience with the Power and Cases T hereof
(London, 1643), 2.
101 " D ulcissim m ae Evangelii consolationes sic attem perentur. sicque
perturbatis conscientiis applicentur. ut simul ostendatur eas ad
im poenitentes dum tales fuerint. nihil attinere. & c." (33).
102 Richard Baxter, A Christian Directory: or. A Summ of Practical
T h eologie. and Cases of C onscience (London. 1673).
141
Case of Conscience (1592) and Richard Curteys’s The Care of a
Christian C onscience (1600), among others.103
These works assured their readers that certain actions were godly
even though rejected by men. A s W illiam Chappell puts it, "This
comforts those who are reproved by m en where the Scripture reproves
them n ot."104 Thus A b diel in Paradise Lost is consoled, "for this was all
thy care/T o stand approv’d in sight of G od, though W orlds/Judg’d thee
perverse" (V I.35-37). C onsolation likewise included the reverse
casuistry of showing the purpose behind G od ’s actions. It consoled by
justifying G od’s actions and asserting divine Providence, just as M ilton
prom ises to do at the inception of Paradise L ost.
B ecause consolation was the only serm on type not specifically
m entioned in II Timothy 3:16, sermon theorists had to decide where to
place it in their systems. Hyperius made it a fifth category, and so did
Richard Bernard and M atthew Sutcliff.105 Other theorists often placed
103 For discussions of the influence of Protestant casuistry on English
R enaissance literature, see Cam ille W ells Slights. The Casuistical
Tradition in Shakespeare. D onne. H erbert, and M ilton (Princeton,
1981) and Low ell Gallagher, M edusa’s Gaze: Casuistry and C onscience
in the R enaissance (Stanford, 1991). One study of preaching in the
Faerie O ueene which links consolatory preaching with easing of
conscience is Richard M allette’s "The Protestant Art of Preaching in
Book One of The Faerie O u een e." Spenser Studies 7 (1986): 3-25.
104 W illiam Chappell. The U se of H oly Scripture fLondon. 1653), 115.
105 Richard Bernard. The Faithful Shepheard (London. 1607), 69.
M atthew Sutcliff, D e recta studii theologici ratione . .. de concionum ad
populum form ulis (London, 1602), 85.
142
it with instruction, that is, with the positive inculcation of virtue.
Perkins does this, as does Wilkins, who gives it a prom inent position but
also redraws the categories.106 H e nam es two doctrinal types (didactic
and elenchic) and only two practical types (correction and instruction),
but under instruction he lists both exhortation and consolation (p. 5).
H e also cites I Timothy 4:13: "Till I com e, give attendance to reading,
to exhortation (te paraklesei). to doctrine." The fact that paraklesis
itself had various meanings only added to the problem of categorizing
consolation. John Preston lists it as a type of doctrine, and he seem s to
be irked that it was considered a serm on type when it was not expressly
listed in II Timothy 3:16:
O bject. I Cor. 14.3. It is said, that Scripture is profitable to
comfort, why is that not a distinct head?
Ans. It is to be refered to the head of doctrine .107
Theorists and preachers tended to favor one of the serm on types.
Hyperius him self favored doctrine, saying that it was alone "of great
importance to the establishing of G od ’s church, and to the amplifying
thereof" (f. 110). On the other hand, John W ilkins’s E cclesiastes (1646)
gives consolation a prom inent position. H e explains that consolation is
one of the major purposes of the Scriptures (15). John D on ne seem s to
prefer instruction, that is, the positive inculcation of virtue. A s he says
106 W illiam Perkins, The Arte of Prophesying (1607) in Works (London
and Cambridge, 1612-13), 11:668. John W ilkins, E cclesiastes (London,
1646), 15.
107 John Preston, "The Paterne of W holesom e Words," in R iches of
Mercy to M en in Misery (London, 1658), 324.
143
in one place, "A Sermon intends Exhortation principally and Edification
and a holy stirring of religious affections" (V III:3.10-11) .108 D onne
privileges practical issues over doctrinal ones in this passage. He
continues, "and then matters of D octrin e, and points of Divinity,
occasionally, secondarily, as the words of the text may invite them." His
use of terms also places consolation ("edification") with instruction
("exhortation").109
But M ilton’s poet, who serves "beside the office of a pulpit,"
engages in two different pulpit activities: the rectifying of poor
behavior, which falls under the category of correction, and the justifying
108 John D onne. The Sermons of John D o n n e , ed. Evelyn M. Simpson
and G eorge R. Potter, 10 vols. (Berkeley and Los A ngeles: University
of California Press, 1953-62), V III:3.10-11.
109 That D onne succeeded in his "holy stirring of religious affections"
can be seen in Thom as Carew’s funeral elegy:
The Pulpit may her plaine,
And sober Christian precepts still retaine,
D octrines it may, and w holesom e U ses frame,
Grave H om ilies, and Lectures, But the flam e
Of thy brave Soule, that short such heat and light
A s burnt our earth, and made our darknesse bright,
C om m itted holy R apes upon our Will,
Did through the eye the m elting heart distill;
And the deepe knowledge of darke truths so teach
A s sense might judge, what phansie could not reach
( 11-2 0).
Thomas Carew, "An E legie U pon the D eath of the D eane of Pauls, Dr.
John Donne," in Seventeenth-Centurv V erse and Prose. V ol. One:
1600-1660. ed. H elen C. W hite, Ruth C. W allerstein, Ricardo Quintana,
and A.B. Chambers, 2nd edn. (New York: M acm illan, 1971), 329.
144
of correct behavior, which falls under the category of consolation. For
serm on manuals, this is an odd com bination. I have read most of the
preaching manuals published in England during the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, along with som e published on the Continent, and
so far I have only found one such manual which groups consolation with
correction.
This text is M ethodus concionandi published in Latin in 1648 and
then in English in 1656 as The P reacher. The author is none other than
W illiam Chappell, M ilton’s first tutor at Christ’s C ollege, Cambridge.
Chappell com bines correction and consolation because he glosses the
G reek term for correction, epanorthosin. which appears nowhere else in
the New Testam ent, as "rectifying." H e explains that consolation and
correction used in tandem serve to balance out various human
tendencies:
The heart of man may be irregular, or straying from the right and
its rule two ways. Nam ely, by being exalted above the rule, or by
being dejected beneath it, and therefore in either way it may want
rectifying, in the first by R eprehension or R eproof, in the latter
by C onsolation or Comfort IThe Preacher. 20-21).
Although Chappell does not cite it, the initial verses of Isaiah 40, the
beginning of the poetic section in what Perkins and his contem poraries
considered to be a heavily doctrinal book, deal with just this kind of
consolatory rectification:
Comfort ye, comfort ye my people .... Prepare ye the way of the
Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every
valley shall be exalted, and every m ountain and hill shall be made
low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places
plain (vv. 1, 3-4).
145
The last portion of this passage is particularly relevant for M ilton, since
when his poet beautifies his work, it is to cause "the paths of honesty and
good life," which only appear to be "rugged and difficult," to appear as
they are in truth, "easy and pleasant" (CPW 1:818).
C happell’s other work, The U se of H oly Scripture Gravely and
M ethodically D iscoursed, is a draft exposition of II Timothy 3:16 which
serves as the theoretical underpinning of his preaching m ethod. The
longest section, and the only com pleted one, is on correction. This text
was published in London in 1653, several years after C happell’s death in
1649, but the preface indicates that the anonymous publisher received
the manuscript from Chappell nearly twenty years earlier, or som etim e
in the early 1630’s. Chappell was M ilton’s tutor in 1626.
M ilton had a sharp disagreem ent with Chappell and switched to
the tutorship of N athaniel Tovey, but there are indications that M ilton
later repented of his youthful rejection of Chappell, who enjoyed a
dazzling reputation as a scholar and controversialist.110 It would not be
surprising. It could be argued that M ilton was engaged with his
teachers. His first published prose was in the service of the
Smectymnuan Thom as Young, his tutor som etim e before 1620, w hen he
went to Hamburg. M ilton would have only been twelve at the most, yet
he continued to correspond with Young, and also with A lexander Gill,
110 See for instance Leo M iller, "Milton’s Clash with Chappell: A
Suggested Reconstruction." M ilton Quarterly 14 (1980): 77-87.
146
Jr., of St. Paul’s School. In later years, he watched over at least one
form er student by such correspondence .111
More importantly, M ilton tended to use one or two good texts
rather than dozens of m ediocre ones. For instance, his Brief History of
M uscovia (1682) is a summary of m aterial taken entirely from Purchas
and Hakluyt, the best collections of travel literature in his day.112
Recently, Jason R osenblatt has argued that "John Selden . . . the most
learned person in England in the seventeenth century and the author of
a half dozen im m ense rabbinical works, is the principal source of
M ilton’s Jewish learning ."113 What is more, M ilton specifically put the
works of other Christ’s C ollege m en to this sort of use: G eorge
D ow nam e’s edition of R am us’s Logic is the basis for M ilton’s Artis
Logicae Plenior Institutio (1672), and A m e s’s Marrow of Sacred
Divinity (1629) is one of the two bases for M ilton’s Christian D octrin e.
In a sense, M ilton’s missing treatise on preaching was written by
W illiam Chappell.
111 See letters in Young and Gill at CPW 1:310-317, 321-22 (and
possibly 318-321, the "Letter to a Friend") and his letters to Richard
Jones at CPW V IL487-89, 493-95, 503.
112 A s G eorge B. Parks notes, "[Milton] com bed Hakluyt and Purchas
for the details he w anted. His preface considerably exaggerates his
pains. ’What was scatter’d in many Volumes" was actually scattered in
only two . . . The task was one of com pilation only" (CPW VIII:458) See
also Nathan D ane, "Milton’s Callimachus." M odern Language N otes 16
(1941): 278-9. D ane dem onstrates that M ilton used a single version of
Callim achus and suggests that this is typical of M ilton’s use of a text.
113 Jason R osenblatt, "Milton’s Chief Rabbi," M ilton Studies 24 (1988):
46.
147
N o one has called attention to the connection betw een M ilton’s
"office of a pulpit" passage and Chappell. Jackson Cam pbell Bosw ell
makes no m ention of Hyperius, Chappell or any other serm on theorist
in M ilton’s Library.114 Harris Fletcher, in his m onum ental work on
John M ilton’s intellectual developm ent, forgoes an account of
C happell’s two known publications, except to m ention that The U se of
the H oly Scripture "is of interest chiefly as a display of [C happell’s] use
of tables and outlines, carefully m ade, the sure signs of a scrupulously
accurate and orderly individual.1 '115 In reality, these charts appear in
both texts and indicate more than anything C happell’s conspicuous
loyalty to the Ram ist school of logic. H e was, as I have already
m entioned, a student of W illiam A m es, one of R am us’s English editors.
One instance of C happell’s Ram ism is in his choice of terms. Many
sermon theorists call points of doctrine "commonplaces"; Chappell calls
them "axioms."
On the other hand, D onald L em en Clark discusses both of
C happell’s texts as Ram ist docum ents but he neglects to point out their
significance in terms of the Protestant hom iletic tradition. Thus, Clark
114 Jackson Cam pbell Bosw ell, M ilton’s Library: A Catalogue of the
R em ains of John M ilton’s Library and an A nnotated R econstruction of
M ilton’s Library and Ancillary R eadings (N ew York and London:
Garland, 1975).
115 Harris Francis Fletcher, The Intellectual D evelop m ent of John
M ilton. 11:36.
148
focuses on the minutiae of Ram ist inventional theory in C happell’s The
U se of the Holy Scripture rather than drawing attention to the fact that
the text is based on II Timothy 3:16 and divided appropriately into
discussions of reprehension, consolation, exhortation, and dehortation.
W hen Clark com es across such topoi in C happell’s preaching, he
describes them only as "basic topics of ancient suasory or deliberative
rhetoric" (343 ) .116 Wilbur Sam uel H ow ell has also discussed The
Preacher at som e length, but mostly in terms of its Ram ist inventional
theory. For instance, H ow ell calls Chappell a "moderate" Ramist
because he reduces the ten places of invention to eight. H e does not
m ention, however, that Chappell calls scriptural com m onplaces
"axioms."117
M ilton’s nineteenth-century biographer David M asson examined
C happell’s preaching text, but only com plained about its dryness: "I
have looked over his Art of P reaching: and the im pression which it has
left is that, though not a com m on-place man, and probably an accurate
tutor, he must have been a man of dry and meagre nature" (M asson
1:129). M asson was correct in judging the discussion to be dry, at least
in the earlier section. H ere is a sample: "There is another Adjunct to
the Connex, or as one should say, joyned to it as it were in affinity, not to
116 D onald L em en Clark. John M ilton at St. Paul’s S chool. 343.
117 Wilbur Sam uel H ow ell, Logic and R hetoric in England. 1500-1700.
211-13.
149
be m easured out of the precise proportion of the form alone" (The
Preacher. 8 8 ).
One reason that the earlier sections are so dry is that Chappell is
discussing broad inventional categories which are of necessity free of
specific content. They are not therefore uninteresting to a student
looking for the best system. M asson m akes an error which we should
not repeat if we wish to assess the influence of M ilton’s contem poraries
on the p o e t’s work. H e assum es that since M ilton wrote great poetry, he
could only be influenced by m aterial presented in som e aesthetically
pleasing style. But M ilton understood the concept of decorum . He
knew that various subjects required various means of presentation. He
would not have looked for a R am ist discussion of invention to have been
as interesting as poetry; his own Artis logicae plenior institutio (1672) is
scarcely more engaging.
W. Fraser M itchell’s classic discussion of pulpit oratory examines
C happell’s work, both The Preacher (1656) and The U se of H oly
Scripture (1653) intelligently and in som e detail. H e even m entions
C happell’s relationship with M ilton, but only to say that the sermon
theorist was "reputed on doubtful evidence to have w hipped John
M ilton, the future poet." Otherwise, M itchell finds C happell’s text
unsatisfactory because of its lack of literary polish, and instead prefers
the urbanity of John W ilkins’s E cclesiastes (1646):
[Chappell’s] book is a highly technicalized ’m ethod,’ scholastical
and learned in its bases, but directed strictly to religious and
moral ends to the exclusion of art. A s such, it appealed to m en in
his own period; but its appeal could not be more extensive. Only
W ilkins, of those w hose manuals we have glanced at, with his fine
150
recognition of preaching as an art as w ell as a species of divine
ordinance, has left a book, which, while in no way neglecting the
essential purpose of the sermon, brings the work of the preacher
into clear relationship with the cultured interest of m en .118
M itchell’s literary interest is clear. A m ong the other authors whom he
"glances at" are not only Perkins, Bernard and Baxter, but Augustine,
M elancththon, and Erasmus; all of these figures com e short of the more
literary Wilkins, who actually com es at the end of the tradition and
summarizes it rather than adding any innovations of his own. Perhaps
the most telling detail here is that M itchell differentiates betw een
Chappell, the dry theorist, and M ilton, "the future p o e t.” H e makes no
reference to the fact that in 1626, M ilton also saw him self as "the future
preacher." This is the kind of bifurcation which prevents us from seeing
M ilton’s continued use of the pulpit in his writing.
I will discuss the im portance of Chappell further in Chapter Four,
but I have discussed this much to dem onstrate that M ilton’s work can be
examined in terms of the Protestant hom iletic tradition, and
particularly that tradition established by A ndreas Gerhard Hyperius
and transm itted m ost directly to M ilton by W illiam Chappell. In the
follow ing chapters, I will be showing how this hom iletic tradition can
help us understand specific aspects of M ilton’s work. In the next
chapter I will show how H yperius’s hom iletic system both encouraged
118 W illiam Fraser M itchell. English Pulpit Oratory from Andrew es to
Tillotson: A Study of Its Literary A spects (London: Society for
Prom oting Christian K nowledge, 1932), 110.
151
religious controversy in England and determ ined its conduct, and also
how M ilton appropriated this tradition for his own ends.
152
Chapter Three: The Poet as Polem icist
The impact of H yperius’s ideas went w ell beyond sermon
construction and affected the neighboring field of religious controversy.
What Hyperius called the "redargutive" sermon was meant to reprove
false doctrine, and while the preaching manuals called for the "full
panoply" of rhetoric, at the same time they counselled the preacher to
dem onstrate charity for his opponent. These late R enaissance artes
praedicandi celebrated the intellectual superiority of the doctrinal
sermon in general and the "redargutive" serm on in particular, with the
result that many of the most intellectual thinkers in England were
further encouraged to participate in religious controversy. A s a result
of H yperius’s ideas taking root in England, religious controversialists
developed a set of expectations as to how arguments over points of
doctrine should be conducted among Englishm en.
Like the Smectymnuans and Bishop Joseph Hall, M ilton follow s
these procedures in his earlier antiprelatical tracts, but he also
conspicuously reworks them. Rather than "hiding his art" when arguing
point-byrpoint, a form ula favored by his contem poraries, M ilton often
com presses and shapes his material into a more potent form, as he later
will do his poetry, and actually calls attention to his rhetoric, linking
eloquence with moral rectitude. H e makes style itself a controversial
issue. In so doing, he reflects the R eform ation conviction that Scripture
itself is a m odel for discourse.
153
In this chapter I w ill first show how Hyperian sermon manuals
influenced English religious controversy by both stressing the
intellectual challenge of the redargutive sermon and by setting up
procedural expectations for it. I will then examine M ilton’s reworking
of these expectations in his writings against Bishop H all in the early
1640’s.
I. The Influence of Hyperius on English
R eligious Controversy.
The m ost important serm on type for the controversialist was what
Hyperius called the "redargutive" sermon, the one which reproved false
doctrine. It is in the redargutive sermon that the preacher m oves not
only into controversy, but also into the kind of verbal combat which
recalls rhetoric’s agonistic origins. The agonistic nature of the
redargutive serm on is evident even in the tone of H yperius’s discussion
of it. H e has just finished the issue of teaching doctrine to docile
parishioners; his m ood in that preceding section was calm and
unhurried. W hen he m oves on to discussing the redargutive sermon,
however, he switches from this pastoral m ood to a distinctly combative
one. H e speaks of the "enemies of truth" who bring into their arguments
proofs which are "very subtill and sophisticall." For this reason
"whosoever he be that w ill valiantly joyne battayle with them, must be
indifferently w ell furnished with all kinde of w eapons and policy of
154
fightinge ."1 In H yperius’s first section, the preacher was a shepherd
feedin g his flock. In this section, he becom es a knight, battling for the
truth against dangerous opponents. This im age of the religious
controversialist as a knight was a com m on o n e .2 H em m ingsen, for
exam ple, insists in his serm on manual that the contrary side is already
armed: "the flesh unthanckful to God, from thence taketh w eapons unto
him self."3
Later English discussions of preaching also employ the image of
skilled knightly combat. Richard Bernard, for instance, says in 1607:
H ee is foole-hardie that will challenge an other into the field,
bring him out weapons, and him selfe w ithout skill to warde off.4
Likewise, Richard Baxter in 1673 claims that controversies call for a
preacher with special capacities. "The rest may take up with such
preparations as they have use for, and exercise them . . . in the pastoral
oversight of the flocks, and propagating plain and necessary truths."5
1 Andreas Gerhard Hyperius. Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 1553,
trans. John Ludham (London, 1577), 146.
2 See my article, "Christian Knights and the R hetoric of R eligious C on
troversy, 1500-1800," in R hetoric in the Vortex of Cultural Studies: P ro
ceedings of the Fifth B ienniel C onference. R hetoric Society of
A m erica, ed. Arthur W alzer (M inneapolis: Burgess, 1993), 131-38.
3 N iels H em m ingsen. The Preacher. 1555, trans. John H orsfal (London,
1574), 30.
4 Richard Bernard. The Faithful Shepheard (London, 1607), 62.
5 Richard Baxter, The Christian Directory (London, 1673), 929.
155
This is not to say that doctrine itself is a simple matter. Hyperius
counselled that both doctrine and reproof of false doctrine were
intellectually demanding. A s I have discussed in the preceding chapter,
H yperius’s exegesis revolves around locating "commonplaces" in
Scripture, and he considered the those "places" to be particularly
difficult which were concerned with doctrine. On the other hand,
according to him none of the scriptural research for the practical
sermon types, that is, the institution of correct behavior, correction of
sinful behavior, or consolation, required much effort. Those scriptural
com m onplaces dealing with institution, "whereunto are reduced all
places touching the good and godly framing of life and manners . . . [are]
no very hard matter to find" (Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 56).
Likewise, com m onplaces for correction "may without difficulty be
excogitate" and those for consolation "may easily be drawn forth at all
times" (Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 57). These easier
com m onplaces are more appropriate for the uneducated audience,
whereas the knottier issues of faith properly belong to the learned, who
w ill know how to properly handle them.
Thus, in small towns and villages, the preacher should stress such
fundam ental lessons as hearing the Scriptures diligently, seeking the
spiritual before the secular, praying, giving thanksgiving for G od ’s
benefits and receiving H is consolation. In the larger towns and in the
cities, however, a sufficient number of the learned will be present and
doctrines can therefore be expounded, "for what doctrine tending to
156
godliness shall there unseasonably or unfruitfully be taught, where men
of all sorts and degrees are assem bled together?" (ff. 73-74).
Hyperius thus considers the proper audience for doctrine to be
the learned, who will know properly how to handle it:
They that covet to profit in sound and holy doctrine, what time
they have diligently conferred as touching the truth with other
godly men of all sorts and degrees . . . they shall exactly w eigh and
perpend all m en’s opinions, sayings, interpretations,
disputations, yea they shall mark also visions, revelations, dreams
. . . signs and wonders, and of all these things so far forth as in
them lieth, they shall prudently show their judgm ent. (Of
Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 74)
Richard Bernard concurs with such advice: "obscure Scriptures about
which must necessarilie arise questions of controversies, leave for
Schooles, and handle not amongst com m on people and vulgar sort.
Com mon assem blies are not m eet either to heare or judge of
controversies."6 N iels H em m ingsen lists "four kinds of interpreting"
(i.e., preaching): the grammarian’s, the logician’s, the orator’s, and the
"mixed" which contains all three. Of these, the orator’s kind is "most
profitable in churches and schools, wherein the greatest wits have
exercised them selves."7
Such distinctions among audiences are dictated by prudential
concerns. Hyperius stresses that those who speak from the pulpit must
continually consider time, place and person when constructing sermons.
6 Richard Bernard. The Faithful Shepheard (London. 1607), 18.
7 N iels H em m ingsen, The Preacher. 1555, trans. John H orsfal (London,
1574), 11-14.
The preacher must use a "singular prudence and sharpnesse of wit, to
the intent he may b ecom e all thinges to all men, and save so many as
possible" (Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 74). Since the preacher is
called to save as many souls as possible from perdition, he should frame
his sermons to his listen ers’ capacities, including the states of their
souls.
W hereas the doctrinal sermon engages the intellect of both
speaker and listener, the redargutive serm on m akes additional demands
on the intellectual and rhetorical abilities of the speaker. The doctrinal
sermon, w hile requiring scholarship and exegetical expertise, is mostly
preaching to the converted, and therefore the docile. The redargutive
sermon, on the other hand, requires not only the preacher’s intellectual
efforts to understand the doctrinal issues involved, but also his
unflagging vigilance and expertise in the face of a potentially hostile
audience. The redargutive serm on was part of the larger battle for
doctrine which characterized the R eform ation, a battle fought betw een
intellectual lum inaries. W hole reputations (and often lives) were at
stake in these disputes.
The English preaching theorists understood the demands of the
redargutive serm on. H yperius’s extensive advice regarding this sermon
type was repeated in greater or lesser detail in English preaching
manuals, with the result that the redargutive serm on developed its own
set of generic expectations and rules for procedure. I have already
m entioned the manuals by W illiam Perkins, Richard Bernard and John
W ilkins, and the anonymous Officium concionatoris.8 There are also
com m ents about redargution in W illiam A m es’s casuistical work,
C onscience with the Power and the Cases (1643b 9 W illiam Perkins
(11:669) and John W ilkins (16) touch briefly on redargution; Richard
Bernard discusses it copiously. H e has nothing but scorn for the novice
who would challenge experts:
Young Cockerils that begin but to crow, may not set upon the
great Cockes of the game. There bee many N ovices who have
scarce learned the a.b.c in D ivinities, ignorant in a maner of the
com m on principles of religion, yet in these daies wil be m edling
with the chiefest controversies: som e crowing against that
Sophisticall B ellarm in e: som e billing at that profound &
Judiciall interpreter Calvin . . . foolishly despising his
incom parable learning and skill. (The Faithful Shepheard. 62)
Bernard’s last words, "learning and skill," identify the twin necessities of
intellect and rhetorical expertise which the redargutive serm on
dem anded. Bernard cites St. P aul’s advice to the pastor that he should
thoroughly understand the Scripture in order to correct false opinions:
"Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be
8 W illiam Perkins, The Art of Prophesying. 1607, in Works (London
and Cambridge, 1612-13); Richard Bernard. The Faithful Shepheard
(London, 1607): John W ilkins. E cclesiastes (London. 16461: Officium
concionatoris (1655: Cambridge. 1676).
9 Pp. 78-80. I am not going to include Richard Baxter’s A Christian
Directory (1673) in this discussion. Baxter addresses the laity rather
than the clergy, and his orientation is cognitive rather than discursive.
That is, he is more concerned with how the judgment may be clouded
than with how this cognitive difficulty might be m anifested in speech.
Richard Baxter, "Directions for the discovery of truth am ong con
tenders, and the escape of heresie and deceit," in A Christian Directory
(1673), 724-754.
able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers"
(in Titus 1:9). W ell and good, but Bernard also warns the would-be
controversialist not to "meddle further" than he can deal with:
It is good to raise up not more spirits by shewing the arguments of
the adversarie, then may bee cunningly conjured downe againe,
lest in seem ing either to withdraw or to keep any from errour,
such should confirme m en therein, and put words into their
mouths, to speake against the trueth, before unknowne to them.
A foolish m erchant is he, who will so much make m ention of other
m ens wares, as that he thereby, though not intended, overthrow
his owne market." (The Faithful Shepheard. 62)
Y et for all its intellectual rigor, this serm on type poses a dilem m a to the
Christian. On the one hand, the redargutive serm on is thoroughly
scriptural, but on the other it threatens to be uncharitable.
In his biblicist discussion of the redargutive sermon, Hyperius
reminds his reader that it is com m on in the Scriptures to see accounts of
combat with "the phantasticall surmises of the G en tiles, of the false
prophets, Pharisees and such lyke" (Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 18).
H e also cites numerous exam ples of redargutive sermons from
Scripture, such as Christ’s reproof of the Pharisees in the Sermon on the
M ount (M atthew 5-7), his rejection of their interpretation of the
Sabbath (M atthew 12) and of ritual cleanliness (M atthew 15); and
St. P aul’s reproof for those who claim ed that the end of the world was at
hand (I T hessalonians 1). The "preachers" he cites are the most heroic
in the Bible: Christ, St. Paul, the prophets, and so forth.
H em m ingsen makes a similar claim about the rhetorical
sufficiency of the Scriptures. H e says that the m ethod of confutation is
not only A ristotle’s and C icero’s but also St. P aul’s. For instance, in the
book of Rom ans, St. Paul labors to prove that righteousness is gained by
faith alone. To do so, he must confute the prejudices of those Jews and
G entiles who thought them selves justified by N ature .10 In general, the
authors of artes praedicandi cite Scriptural examples of redargution, as
when Bernard discusses Christ’s rejection of false interpretations,
traditions and opinions (The Faithful Shepheard. 60) or when Perkins
discusses Christ’s warning the disciples against the Pharisees and
Sadducees.11
But although the theorists insisted that the redugartive sermon
type is scriptural, they also insisted that there is a difference, som etim es
finely drawn, betw een charitable controversy engaged in for the love of
another’s soul and self-seeking controversy engaged in for the love of
o n e ’s own reputation. Hyperius recognized this difference and provided
a number of cautiones for the controversialist. These cautions are
em phasized to varying degrees in English preaching manuals. Some
theorists repeat all of them; som e but a few. Those cautions which are
most frequently repeated are m ost useful for understanding English
religious controversy.
10 The Preacher. 1555, trans. John H orsfal (London, 1574), 50. H em -
m ingsen’s argument here is thoroughly M elanchthonian. K ees M eer-
hoff has shown how, in order to prove the primacy of the E pistle of
R om ans, M elanchthon must prove St. Paul to be the superior rhetor.
"The Significance of Philip M elanchthon’s R hetoric in the R en ais
sance," in R enaissance A rgum ent. 46-62.
11 W illiam Perkins, The Arte of Prophesying. 1607, in Works (London
and Cambridge, 1612-13), 11:668.
161
There are three points which all the authors insist a preacher
must observe when confronting error. First, the matter and style of the
redargution must be centered in the Scriptures. Second, redargution
must be aim ed solely at doctrinal errors and heresies which are
troubling the church at the present m om ent. Finally, the preacher must
dem onstrate charity while he is correcting the error. I will discuss each
of these in turn. — ' 1
The matter and style of the redargution must be based upon
Scripture. One of the most frequently cited reasons for having a textual
center to the correction of error is to avoid the im putation of
argum entativeness. A m es, for instance, begins his discussion by saying, -7
"No Controversies are to bee moved, which we finde not just occasion
for in the Text, or in the D octrine deduced out of the Text."12 Bernard
warns that the textual nature warrant for the controversy be clear, so
that "wee seem e not to delight in controversies, arguing avain e
contentious spirit."13 The only exception to this biblicist position j
among serm on manuals is that of M atthew Sutcliff, who says that
refutations to false doctrine may be drawn from the church fathers as
well as from Scripture. The Anglican establishm ent felt the
R eform ation had already progressed sufficiently and valued the
traditions and writings of the first several centuries of Christianity. A s a
12 W illiam A m es. C onscience with the Power and the Cases Thereof
(London, 1643), 79.
13 Richard Bernard, The Faithful Shepheard (London, 1607), 63.
162
defender of that establishm ent, Sutcliff represents a less rigorously
biblicist position, but even so, he still lists Scriptures first.14
R edargution must be directed solely at heresies troubling the
church at the present m om ent. Hyperius cautions against reviving old
heresies for fear of raising the curiosity of the audience:
H owbeit, neither is it necessary, nor expedient, publikely to
ensearch and narrowly to examine all thinges, which are produced
of the authors of false assertions whither they bee Ethnickes or
heretickes: leaste verilye we goe about to withdrawe men from
error, w ee minister occasion to som e am onge the hearers,
especially to the curious, to enquire more scrupulously after them
and by this enquiry (as it commonly com m eth to passe) to slide
and fall into erroure.15
This advice is at least as old as A ugustine, whom Hyperius cites .16
A m es explains that this caution reflects the com m on-sense realities of
the preaching task:
For neither hath a faithfull Preacher so much leasure, because of
errors and sinnes now taking place, as to seeke m atter of
opposition from any thing else; neither m akes it any whit to the
14 " Tertio ostendem us sententiae. quam refellendam suscepim us.
ineptias et novitatem. eam que argumentis a scripturis. patrum
testim oniis. adversariorum confessione et dissensione. variisque aliis
rationibus refellem u s." ("Thirdly we show those statem ents which we
have refuted to be silly novelties by arguments from Scripture,
testim onies of the fathers, by the adm ission and dissention of the adver
saries, and various other reasons.") M atthew Sutcliff, D e recta studii
theologici ratione . . . brevis de concionum form ulis (London, 1602), 82.
15 Andreas Gerhard Hyperius. Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 1553,
trans. John Ludham (London, 1577), 148.
16 A ugustine’s work is D e catechizandis. 7. Hyperius explains that
A ugustine counsels against com prehensive discourse "against all kindes
of frowarde and perverse men." Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 1553,
trans. John Ludham (London, 1577), 149.
163
edification of the people, that they should be held in hearing and
learning blasphem ies and h eresies .17
Bernard cautions the preacher neither to raise any old heresies ("this
were but to keep in minde what were better buried ever in oblivion") nor
to devise any new ones, "which were so to fight with our owne shadow ."18
Perkins specifies that heresies which are dead or irrelevant should be
left alone, "unless som e danger be readie to ensue of them ."19 The
wording of W ilkins’s counsel is less anxious: "it will be need lesse to
raise up any old obsolete errors, as now lieth dead and doe not trouble
the Church: but we should take notice onely of such as being pertinent
to the subject at hand, doe m ost infect the present tim es and places
w herein we live ."20
The preacher must dem onstrate charity. This is perhaps the most
im portant caution, one which the authors repeat and even obtrude into
other cautions. It also indicates that R eform ation preachers were
17 W illiam Am es. Conscience with the Power and the Cases Thereof
(London, 1643), 79.
18 Richard Bernard, The Faithful Shepheard (London, 1607), 63.
19 W illiam Perkins, The Arte of Prophesying, in Works (London and
Cambridge, 1612-13), 11:668. Cf. O fficium : "There are so many errors
to be argued that trouble the church in which we live. Nothing urges
that errors buried with their authors be reopened. A s the proverb says,
do not dislodge the well-buried evil." ("1111 tantum errores arguantur.
qui turbant Ecclesiam in qua vivimus: Errores cum autoribus sepultos
nil attinet refricari: M alum bene conditum ne moveris. proverb.")
O fficium concionatoris (1655; Cambridge, 1676), 32.
20 John W ilkins, E cclesiastes (London, 1646), 16.
164
willing to separate faith from practice only so far. The tree is known by
its fruit, and the doctrine by charity. Hyperius warns the preacher to
take heed lest he be thought to prom ote him self or to hate his
opponents rather than desire to defend the truth. This is not to say that
he cannot attack a false teacher, for Christ attacked the Pharisees, but
he must use gravity and never lose hold of charity.21 The author of the
anonymous Officium concionatoris likewise warns the preacher against
being eager for conten tion .22 Sutcliff warns m ore generally against the
overuse of "sharp w ords."23
Hyperius also counsels the preacher to use great m oderation so
that all men know that their repentance is sought rather than their
condem nation .24 A m es says that "zeale and truth must be tem pered
with such m ildnesse and m oderation as becom es the cause, and as may
distinguish such as erre out of sim plicitie, from such as blasphem e
21 Andreas Gerhard Hyperius. Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 1553,
trans. John Ludham (London, 1577), 149.
22 " N e facile in concionibus ad erroris redargutionem descendam us.
nisi textus ipse occasionem nobis suppeditet. ne contentionis ansam
captare videam ur." ("Let us not descend eagerly into refutation of
errors in sermons, nor treat the text as an occasion to do so, or appear to
be eager to contend.") O fficium concionatoris (1655; Cambridge,
1676), 32.
23 " Cavendum postrem o ne m aiore verborum acerbitate utamur. quam
res postulat." ("Finally we must take care not to use too many sharp
words in our prosecution.") M atthew Sutcliff, D e recta studii theologici
ratione . . . brevis de concionum form ulis (London, 1602), 83.
24 A ndreas Gerhard Hyperius. Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 1553,
trans. John Ludham (London, 1577), 149.
165
im piously ."25 This counsel points to the difference betw een the
ignorant, local flock which the pastor is protecting and the distant wolf
in R om e or elsew here which is threatening it; the offer of charity
depends on how the erring party is perceived.
The nature of the error is also considered. "Things indifferent"
(adiaphoral must be disputed with all charity. As Perkins says" "If the
error bee [apart from] the foundation of faith, the confutation must not
onely be a Christianlike, as it should be ever: but also a friendly, a
gentle and brotherly dissen tion ."26 W ilkins counsels the pastor to
proceed with "much m eeknesse and lenity in differences not
fundamentall," citing as his authority II Timothy 2:25: "In m eekness
instructing those that oppose them selves; if G od peradventure w ill give
them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth."27
A further and oft-repeated caution which was som etim es phrased
in terms of charity was to state accurately the opposing position. For
instance, Richard Bernard gives the follow ing advice:
N ot to make [the error] grosser nor more absurd then it is, shew
w herein we consent, and how farre we may approove of that
opinion. This course will shew our faithful dealing, allowing truth
25 W illiam A m es. C onscience with the Power and the Cases Thereof
(London, 1643), 79-80.
26 W illiam Perkins, The Arte of Prophesying, in Works (London and
Cambridge, 1612-13), 11:668. The wording in O fficium concionatoris is
identical: " Si error sit extra fundam entum fidei. confutatio non solum
debet esse Christiana, ut semper, sed etiam arnica, placida etfratern a
d issen tio." O fficium concionatoris (1655; Cambridge, 1676), 32.
27 John W ilkins. E cclesiastes (London. 1646), 16.
166
in all things . . . and that we wilfully dissent not where we have just
cause to agree.28
Bernard adds that the report of the error must be accurate so as to do
the adversary "no wrong.” In other words, the controversialist has the
Christian duty to report his opponent’s argument accurately. H e could
show charity through clarity.
Other theorists insisted on such clarity. The preacher must be
clear both in his statem ent of the error and in his refutation of it.
W illiam Perkins notes that "the state of the question . . . must be
thoroughly understood."29 Similarly, W illiam A m es counsels the
controversialist to use such prudence "that the confirm ation of the truth
may appeare to all."30 Hyperius him self also counselled clarity as a
m eans of distancing oneself from the appearance of sophistry, "for in
case thou doest nothinge else then subtelly inveigh against subteltie, thy
tale w ill be as much suspected and disliked."31
N either of these cautions about clarity or charity is particularly
novel. They reflect the com m on practice of the Church fathers and the
com m on sense of two m illennia of rhetorical theory. Again, many of the
28 Richard Bernard, The Faithful Shepheard (London, 1607), 60.
29 W illiam Perkins, The Arte of Prophesying. 1607, in Works (London
and Cambridge, 1612-13), 11:668.
30 W illiam A m es. C onscience with the Power and the Cases Thereof
(London, 1643), 79.
31 Andreas Gerhard Hyperius, Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 1553,
trans. John Ludham (London, 1577), 148.
167
counsels of Hyperius and his follow ers are cogent restatem ents rather
than startling innovations. But precisely because they were so cogent,
these cautions passed into English hom iletics and thence into
controversial practice, where they determ ined som e im plicit rules for
conducting an argument.
They also determ ined som e strategies. In England, Protestant
religious controversialists, whether they actually practiced either
charity or clarity, would claim that their equally Protestant opponents
did not. In fact, they would often take opposing stances, one side
claim ing to be clear and the other side claiming to be charitable. Thus
Joseph H all would urge charitable com pliance to the establishm ent,
claiming that "furious and m alignant spirits everyw here have burst
forth into sclanderous libels, bitter Pasquines, railing Pamphlets."32
M ilton, on the other hand, often replies in terms of clarity. H e
complains that his opponents too often leave the clear counsels of
Scripture in favor of ambiguous traditions:
They seek the dark, the bushie, the tangled Forrest, they would
imbosk: they fee l them selvs strook in the transparent streams of
divine Truth, they would plunge, and tumble, and thinke to ly hid
in the foul w eeds, and muddy waters. (CPW 1:569)
Controversialists w ill also som etim es take up institutive, corrective or
consolatory m odes for p olem ical (and therefore doctrinal) ends. For
instance, John A llington published a series of serm ons which was
actually a loyalist defense of Charles I, thinly disguised as corrective
32 Joseph H all. An H um ble R em onstrance. (London, 1640), 6-7.
168
exhortations. W ithin the shelter of this m ode, A llington can proceed
with such an obvious occupatio as the following:
I must not forget that my Text is betw een the Mind and the
m em bers, and that R eb ellion at this time concerns me no farther,
but only as it respects the outward and inward man, the Monarchy
and G overnm ent of every regenerate and good soule.33
Likewise, the consolatory m ode will b ecom e a doctrinal and even
controversial vehicle to the extent that it assures the individual
believer’s conscience that he is indeed in the faith. This m ode informs
Richard Baxter’s Christian D irectory. Baxter says consolation includes
the "removing of such doubts and scruples as an afflicted soul might
suggest."34
In one sense, H yperius’s influence on English religious
controversy was counter-productive. H e him self did not want
coreligionists to fight. H e preferred thorough instruction in doctrine as
a means of forestalling controversy, "For it is out of all question, that a
true sentence or opinion being offered, whatsoever is inferred
repugnant thereunto, is to be counted am ong false and erroneous
opinions."35 Furthermore, according to his nephew Wygand Orth he
was pleasant and agreeable to all, both learned and unlearned: "His
manner seem ed not only pleasaunt to the learned, but also most sw eete
33 John A llington. The Grand Conspiracy of the M em bers Against the
Mind, of the Jewes Against Their King (London, 1653), 22.
34 Richard Baxter. A Christian Directory (London. 1673), 18.
35 A ndreas Gerhard Hvperius. Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 1553,
trans. John Ludham (London, 1577), 55.
169
and delectable to the rude and ignorant."36 N evertheless, by privileging
doctrine and by highlighting the intellectual and rhetorical challenges
of the redargutive sermon, he further encouraged many of the most
intellectual thinkers in England to do precisely what he could not have
forseen they would do— use his preaching manual to arm them selves
against one another. One person he thus armed was the young John
M ilton.
II. M ilton and Joseph H all
John M ilton’s earliest prose publications were five tracts
attacking the rule by bishops in the Church of England. These assaults
on A nglican church polity appeared in print betw een May 1641 and
April 1642.37 Although these tracts vary considerably in tone and
36 Wygand Orth, A n Oration, as Touching the Life and D eath of the
Fam ous and Worthy Man D. Andrew e H vperius. 1564, trans. Ludham
(London, 1577), C l.
37 Of R eform ation Touching Church-Discipline in England: and the
Cawses That H itherto Have H indered It (May 1641); Of Prelatical E p is
copacy. and W hether It May Be D ed u c’d from the A p ostolical Tim es. By
V ertue of Those T estim onies W hich Are A lle g ’d to That Purpose in
Some Late Treatises: One W hereof G oes U nder the N am e of James
A rch-Bishop of Armagh (June or July 1641); A nim adversions U pon the
Rem onstrants D efen se Against Smectvmnuus (July 1641); The R eason
of Church-Governm ent U rg’d A gainst Prelatv (January or February
1642); and A n A pology Against a Pam phlet C all’d A M odest Confuta
tion of the Anim adversions U pon the Rem onstrant Against SM EC-
T Y M N U U S (April 1642). For discussion of the probable publication
dates for these tracts, see CPW 1:514, 619, 653-654, 737-738, 862. See
also "Milton’s Publications" in Parker 11.1205-1208, and John T. Shaw-
cross, "A Survey of M ilton’s Prose Works," in M ichael Lieb and John T.
Shawcross, eds.. A chievem ents of the Left Hand: Essays in the Prose of
170
format, they nevertheless all represent M ilton’s response to a debate
which was already in progress and which was prosecuted in terms of the
procedural rules already established by serm on manuals. For instance,
the controversialist was expected to "hide" his rhetorical procedure in
order to avoid appearing sophistical. M ilton, by contrast, reworks his
controversial m aterials so as to highlight his style and procedure. H e is
not afraid of dem onstrating his rhetorical procedure because he holds
that style is an indicator of moral rectitude. Later, he will bring this
conviction to his poetry. In the 1640’s, he brings it to the defense of
Presbyterianism.
In spite of close doctrinal agreem ent on m ost issues, English
Protestants were nevertheless divided on how the church should be
governed. M ost of the parties wanted a single national polity, as they
saw (or thought they saw) in other nations. Some favored governm ent
by the existing, traditional prelatical system with its close sim ilarities to
the R om an polity, while others wanted a Presbyterian system similar to
that of G eneva. The traditional polity recognized a three-tiered
hierarchy of bishop, priest and deacon. The Presbyterian polity of
G eneva recognized a decentralized clergy with only two levels: elders
and deacons. Its adherents claim ed that the traditionalists had made
cross, "A Survey of M ilton’s Prose Works," in M ichael Lieb and John T.
Shawcross, eds.. A chievem ents of the Left Hand: Essays in the Prose of
John M ilton. (Amherst: University of M assachusetts Press, 1974), 291-
391.
171
false distinctions betw een the scriptural terms for elders and thus
m uddied the theological waters. Those favoring a more G enevan polity
also hoped for the "purification" of the English church from such
"Popish" practices as clerical vestm ents, candles, kneeling at
com m union, and bowing at the nam e of Jesus.37 To the dismay of those
who eventually becam e known as Puritans, Q ueen Elizabeth and her two
Stuart successors kept the existing system intact.
This royal sanction, however, did not prevent the opponents of prelaty
from preaching and publishing against it, whether covertly or openly.38
Church government was a major controversial issue among English
Protestants from the accession of Elizabeth until long past the
restoration under Charles II, as the continued presence of D issenters
attests, and questions of polity often included arguments over smaller
37 For a discussion of controversies over bowing at the name of Jesus
and observance of the Sabbath, see Boyd M. Berry. Process of Speech:
Puritan R eligious Writing and "Paradise Lost" (Baltim ore: Johns
H opkins University Press, 1976).
38 A ccording to Kevin Sharpe, the greater volum e of printing during the
1640’s was more a response to serious social upheaval than relaxed
controls on printing. "Itching Ears to H ear Anything Against the
Com m onwealth? Censorship, Criticism and Constitutionalism," in The
Personal R ules of Charles I (N ew Haven: Y ale University Press,
1992), 644-730. For an extended discussion of the changing nature of
the freedom extended to Puritans, see W illiam H aller, The R ise of
Puritanism . For a discussion of clandestine publication in E lizabethan
England, see Leland H. Carlson, Martin M arprelate. G entlem an:
M aster Job Throkm orton Laid O pen in His Colors (San Marino:
H untington Library, 1981).
172
details of liturgy and sacram ental adm inistration.39 "[T]here is no one
thing since the reformation," said "Smectymnuus,"
that hath m et with so much Contradiction as Episcopacy hath
done; w itnesse the severall Bookes, written in the R eignes of
our severall Princes, and the many Petitions exhibited to our
severall Parliam ents, and the many speeches made therein
against Episcopall Government: many of which are yet extant.40
On one hand, the contentions betw een Anglicans and Puritans on this
issue rem ained fairly consistent. In 1640, m atters stood much as
Bacon had described them in 1589: the establishm ent insisted on a
rigorous conformity, it forced suspected nonconform ists to testify
against them selves, and it urged subscription to its own articles so
strenuously that it disqualified otherwise capable clergymen. It also
arrogated the role of the civil m agistrate.41 So consistent were the
39 The ongoing contest betw een Protestant and Catholic theology is
beyond the focus of this dissertation, since I am dealing with
controversies among Protestants. A nother important debate which
divided the Anglican camp was the so-called quinquarticular
controversy over the five points debated betw een Calvinists and
Arminians. Joseph Hall, who had cham pioned irenic unity at the Synod
of Dort, wrote his V ia M edia in the 1620’s when he saw the same
antagonism s beginning to spread in England.
40 Smectymnuus. An Answer to a B ook Entituled. An H um ble
R em onstrance ([London], 1641), 20. I will identify "Smectymnuus" and
discuss M ilton’s part in the controversy below.
41 An A dvertisem ent Touching the Controversies of the Church of
England, in The Works of Francis Bacon. Baron of Verulam . Viscount
St. Alban. Lord H igh Chancellor of England, ed. Jam es Spedding,
R obert L eslie Ellis, and D ouglas D enon H eath, 14 vols. (1857-1874;
repr. New York: Garrett Press, 1968), VIIL89-90. Advertisem ent was
not printed until 1641.
173
arguments raised against prelaty that Richard Bancroft’s D aungerous
Positions and Proceedings (1589), which he wrote in the wake of the
M arprelate controversy during E lizab eth ’s reign, was reprinted in 1640
to support the more entrenched position of the prelatical party during
Charles’s reign, and both sides reprinted their version of Dr. John
R ainolds’s reply to Bancroft.42
W hile the contentions rem ained fairly consistent, however, the
relations betw een the two groups reached a crisis in the early 1640’s.
This crisis was due in large part to the stringent policies of Archbishop
W illiam Laud and the close association of the episcopacy with Charles
I’s unpopular governm ent, which had chosen to finance itself for
eleven years by heavy-handed fundraising rather than submit itself to a
vote in Parliament. The governm ent even tried to replace the service
of the Presbyterian Kirk of Scotland, which had been in place since
1560, with a Laudian liturgy, first by fiat and then by the two B ishops’
Wars. It was to raise money for these wars that Charles finally
sum m oned two Parliam ents, the "Short" Parliam ent of M arch-April
1640 and the "Long Parliament" in Novem ber 1640. The latter was to
sit in one form or another for the next two decades.
42 A ccording to J. Max Patrick, Bishop U ssh er’s The Judgem ent of
D octor Rainolds Touching the Originall of Episcopacy. M ore Largely
Confirm ed Out of Antiquity (1641) actually ignores R ainold s’s
Judgem ent and goes to his earlier, more m oderate Summe of the
C onference of 1584 (CPW 1:618). See also Lawrence D. G reen, John
R ainold s’s Oxford Lectures on A ristotle’s "Rhetoric". 33-35.
174
Of M ilton’s five tracts (1641-42), his first, Of R eform ation, is
more or less a blanket argument for Presbyterian polity. The other
four tracts, Of Prelatical Episcopacy. A nim adversions. The R eason of
Church-G overnm ent. and A n A pology Against a P am phlet, explicitly
challenge other recently published works on the subject of church
governm ent.43 Characteristically, his tracts aim at what he considers
to be the largest topic, audience and authorities. His antiprelatical
tracts which answer other positions all speak to the best establishm ent
theologians, such as U ssher, Andrew es and H all, and they all attack
what he identifies as the root problem: prelaty. Likewise, in his
divorce tracts he assures the reader that if only divorce were granted in
cases of incom patibility, then brothels would disappear. This attitude
may be n aiv e, but M ilton’s identification of root causes and major
opponents is also sym ptom atic of his determ ination not to waste time
with trivia. It also allows him a devastating focus on his adversary’s
weak point. His two responses to Bishop Joseph H all of Exeter were
particularly vigorous in this respect.
H a ll’s brief tract, A n H um ble R em onstrance to the H igh Court
of Parliament, by a D utiful! Sonne of the Church (London, 1640),
requests the newly-sum m oned Parliam ent to confirm episcopacy. It
was written at the request of A rchbishop Laud and is a precis of H all’s
43 G eorge W esley W hiting, however, argues that Of R eform ation also
responds to another pam phlet. See discussion at pages 3.44-45 below.
175
much longer Episcopacie by D ivine R ight, which he had published
som e months earlier.44 Both works are general arguments in favor of
prelaty, but their differences betray the gathering storm. E piscopacie,
published under H a ll’s name and dedicated to the king, still breathes
prelatical security. H all addresses his remarks, spoken with Olympian
authority, to a Scottish prelate, G eorge G rahame, Bishop of Orkney,
who had renounced episcopacy. H all thus bolsters his authoritative
persona by suggesting that the mystery of prelaty is too great for the
laity to understand, although he permits them to overhear the great
ones discussing it.45
An H um ble R em onstrance, on the other hand, was published
anonymously, purporting to be the work of m erely "a Dutifull Sonne of
44 Episcopacie by D ivine Right. A sserted by Jos. Hall. B. of Exon
(London, 1640). For exact dates of publication of all material in the
Smectymnuan exchange, see W illiam R. Parker. M ilton’s Contemporary
Reputation: A n Essay. Together with "A Tentative List of Printed
A llusions to M ilton. 1641-1674." and Facsim ile R eproductions of Five
Contemporary Pam phlets W ritten in Answer to M ilton (Columbus:
Ohio State University Press, 1940), 263-65. For details regarding Laud
role in the debate, see John Jones, Bishop Hall. His Life and Times: or.
M emoirs of the Life. Writings, and Sufferings, of the Right Rev. Joseph
Hall. P .P .. Successively Bishop of Exeter and Norwich: with a V iew of
the Tim es in W hich H e Lived: and an Appendix. Containing Some of
His U npublished Writings. His Funeral Sermon. &c. (London. 1826),
153-65.
45 Episcopacie attracted som e scholarly argument. E.g., Louis D u
M oulin. Irenael Philadelphi epistola (B asel. 1641). Theophilus Iscanus
[pseud.], Philadelphus vapulans (London, 1641). "Iscanus" is either
H all or som eone sympathetic to him; the work is printed by H all’s
publisher, N athaniel Butter.
176
the Church." By now, the Long Parliam ent had been called into
session, and petitions for ecclesiastical reform were flooding London.
H all could no longer claim the authority of his office, for his office had
grown odious to the man on the street. Of the two works, A n Hum ble
R em onstrance was by far the more dangerous. It could appeal to a
wider audience than Episcopacie had. It was far shorter and thus more
available to a reading public suddenly inundated by printed
controversies. Its own arguments were abbreviated to nearly nothing,
its marginal citations few, and its anonymity added to its suggestion
that it spoke for the w ell-m eaning and docile layman. A m ong those
who responded to the tract were five Presbyterian divines, Stephen
Marshall, Edmund Calamy, Thomas Young, M atthew Newcom m en,
and W illiam Spurstow, who used the first and last letters of their
nam es to create the anagram author "Smectymnuus." This
pseudonym ous "Smectymnuus" alerted the Parliam ent as to its
dangerously persuasive potential of H a ll’s little tract:
Although w ee doubt not, but that booke . . .is in the first
approaches of it, discovered by your discerning spirits, to bee
neither H um ble, nor a R em onstran ce: but a heape of confident,
and ungrounded assertions . . . Y et lest the Authour should glory
in our silence, as a granting of the cause; w ee humbly crave your
H onours leave, to present, not so much to your selves as to the
world by your hands, a review of this rem onstrance.46
46 Smectymnuus. A n Answer to . . . A n H um ble Rem onstrance
([London], 1641), 1. In addition, if the Smecytmnuans had answered
Episcopacie by D ivine Right instead of An H um ble R em onstrance. Hall
might have countered that they were defending an individual, the lapsed
bishop G eorge Grahame, more than attacking the entire institution of
episcopacy. By "remonstrance," the Smectymnuans m eant a written or
spoken representation or dem onstration of a matter, a showing of proof
or evidence.
Ill
The pam phlet warfare begun by An Hum ble Rem onstrance eventually
included eight tracts and at least eight participants directly concerned
with Milton: Bishop Hall; the five Smectymnuans, Milton; and the
"Modest Confutant."47 None of the participants listed his actual name
on the title page, although Bishop H all’s authorship was more or less
an open secret. The participants knew with whom they were dealing,
although they feigned ignorance in order to quote Bishop H all him self
as an authority against the thinly-disguised author.48 M ilton probably
47 The eight tracts are: 1. An Hum ble R em onstrance. 1640 (Hall);
2. An Answer to . . .An Hum ble R em onstrance. 1641 (Smectymnuus);
3. A D efen ce of the H um ble Rem onstrance. Against the Frivolous and
False Exceptions of Smectymnuus. W herein the Right of Leiturgie and
Episcopacie Is Clearly Vindicated from the Vaine Cavils, and
Challenges of the Answerers. 1641 (H all); 4. A Vindication of the
Answer to the Hum ble R em onstrance. 1641 (Smectymnuus); 5. A Short
Answer to the Tedious Vindication of Smectymnuus. 1641 (H all); 6.
Anim adversions Upon the Rem onstrants D efence Against
Smectymnuus. 1641 (M ilton); 7. A M odest Confutation of a Slanderous
and Scurillous Libell. Entitled. Anim adversions U pon the
Rem onstrants D efen se Against Sm ectymnuus. 1642 (M odest
Confutant); 8. An Apology Against a Pam phlet Call’d A M odest
Confutation. 1642 (M ilton). For a listing of additional tracts
responding to H all or the Smectymnuans, see W illiam Riley Parker,
M ilton’s Contemporary R eputation. 263-65.
48 The Smectymnuans were identified by the m id-1640’s. Frederick L.
Taft and Ashur Baizer, "Appendix F: ’The Legion of Sm ec,’" CPW
1:1001-1002. The M odest Confutant has never been conclusively
identified, although various identities have been proposed for him.
E.g., Frank Livingstone Huntley identifies him as Robert Dunkin of
Cornwall. Bishop Joseph Hall. 1574-1656: A Biographical and Critical
Study (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1979), 120ff.
178
entered this debate at its beginning; he is assum ed to have written the
"Postscript," a ten-page historical appendix to the Sm ectym nuan’s
Answer which digests the history of prelaty in England from such
sources as Stow and H olinshed.49
In som e ways, M ilton’s contribution was more in line with its
rules and expectations of this debate than has been generally noted.
M odern response to M ilton’s argum entative m ethod has often focused
on M ilton’s vehem ence rather than his overall strategy.50 For
instance, Peter A uksi finds M ilton’s "crude vituperation and juvenile
tone" indecorous even on his own terms: "If decorum dem ands satire
appropriate to the target, the quality of the sanctified bitterness which
M ilton deem s fit to produce falls weakly beside the mark."51
A m isapprehension of H all’s role in the controversy has also
placed M ilton’s vehem ence in a bad light. A ccording to this view,
49 See D on M. W o lfe’s arguments for M ilton’s authorship of
"A Postscript" in CPW 1:961-965. With minor changes, "A Postscript"
could stand alone as a general work rather than as a reply to Hall.
50 H all scholarship, on the other hand, has tended to focus on the issues
being argued rather than on the m eans by which they are argued. See
T.F. Kinloch, The F ife and Works of Joseph H all. 1574-1656 (London:
Staples Press, 1951), 159-62; Frank Livingstone H untley, Bishop Joseph
H a ll. 115-34; Leonard D. Tourney. Joseph H a ll. Twavne’s English
Authors Series 250, (Boston: Twayne, 1979), 128-34; Richard A.
M cCabe. Joseph Hall: A Study in Satire and M editation. (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1982), 131-37.
51 Peter Auksi, "Milton’s ’Sanetifi’d Bitterness: Polem ical Technique
in the Early Prose." Texas Studies in Literature and Language
19 (1977): 371.
179
Bishop H all was an unfortunate target for M ilton’s attack. H e was
him self raised as a Puritan, even to the point of being educated at that
m ost Puritan of Cambridge colleges, Em anuel. Up until the
publication of E piscopie by D ivine R ight, so went the story, H all had
been a m oderate, Calvinist bishop who actually sheltered his own
"irregular" priests from Laud’s dem ands for conformity. This view
even finds its way into the introduction of the Y ale Prose edition,
where H all is depicted as a "sincere churchman" who is "sorely tried" by
the scurrilous goads of M ilton, w hose "argument was frequently unfair
and inconsistent" fCPW 1:653-56).
W ithout an understanding of H a ll’s biography or rhetorical
strategies, M ilton appears as a nasty and sm all-m inded polem icist who
adopts a shotgun approach to his opponent. A s Audrey Chew has
characterized it,
M ilton attacked H all from every angle that seem ed to offer an
opportunity for criticism or ridicule. A s a theologian, he
attacked his arguments. A s a man, he attacked his morals. A s a
fellow writer, he ridiculed at length his prose style.52
In reality, H all was a far more canny opponent and, perhaps, a far less
saintly bishop than this picture supposes. W illiam H aller
characterizes H all as a man who "warmed easily to a choleric
righteousness," who was "generally muddled in his ideas" but "thought
him self open-minded." M ost significantly, "he was tenacious in the
52 Audrey Chew, "Joseph H all and John Milton," ELH 17 (1950): 274.
180
extreme of habits and possessions which he chose to regard as
rights."53 Thom as Kranidas has challenged as w ell the conventional
picture of H all as "the underdog in the Smectymnuan controversy," a
picture which he calls "one of the small fallacies of literary history":
H a ll’s early career was brilliant, sophisticated and independent.
A s late as 1640, his Christian M oderation speaks with
considerable authenticity of the need ’to draw as neere as w ee
may to Christian adversaries.’ But from about 1628 onward, and
certainly after Laud’s instructions to be about the A rchbishops’s
business, H a ll’s tone toward the Puritans changes and the
rational m oderation turns a little ta r t. . . clearly, Bishop H all is
engaged in a hard-core polem ic under the pietistic, charity-
thumping enam el.
Furtherm ore, as Kranidas points out, the focus of the debate itself was
no longer on the issues, but rather on the rectitude of the speaker. The
issues had not changed in the fifty years since Cartwright: "it is
unlikely that many were seeing the evidence for the first tim e, or in
fact that they were converted by the logical disposition of fact."54
Hall, then, was a canny controversialist, and M ilton’s attack was
on precisely the same grounds which H all him self chose for the debate:
theology, character, and style. H all presents him self as a wise layman
who provides altogether reasonable arguments for the prelatical
system, in contrast with the fo es of episcopacy, whom he claims are
53 W illiam H aller, The R ise of Puritanism . 327.
54 Thom as Kranidas, "Style and R ectitude in Seventeenth-Century
Prose: H all, Smectymnuus and Milton." H untington Library Quarterly
14(1983): 239-40,248.
181
either ignorant or m alicious. These two com plaints com prise all
possible sins against religion. "Ignorant" refers to m atters of doctrine,
while "malicious" refers to matters of practice. O ccasionally H all
accuses som e opponents of being both: "the proud contem pt of
ignorant, and ill-affected persons"; "Malice and ignorance are m et
together in this unjust aggravation."55
Style--as the Smectym nuans are quick to com plain— becom es
part of H a ll’s argument, helping to reinforce both his "apparent"
arguments and his humble and trustworthy persona. They list five ways
by which their opponent H all "Impropriates all honestie unto these his
papers, and brands all others with the name of Libellers": he brands
all recent publications as "libellous"; he catalogs any who will not
espouse his views as "none of the P eaceab le and w ell affected Sonnes
of the Church of England" (a move which brands any dissenters as only
contentious but also illegitim ate); he discredits the traditional manner
of petitioning the Parliam ent as "Tumultuary and underhand"; he
condem ns all those against episcopacy as being potential rebels
against the king rather than his good subjects, "engrossing that praise
only to his owne party"; and he claims orthodoxy for his own party,
making all those who reject episcopacy into heretics.56
55 Joseph Hall. A Short A nsw er to the T edious V indication of
Smectymnuus (London, 1641), 17, 30.
56 Smectymnuus. An Answ er to . . . An H um ble R em onstrance
([London], 1641), 2-3.
182
By fram ing his presentation in terms of theology, character, and
above all, style, H all him self determ ines the grounds on which he must
eventually be answered by M ilton and the Smectymnuans, all of whom
draw their reader’s attention to H all’s persuasive format. H all him self
used the same procedure in his earlier publication. H e had called
G eorge G raham e to account in terms of the latter’s own "words": "Do
you hear your D oom e from your owne Oracle?"57
A nd H all is definitely aiming to be persuasive. H e is not seeking
to convince a dispassionate auditor of m ere facts, but rather seeking to
instill or revive a passionate com m itm ent to an em battled institution
in as many auditors as possible. H all has neither time nor audience for
calm dem onstrations of proof; he is working against the clock, and he
must make every word accom plish as much as possible.
H all begins A H um ble R em onstrance with a long, loaded
exordium which establishes his ethos as a m odest though learned man
speaking for "millions" like him. On the first page, he identifies
him self with his tract, a paper which has "broken through the throng"
of libelous papers and, prostrating itself before the Parliam ent,
announces that it com es "on a great errand, as the faithful M essenger
of all the peaceab le and right-affected sonnes of the Church of
England." W ithin even these first few lines, his vivid prosopopeia
57 Joseph H all, E piscopacie by D ivine Right (London, 1640), 9.
183
urges a good reception for his pam phlet, now personified and
therefore distanced enough that its author can com m end it. His
figures also enhance the ethos of his party while vilifying that of the
other, a strategy which H all continues throughout. In addition, his
first section suggests that his minority voice actually speaks for the
majority, a im portant assertion in the face of the increasingly
num erous opponents to prelaty. H e repeats his claim a few pages
further: "the Orthodoxe part in this w hole R ealm e, hath (to the praise
of their patience) been quietly silent, as securely conscious of their
own right, and innocence" (6).
A nother of H a ll’s strategies is to introduce his argum ents as
already proven. For instance, while still putatively in his exordium, he
insists on page seven that episcopacy "derives itself from the times of
the blessed A p ostles, without interruption" (7), two full pages before
his divisio. W hen he does state his divisio. he phrases it as though his
opponents are the ones identifying this argument, w hile in fact they
might have set it up quite differently. In addition, even though the
antiprelatical controversy is a m atter of national crisis, he employs
such a disparaging term as "quarrel" for it, a m eiosis which reduces the
attraction of the antiprelatical cause to those not yet aligned with it:
"Let me have leave to instance in two, the prime subjects of their
quarrell, and contradiction; L eitourgie, and Episcopacy" (9). Liturgy
actually receives but minor attention in this debate. H all only devotes
184
seven pages to it in H um ble R em onstrance, and then only for practices
specifically enforced by the Laudian establishm ent. In general, the
controversy over episcopacy subsumes the more m inute controversies
over liturgy.
N ot only does H all beg the question, but he also argues from
analogy before he introduces his arguments from textual proof found
either in the Scriptures or the Church Fathers. H e insists, for instance,
that episcopacy must be revered for its very age, "as nature teaches us
to respect our elders" (18). On the follow ing page he draws an analogy
from agriculture: good or indifferent things, being w ell-rooted, "may
not upon light grounds be pulled up" (19). A nother potent strategy is
H all’s stance of astonishm ent, as when he says: "I confesse, I am
confounded in my selfe, to heare with what unjust clamours,
[episcopacy] is cried down abroad" (17). This stance helps add
persuasive w eight to H a ll’s position by suggesting that for him to be
astonished, his evidence must be staggering indeed. Coupled with his
ethos of the hum ble, learned man who supports episcopacy, this
strategy allows him to imply that his briefly stated reasons stand for
many m ore, and that he has not begged any question. By the m id-point
of his tract, he has advanced but few proofs for his position;
nevertheless he w ashes his hands of anyone who w ill not agree with
him:
if any one resolve to continue unsatisfied, in spight of reason,
and all evidence of history, and will willfully shut his eies, with a
185
purpose not to see the light, that man is past my cure, and almost
my pity: the good God of heaven be m ercifull to such a mis-
zealous obstinacy. (P. 21)
Often H all dispenses with argum entation altogether, and soars
over thorny issues with flights of eloquence. H e insists that Laud’s
strictures on public and even fam ily prayer need not m ean "pouring so
much water upon the spirit," because the soul can be as ecstatic as it
pleases in private. H all does not deal with the difficult assum ption
behind this position, the assum ption that a person enjoined to pray
only prewritten prayers in public can learn to pray sua sponte in
private. Instead, he seeks to override this objection by a long and
eloquent dem onstratio:
No, let the full soule freely poure out it self in gracious
expressions of its holy thoughts, into the bosom e of the
almighty: Let both the sudden flashes of our quick ejaculations,
and the constant flam es of our more fixed conceptions mount up
from the altar of a zealous heart, unto the throne of Grace; and
if there be som e stops or solecism s in the fervent utterance of
our private wants, these are so far from being offensive, that
they are the m ost pleasing musique to the eares of that God,
unto whom our prayers com e.58
58 Joseph Hall. An H um ble R em onstrance (London. 1640), 12. In this
dissertation I am focusing on H a ll’s rhetorical procedures, but he had a
considerable influence on Protestant m editation. For extended
discussions of his contributions to this area, see Frank Livingston
Huntley, Bishop Joseph H all and Protestant M editation in Seventeenth-
Centurv England: A Study, with the Texts of "The Art of D ivine
Meditation" (16061 and "Occasional Meditations" (16331
(Bingham pton, N.Y.: M edieval and R enaissance Texts and Studies,
1981), and Richard A . M cCabe, Joseph Hall: A Study in Satire and
M editation. M cCabe, however, does point out som e suggestive tensions
betw een m editation and controversy. Though H all, "a lifelong
contemplative," claim ed not to be tem peram entally a controversialist,
he "was a man of blazing indignation--as the greatest contem platives so
often are" (3). In his brief section on controversy (131-37) M cCabe also
points out the p olem ical utility of the genre of m editation during the
186
H all likew ise overrides another possible objection, that he is, by
insisting that episcopacy is jure divino. scorning all the other reform ed
churches who have a different polity. This is dangerous ground. If
H all admits to rejecting these popular foreign churches, he can be
interpreted as suggesting a return to R om e. H all sidesteps this issue
by insisting that he loves all the reform ed churches as "the dear spouse
of Christ" and fe e ls great sorrow that they cannot enjoy a perfect
church governm ent (29-30).
The five collective authors of "Smectymnuus" begin their
Answer by claim ing that they must clear away H all’s rhetoric before
responding to his arguments, because his book "swells with so many
passionate R hetorications. as it is harder for us in the multitude of
words to finde what his argument is, that w e have to answer, then to
answer it when it is found."59 They often begin sections and even
paragraphs with com m ents on H a ll’s argum entative strategies, and
they call attention to his rhetorical devices throughout. For instance,
they identify his confirm atio and confutatio. som ething which he
om itted to do:
H is P lea for Episcopacy consists of two parts. In the first he
brings A rgum ents for the supporting of it. In the Second he
civil wars (133) and notes that H a ll’s identity as the Rem onstrant was an
open secret (135).
59 Smectymnuus, A n A nswer to . . . An H um ble Rem onstrance
([London], 1641), 2.
187
undertakes to answer the objections that may bee made against
it" (18).
Likewise, they draw attention to his various strategies, as w hen they
introduce a section with "But now the dint of all this Scripture the
R em onstrant would elude by obtruding upon his R eader a
commentary" (26). Furtherm ore, they explicitly name som e of his
tropes and figures, such as epiphonem a (21) and encom ium (65), and
implicitly identify many others, such as occu patio: "But there is yet a
second thing, that should endeare Episcopacy .... W hich (in not
seem ing to urge) he urgeth to the full and beyond" (36). This constant
m etadiscursive commentary on H all supports their claim that H all is
being sophistical. It shows how the master rhetorician is "hiding his
art."
This is a serious claim, because the Christian polem icist cannot
look as though he is employing rhetoric if he wants to win the assent of
his Christian auditors. Instead, the godly controversialist must ignore
linguistic strategies in favor of more powerful m eans of proof. A s I
noted above, St. Paul claim s that he met this requirem ent am ong the
Corinthians w hen he says, "And my speech and my preaching was not
with enticing words of m an’s wisdom , but in dem onstration of the
Spirit and power. That your faith should not stand in the w isdom of
men, but in the power of God" (I Corinthians 2:4). I w ill discuss this
matter further in chapter five w hen I discuss scriptural style, but the
188
stricture against mere sophistry in the realm of religious controversy is
a strong one, even beyond the usual principle of ars est celare artem.60
The Smectym nuans them selves are careful to use actual rhetorical
terms sparingly, preferring instead to identify H a ll’s tropes, figures,
argumentative stages and strategies by circum locutions.
In reality, the Sm ectymnuans are no less rhetorical than H all. In
their Answ er they em ploy such tropes as auxesis and correctio: "Some,
nay, M ost, nay A ll the Bishops of this N ation heare ill" (67). They
em ploy such em otionally-charged words as "impropriate" (2) and
"engross" (24), words which invoke the hateful econom ic privileges of
the established clergy. They are not above sarcasm us. W hen H all says
in A n H um ble R em onstrance "What scruple can rem aine in any
ingenuous heart?" (21), they reply:
By your favour Sir, we w ill tell you notwithstanding the supposed
strength of your argum entation, there is one scruple yet
rem aining, and if you would know upon what ground, it is this,
because w ee find in Scripture (which by your owne C onfession is
Originall A u th orities that Bishops and Presbyters were
originally the sam e.61
The Smectym nuans also answer H all’s arguments point by point. By
appearing to let H all choose the grounds for argument, they lessen any
60 A ccording to D ebora K. Shuger, most R enaissance scholars preserve
the distinction betw een "rhetoric" and "sophistry," forbidding only the
latter. Sacred R h etoric. 121.
61 Smectymnuus. A n Answer to . . . A n H um ble Rem onstrance
([London], 1641), 21.
189
possible countercharge that they are also being sophistical. This
point-by-point reply is also one of the m ost com m on form ats for an
answer. M ilton, for instance, employs it in Anim adversions (1641).
N evertheless, it still reflects the requirem ents of the artes praedicandi
to restrict the elenchic or redargutive serm on directly to the error at
hand so as to avoid creating curiosity about form er heresies. The
form at also allows them continually to stress H a ll’s relentlessly crafted
argum entative structure without drawing attention to their own.
W hereas A n H um ble R em onstrance appeared in an unbroken text,
they break their answer into num bered sections. H all, however,
responds in num bered sections in all future answers. H e even includes
an appendix by another hand in answer to M ilton’s "Postscript." The
debate is thereafter carried on in num bered sections until the very last
publication. A ll of the tracts after A n H um ble R em onstrance are
divided into eighteen num bered sections, except for the last three.
H a ll’s A Short Answ er is divided into only three sections. The M odest
Confutant divides his tract into twelve sections, and M ilton answers
(A n A pology A gainst a P am phlet) in twelve. M oreover, after the
Sm ectymnuans com plained about the long preface by which H all began
A n H um ble R em onstrance. H all begins A D efen se abruptly, after the
shortest of dedications, postponing all his prefatory m aterial to the
190
end of the volum e.62 Thus, because neither side wishes to appear
sophistic in its rhetoric, the initial tract establishes, in great part, how
the debate will be conducted. The need to hide o n e ’s art places
demands on the author, but these dem ands differ according to an
author’s position in the debate. O ne writing an initial salvo in a war of
publication must anticipate his audience, create the ethos which will
be m ost acceptable to such an audience, and choose the arguments
which will be the m ost convincing and accessible. The author replying
to an already-published argument, on the other hand, must respond
most tellingly in terms of the ground already chosen. This could be a
ticklish business in the unstable and unpredictable 1640’s, with its
sudden increase of publications and reading public. The problem of
audience was a genuine one. W illiam H aller notes "the failure of the
A nglican intellectuals to take the m easure of the forces with which
they had to contend."63 H all thought that his audience would be far
more awed by his authority and far more docile than it was.
62 "[Tjhis rem onstrance; in which the Authour after too large a preface,
undertakes the support of two things . . . the Liturgie and the
Hierarchy." A n Answ er to . . . A n H um ble R em onstrance ([London].
1641), 1.
63 W illiam H aller. The R ise of Puritanism . 328. E lizabeth Skerpan has
recently considered the problem of the disparate seventeenth-century
reading audience. The R hetoric of Politics in the English R evolution.
1642-1660 (Columbus: University of M issouri Press, 1992), 35-41.
191
There are thus two different situations for an authors, beginning
an engagem ent and responding to one. A lthough authors in either
situation may accuse an opponent of offending against Christian
charity, or imply as much, uncharitableness is usually the charge urged
by the establishm ent. In his royal proclam ation to the bishops in 1626,
Charles I called for them to work for national unity in the face of
potential foreign encroachm ents, and he phrases this in terms of
charity: "We have by all m eanes endeavored U nion, and require of you
to preach it and Charitie, the m other of it, frequently in the eares of
the people."64 One indication of how far "charity" might be pushed as a
tool of conformity is later found in Lex T alionis. a R estoration tract
responding to the learned-m inistry controversies of its day:
The Scripture indeed com m ands to speak the truth in love, to
instruct the Brother in the spirit of m eekness; and the same
Scripture has m ade the greatest Christian Monarch, and his
m eanest V assal brethren; but notwithstanding that, he bears not
the Sword in vain; and in love and m eekness, and with the
greatest kindness and charity, is obliged to cut off the evil
doer.65
Some of those who actually felt this "greatest kindness and charity"
called it otherwise.
64 Instructions D irected from the Kings M ost E xcellent M ajestie. U nto
A ll the Bishops of This K ingdom e (London. 16261. B l. See also
Maryann Cale M cG uire’s discussion of the polarity betw een chastity
and charity as political and religious topics in early seventeenth-century
England. M ilton’s Puritan M asque (Athens: University of G eorgia
Press, 1983), 130-166.
65 Philip Fell, Lex Talionis (London, 1674), 5.
192
The Anglican establishm ent in R enaissance England called for
peace and charity or at the m ost a controlled debate, if only because
no establishm ent is about to call for an argument which might threaten
its own control. But this expedient cannot help but appear sophistical.
A s Luther tartly remarked, "Truth has always caused disturbance and
false teachers have always said, ’P eace, p ea ce!’ as Isaiah and Jerem iah
tell us."66 Richard H ooker had certainly presented a canny argument
to lim it contention at the beginning of his discussion of ecclesiastical
polity (1593). H ook er’s call for debate is a masterfully crafted move to
discredit the opposition, even as he allows for argument, and to set up
his own side as presumptive judge of the debate rather than as a party
to it:
Notwithstanding, forasm uch as the cause we m aintain is (G od be
thanked) such as needeth not to shun any trial, might it please
them on w hose approbation the m atter dependeth to
condescend so far unto you in this behalf, I wish heartily that
proof were made even by solem n conference in orderly and quiet
sort, w hether you would yourselves be satisfied, or else could by
satisfying others drawn them to your sort.67
Bishop Joseph H all calls for such a controlled debate in his
E piscopacie by D ivine Right (1640):
66 Martin Luther, D efen se and Explanation of A ll the A rticles
[condem ned by Pope L eo X] (1521). LW 32:12. The references are
actually to E zekiel 13:10,16, not Isaiah, and to Jerem iah 6:14 and 8:11.
67 Of the Laws of E cclesiastical Polity. Preface 5.3. Text: W. Speed
H ill.
193
Com e then, I b eseech you, and let us in the feare of God reason
sadly together, not in a vaine affectation of victory, like some
young Sophisters, but as sober D ivines, in a fervent pursuit of
that Truth, which G od and his purer Church have left, and
consigned to us. (P. 5)
To the enem ies of episcopacy, however, such a call for charity sounded
like a call for acquiescence.
N ot only does the established church call for charity in any
discussion of church polity, but it also insists that church polity is
merely an administrative issue, and one of the "things indifferent," or
adiaphora. and serm on theorists had urged that "things indifferent" be
argued with particular m eekness. By claim ing that episcopacy is jure
divino. H all is actually taking a stricter position than many A nglican
theologians, but this does not appear to affect his claim that it is
among the "things indifferent." Bancroft, at the turn of the century,
was the first to take the high-church position that episcopacy is jure
divino. The H am m ond circle during the Interregnum also published
several A nglican apologies.68 A t the end of An H um ble R em onstrance
(1640), H all claim s both that the issue of church governm ent belongs
neither to doctrine nor practice and that he him self is m otivated by
charity:
what grounds of faith, what new Creed doe they hold, different
from their neighbours? what Scriptures, what Baptism e, what
68 See John W. Packer. The Transform ation of Anglicanism . 1643-1660.
with Special R eferen ce to Henry H am m ond (M anchester: M anchester
University Press, 1969), 104-128.
194
Eucharist, what Christ, what heaven, what m eanes of salvation
other then the rest? A las, my brethren, w hiles we do fully agree
in all these, and all other D octrinall and Practicall points of
religion; why will ye be so uncharitable, as by these frivolous and
causlesse divisions, to rend the seam lesse coat of Christ? Is it a
Title, or a R etinue, or a Ceremony, a garment, or a colour, or an
Organ-pipe, that can make us a different Church, w hiles we
preach and profess the sam e saving Truth, w hiles we desire (as
you professe to doe) to walk conscionably with our God. (41-42)
H all, then, is anything but a pathetic underdog in this controversy. H e
is a m aster rhetorician, using the stances which had served episcopacy
w ell in the past.
To som e extent, M ilton’s contribution to the antiprelatical
controversy can be understood in terms of the expectations which have
already been established for it. H e often responds in terms of the
primary argument. For instance, in Of E piscopal Prelatv. written in
response to Bishop U ssher and others, M ilton claim s that he will only
go so far in rebuttal as the pro-E piscopalians have gone in argument.
At the divisio. he says, "I shall not strive to be more exact in M ethode,
then as their citations lead mee" (CPW 1:627). In the Smectymnuan
tracts, he addresses the issues of character and style originally selected
by H all, and he tells the M odest Confutant that his tone answers his
opponent’s character:
And whereas this Confuter taxes the w hole discourse of levity, I
shall shew ye, R eaders, w heresoever it shall be objected in
particular that I have answer’d with as little lightnesse as the
R em onstrant hath given exam ple (CPW 1:873).
195
M ilton even says that the controversy is proceeding in anonymity
because that was the choice made by H all in the initial pamphlet: "He
hath begun the m easure nam elesse, and w hen he please we may all
appeare as we are" ( CPW 1:897). This predictable protocol for
controversy allows G eorge W esley W hiting to argue on form al grounds
that Of R eform ation. M ilton’s first antiprelatical tract, is primarily an
answer to G eorge D igby’s Third Speech . . .to the H ouse of Comm ons
(1640); M ilton follow s D igby’s points in order and often adopts his
phrasing.69
But in the long run, H all and the Smectym nuans are closer to
each other in procedure than either is to M ilton. They rem ain within
the established confines of argum entation, w hile he will venture
outside of them. They proceed point by point in the order established
by the initial tract, they are careful to m aintain the ethos of the more
learned man, and they are careful to hide their own persuasive
machinery while they point out the m echanism s of the opposition.
M ilton, by contrast, recom bines and reshapes his material; even
in his prose, M ilton argues like a poet. H e is not afraid to appear
rhetorical because, according to him, eloq uence is the natural result of
knowing the truth (CPW 1:874, 949). H e is not afraid to change the
format of the argument or to select and com press his material. Instead
69 G eorge W esley W hiting, M ilton’s Literary M ilieu (New York:
R ussell & R ussell, 1964), 282-92.
196
of merely pointing out that his opponents are using figures, he attacks
the lack of logical integrity in their figures and the moral poverty that
such a lack im plies. This strategy allows his own descriptions to be
more vivid. Even so, his procedure is consonant with the ideology of
the serm on manuals written by Hyperius and his follow ers because it
depends on the Scriptures as a m odel of discourse.
His deviation from the point-by-point m ethod em ployed by the
others affords M ilton a better position from which to argue. Both the
Smectymnuans and M ilton answered A n H um ble R em onstrance, but
w hile the Smectym nuan pam phlet proceeds point by point, M ilton
chooses to select telling statem ents from his opp onent’s text and
magnify their significance. We can see this easily by comparing their
different m ethods of responding to the same section in H all. For
instance, H all argues for "set prayers" and thereby an im posed liturgy
in Section II of A D e fe n c e . A t the beginning of the section he
complains, "Since the opposers of stinted forms, do, upon the same
grounds, decrie that also S. A ustin sayes, it is free to ask the same
things that are desired in the Lord’s Prayer." A t the end of the section,
he says, "If then there be no way left to recover the p eop le to a stinted
Prayer but by leaving it free to use, or not to use, Oh miserably m is-led
people . . .!"70
70 Joseph Hall. A D efen ce of the H um ble R em onstrance (London.
1641), 14, 30.
197
The Sm ectymnuans answer these two points separately in
A V ind ication. First, they quickly dismiss his m ention of the Lord’s
Prayer as ineffective and move on to other issues:
But though his proof fall short in the Lords Prayer, yet it is sure
he saith, that Christ was pleased to make use in the Celebration
of his last and heavenly Banquet, both of the fashions and words,
which were usually in the Jewish Feasts, as Cassander hath
shewed in his Liturgica. Y et Cassander who is his sure proof
said but this, observasse videtur seem es to have been
observed.71
Then, a few pages later, they defend their position on prayer only
generally:
His supercillious censure upon our passage about conceived
prayer, is not worth the taking notice of, he saith, We are fallen
and crabbed peeces. teechv and quarrelsom e m en, and why?
because we said his large prayses of conceived prayer, w ere but a
vantage ground to advance publike form s the higher, how truly
judg; what cause we had so to think w ee declared from the cruel!
and ungodly practices of the late tim es which he will scarce take
notice of. (P. 29)
By separating the two halves of their response by six pages, they reduce
its effectiveness.
M ilton, in contrast, com bines the two passages from H a ll’s text
into a terse and penetrating question and answer:
R em o n . And if the Lords Praier be an ordinary, and stinted
form , why not others?
Ans. B ecause there bee no other Lords that can stint with like
authority (CPW 1:683).
71 Smectymnuus, A V indication of the A nsw er to the H um ble
R em onstrance ([London], 1641), 23.
198
One could argue that such a recom bination of m aterial distorts the
argument of the opponent, an uncharitable move which was cautioned
against in the serm on manuals, and critics have argued that M ilton
takes the words of his opponents out of context or twists them. James
Egan links M ilton’s procedure with that of the M arprelate tracts:
"When M ilton quotes H all out of context or paraphrases passages so
that they seem ludicrous or ’sophistical,’ he transforms the dialogue
form at into a satiric fiction."72 But the hom iletic caution did not bind
the controversialist to fighting on disadvantageous ground which had
been chosen for him by an opponent, only to the accurate restatem ent
of points and issues. A ccording to Thom as Kranidas, the author of
A nim adversions and An Apology was hardly guilty of distortion:
M ilton was not guilty of any unusual wrenching out of context
(as most who have com m ented on this tract have suggested). He
is scrupulous in page citations in his margins, including clear
distinctions betw een the Rem onstrance and the D e fe n c e .
Q uotations and paraphrases are unusually accurate for the
period, and the quotations (with one exception) are in the right
order. Elisions do not alter the basic m eanings of the sentences.
By com parison with other polem icists of this period, including
H all in this controversy, M ilton treats the text of his opponent
with more accuracy if more vehem ence.73
M ilton’s recom bination of m aterial invests his work with more
authority than the texts of the Smectymnuans, who prom iscuously list
72 Jam es Egan, "Milton the M arprelate Tradition." M ilton Studies
8 (1975): 109.
73 Thomas Kranidas, "Style and Rectitude," 252.
199
minute points next to great ones. In A n A nsw er, for instance, they take
H all to task for claim ing to speak in the nam es of all similarly affected
persons ("how can that booke crave adm ittance in all their nam es, that
speakes in the singular number"). Then they add, "But it may be som e
will say this is but a small slippe; w ell be it so," before moving on to a
much more substantial com plaint about H all’s main issues.74 H all
com plains of the cavilling of the Smectymnuans even in his title
page.75
M ilton does differently. Instead of follow ing the
Sm ectym nuan’s point-by-point form at and thus diluting his own
argument with an ocean of detail, he often chooses to focus on the
telling point, as if it were a small crack which shows the fault line
running through an entire argument. For instance, in A D efen se of the
H um ble R em onstrance. H all com plains about his "plurall Adversary":
But, could they say, My name is Legion, for we are m any: or were
they as many L egions as men, my cause yea Gods, would bid me
to m eet them undismaid, and to say with holy D avid. Though an
hoast should incamp against m e. my heart shall not fe a r e .7^
74 Smectymnuus, A n Answ er to . . . A n H um ble Rem onstrance
([London], 1641), 15.
75 A D efen ce of the H um ble R em onstrance. Against the Frivolous and
False Exceptions of Smectymnuus. W herein the Right of Leiturgie and
E piscopacie Is Clearly V indicated from the V aine Cavils, and
C hallenges of the Answerers (London, 1641).
76 Joseph H all. A D efen ce of the H um ble R em onstrance (London.
1641), 1.
200
H all conflates Psalm 27:3 ("Though an host should encam p against me,
my heart shall not fear: though war should rise against me, in this will
I be confident") with the reference to the dem oniac of Gadara who was
so possessed with devils that his nam e was "Legion."77 W hen the
Smectymnuans respond to this statem ent in A V ind ication, they parry
the thrust with som e irony but then move on im m ediately to other
things: "The charity of our Rem onstrant w ee w ill not question, though
in the first congresse hee doth as good as call us Devils: because he so
often in his book calls us brethren."78
M ilton, by contrast, uses H all’s com m ent in A nim adversions as
an opportunity to com m ent on all that he claim s to be most
reprehensible in the bishops: their spiritual bankruptcy and their
worldly greed:
D o e not think to Perswade us of your undaunted courage by
misapplying to your selfe the words of holy D avid : we know you
feare, and are in an agonie at this present, lest you should lose
that superfluity of riches and honour which your party usurp.
A nd w hosoever covets and so earnestly labours to keep such an
incumbring surcharge of earthly things, cannot but have an
earth-quake still in his bones. Y ou are not arm’d R em onstrant,
nor any of your band, you are not dieted, nor your loynes girt for
spirituall valour, and Christian warfare, the luggage is too great
that follow es your Camp; your hearts are there, you march
heavily. How shall we think you have not carnall feare w hile we
see you so subject to carnall desires? (CPW 1:665-66)
77 Cf. Mark 5:9: "And [Jesus] asked him, What is thy nam e? And he
answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many."
78 Smectymnuus, A V indication of the Answ er to the H um ble
R em onstrance ([London], 1641), 3.
201
M ilton is also responding in kind by alluding to other scriptural
com m onplaces, such as not laying up treasures on earth (M atthew
6:19) but rather putting on the "armor of God" and having o n e ’s "loins
girt about with truth" (Ephesians 6:11, 14).
M ilton focuses on the legitim acy of figurative language rather
than just cataloging its occurrences. H e complains, for instance, that
at one point the M odest Confutant "comes so lazily on in a Sim ilie
. . .and dem eanes him self in the dull expression so like a dough
kneaded thing, that he has not spirit [ejnough left him so farre to look
to his Svntaxis. as to avoide nonsense."79 H e also castigates the
M odest Confutant’s "coyflurting stile . . .girded with frumps and
curtail gibes, by one who m akes sentences by the Statute, as if all
above three inches long were confiscat" (CPW 1:873). This is not, as
often has been supposed, a case where the "Ciceronian" M ilton is
challenging the briefer style of the "Senecan" H all.80 Rather, M ilton is
referring to the severely curtailed syntax of the M odest Confutant, who
begins his attack on M ilton as follows:
W e must suppose you have undertaken a religious ca u se: that is
your pretended subject; we shall examine the truth of it by and
79 An Apology against a Pam phlet (1642). CPW 1:910.
80 For a syntactic analysis of the two styles of H all and M ilton in terms
of Ciceronianism and Senecanism , see Henry S. L im ouze, "Joseph H all
and the Prose Style of John Milton." M ilton Studies 15 (1981): 121-41.
202
by; we must now look to your m anner of handling it: a suspicious
way you think; and so do I.81
M ilton directly relates the M odest C onfutant’s poor style to his evil
character. Art draws it precepts from nature, and therefore language
is most eloquent which is m ost natural. Just so, "they expresse nature
best, who in their lives least wander from her safe leading, which may
be call’d regenerate reason."82
One of H a ll’s unfortunate im ages in A D efen ce is a summary
dismissal of som e of the Sm ectym nuans’ contentions: "Those other
verball exceptions are but light froth, and w ill sink alone."83 Froth, of
course, does not sink. The Smectymnuans dilute their response to this
statem ent. They note that it seem s a "strange piece of Physik,"
encourage their readers to laugh, and then insert a marginal tale about
a serious G erm an philosophy student who actually wanted the
recipe.84 M ilton, on the other hand, seizes on the opportunity to claim
that his opp onent’s theology is as suspicious as his physics:
O rare suttlety, beyond all that Cardan ever dream ’t of, when I
beseech you, will light things sink? when will light froth sink
alone. H ere in your phrase, the same day that heavy plum mets
81 A M odest C onfutation (London, 1642), 1.
82 An A pology against a Pam phlet (16421. CPW 1:874.
83 Joseph Hall, A D efen ce of the H um ble R em onstrance (London,
1641), 4.
84 Smectymnuus, A V indication of the Answ er to the H um ble
R em onstrance ([London], 1641), 5.
203
will swimme alone. Trust this man, R eaders if you please, w hose
divinity would reconcile England with R o m e, and his philosophy
make friends nature with the C haos, sine pondere habentia
pondus.85
M ilton puts other of his opp onent’s com parisons to the sam e scrutiny.
W hen H all invokes the name of "holy Cyprian" to validate the claims of
prelaty, M ilton argues that prelaty is a disease which Cyprian’s own
excellences overcam e temporarily, just as apparent health som etim es
masks diseases in their early stages.86
M ilton also employs more vivid descriptions than those of the
other writers, which allows him further to impugn the ethos of his
opponent. The Smectymnuans lack this creative turn. H all, who wrote
the first book of English characters but who is more or less trying to
rem ain anonymous, is usually content to characterize the fo es of
episcopacy as m alicious or ignorant, or som e variation on those
term s.87 M ilton employs characters freely. For example:
85 Anim adversions (1641). CPW I:6 7 f.
86 Anim adversions (16411. CPW 1:675-76.
87 The Smectymnuans provide a catalog of these terms: "Vaine,
frivolous, Cavillers, insolent, spightfull, riotous, proud, false, unjust,
triflers, factious, Brotherly slanderers, sullen and crabbed peeces,
Lyars, egregious and palpable calum niators, wilfully shutting our eyes
against the truth, such as the R eaders may be asham ed of, w itlesse,
m alicious, uncharitable* envious, frivolous wasters of unseasonable
words, swelling up a windy bulke with groundlesse exceptions against
our eyes and conscience, tedious and loose disputers, Patronizers of
branded H eretiques, im potent, w eake, and absurd men, grossely
ignorant, such as fowly over-reach, m en of w eake judgem ent, and strong
m alice; comm only spightfull, and seldom e witty, violent and subtile
m achinators against, and disturbers of G ods ordinances . . . worthy of
nothing but of contem pt and silence, ill bred sons of the Church,
spitting in the face of our M other, fom entors of unjust dislikes against
lawfull governm ent, making wickedly false suggestions, wanting wit and
204
I have not beene so light as the palm e of a Bishop which is the
lightest thing in the world when he brings out his book of
Ordination: For then contrary to that which is wont in releasing
out of prison, any one that will pay his fees is layd hands on.88
H a ll’s relentless but predictable caricature of his opponents, in this
case as being either m alicious or ignorant, is also typical of the party in
power. Thomas N. Corns reports that in the later 1640’s, those who
wanted the civil enforcem ent of a centrally determ ined doctrine and
discipline used "a surprisingly hom ogeneous strategy" of creating an
archetype of a sectary which played on the worst fears of the
enfranchised classes and then explaining every sectarian m anifestation
in terms of this scarecrow.89 In both cases the hom ogeneity of the
attack would help reinforce the status quo.
M ilton, then, w hile being aware of the canons for arguing a
religious controversy, conspicuously reworks these canons to his
advantage. A bove all, he is not afraid to appear rhetorical. In A n
A pology against a Pam phlet (1642), he even speaks to the reader to
call attention to his procedures, for instance, w hen he admits to taking
rhetorical advantage of the M odest Confutant: "Now trust me not
grace to understand" and so forth. A V indication of the A nsw er to the
H um ble R em onstrance ([London], 1641), alr-v.
88 A n A pology Against a Pam phlet (1642). CPW 1:873.
89 Thomas N. Corns, "Milton’s Q uest for Respectability," M odern
Language R eview 77 (1982): 770.
205
R eaders, if I be not already weary of plum ing and footing this Seagull,
so open he lies to strokes" ( CPW 1:896). H e even describes his strategy
against the M odest Confutant in military terms:
But wherfore in that manner neglecting the m aine bulk of all
that specious antiquity, which might stunne children, but not
men, I chose rather to observe som e kinde of military
advantages to await him at his forragings, at his watrings, and
when ever he felt him selfe secure to solace his veine inderision
of his more serious opponents. (CPW 1:872)
H e also calls the reader’s attention to som e of his grander passages, as
in Section 7:
Now although it be a digression from the ensuing matter, yet
because it shall not be said I am apter to blam e others then to
make triall my selfe, and that I may after this harsh discord
touch upon a sm oother string . . . I shall be so troublesom e to
this declam er for once, as to shew him what he might have better
said in their praise. (CPW 1:922)
Rather than hiding his own art, he draws attention to it.
M ilton can make rhetorical ability part of his argument in An
A p ology, because he links eloquence with truth. In an im plicit gloss on
Q uintilian’s vir bonus peritus dicendi. M ilton claims that only a good
man can be an eloquent speaker. Q uintilian had spoken of "a good
man, skilled in speaking."90 But M ilton’s good man is not the same as
Q uintilian’s ethical R om an citizen. H e is rather a regenerate
90 "The orator then, w hom I am concerned to form, shall be the orator
as defined by Marcus Cato, ’a good man, skilled in speaking.”1
Q uintilian, Institutio Oratoria XII.i.1, trans. H .E. Butler, 4 vols.,
IV:354-55.
206
Protestant, depending on his works to validate his faith. H e
specifically calls the source of his eloquence "regenerate reason":
For doubtlesse that indeed according to art is m ost eloquent,
which returnes and approaches neerest to nature from w hence it
came; and they expresse nature best, who in their lives least
wander from her safe leading, which may be call’d regenerate
reason" ( CPW 1:874).
The regenerate man sees the truth (doctrine) and is m otivated by 1
charity to speak it (practice). H e cannot fail to be eloquent, because
language itself will help him:
And that w hose mind so ever is fully possest with a fervent desire
to know good things, and with the dearest charity to infuse the
knowledge of them into others, when such a man would speak,
his words (by what I can expresse) like so many nim ble and airy
servitors trip about him at com m and, and in w ell order’d files, as
he w ould wish, fall aptly into their own places (CPW 1:949).
Thus, the works which validate M ilton’s faith are his w ords.
Christopher G rose justly notes that this passage also reflects M ilton’s
part in the larger historical context and the sense of prophetic
serendipity available to som eone riding the tide of such events.91 By
the time he is writing A n A pology, the forces for change seem to have
carried the day. Several bishops have been im prisoned, including
91 "The casual reader of the Apology may w ell get the im pression that
everything has com bined to produce the speaker’s morale and the
general am bience of the m oment; the speech em bodies the marriage of
’reasonings,’ instincts, a certain kind of nature, and som e opinions.
Best of all, though, it involves the external confirm ation of one of those
opinions in the realm of "events”--just the sort of happening (in the
A reop agitica’s term s) that might turn know ledge ’in the m aking’ into
the thing itself." M ilton and the Sense of Tradition. 73.
207
Joseph H all, and the B ishop’s Exclusion Bill has probably been
passed.92 In the present discussion, I wish to focus on how M ilton’s
procedures against H all represent his reworking on structures that had
been in place for som e tim e.
The stance of regenerate m an /good orator which permits
M ilton to show his rhetoric openly also permits him a further thrust at
his opponents. If he can show that their arguments are stylistically
im poverished, he can suggest that they are not regenerate.93 I showed
earlier how H all claim ed that the issue of church governm ent was an
"indifferent" m atter, which would require, according to sermon
manuals, that fellow Christians debate it with particular m eekness.
The same manuals, however, called for much harsher treatm ent of
heretics. M ilton’s argument im plicitly places H all and the M odest
Confutant outside the pale of orthodoxy and therefore am ong those to
be harshly treated.
A s one m eans of harsh treatm ent, M ilton com plains that the
rhetoric of his opponents is m ere sophistry rather than appropriate
92 For details on the dating of the pam phlet, see Frederick Lovett T aft’s
notes at CPW 1:862-64.
93 Cf. Joan W ebber’s discussion as to M ilton’s concern with congruence
betw een speaker and speech: "Just as good style is a sign of grace, so
bad style characterizes the unregenerate." "John M ilton: The Prose
Style of G od ’s English Poet," in The E loquent "I": Style and Self in
Seventeenth-C entury Prose (M adison, M ilwaukee and London:
University of W isconsin Press, 1968), 210.
208
Christian argum entation. H all, he points out, begs the question even
before his text begins, "sitting in the chaire of his Title page upon his
poore cast adversaries both as a Judge and Party, and that before the
jury of R eaders can be im pannell’d" (CPW 1:876). H e has far worse
things to say about the M odest Confutant, in whom a comm and of
language (and therefore moral excellen ce) is sadly lacking: "Instead of
w ell siz’d periods, he greets us with a quantity of thum-ring posies"
(CPW 1:908).
M ilton’s characterization of his opponents in A n A pology is
similar to that of the tem pter in his M aske P resented at Ludlow C astle,
perform ed in 1634. Comus is eloquent, but only initially so. Like
Satan, Comus is eventually defeated by a superior moral force. Like
Satan, Comus also has som e of the best lines, and surely the best
poetry. This is intended; he is not m eant to represent M ilton’s ideal,
but rather the specious eloquence which true eloquence will conquer.
M ilton vindicates the virtuous latecom er.
A t the beginning of this chapter, I showed how the various
serm on manuals all required that certain cautions be observed in the
conduct of controversies. T hese cautions were that charity be shown
for o n e’s opponent, that the position of the opponent be accurately
stated, that only current heresies be discussed, and that both the
m atter and style of the arguments raised against an opponent be
209
centered upon Scripture. M ilton particularly focu ses on the how
closely the style of the argument approaches the style of the Bible.
In the antiprelatical tracts, M ilton urges dependence on the
Scriptures alone, without the admixture of human tradition. A lthough
the Scriptures are always to be understood by reason— he stresses this
point again and again— they are sufficient by them selves. In particular,
he rejects the study of early church fathers which the H igh A nglicans
encouraged. Of all M ilton’s antiprelatical tracts, it is his first, Of
R eform ation in England and the Cawses That H itherto Have H indered
It (1641) which urges m ost dependence solely on the Scriptures.
M ilton questions the findings of those w ho devotedly study the early
church fathers and pretend therein to find a warrant for the English
system of prelaty. H e sets him self to show that the original bishops
(unlike the English) were poor, hum ble, and elected by the people.
The "purer" tim es acclaim ed by the antiquarians were already corrupt,
the best tim es "spreadingly affected," the best m en at tim es foully
tainted, the best writings of those m en dangerously adulterated (CPW
1:549). M ilton also shows a hum anist’s concern for textual
authenticity:
who knows not how many surreptitious works are ingraff’d into
the legitim ate writings of the Fathers, and of those Books that
passe for authentick who knows what hath bin tam per’d withall,
what hath bin raz’d out, what hath bin inserted. (CPW 1:553)
M oreover, the best writers of antiquity send their readers back to the
Scriptures: "the Fathers referre all decision of controversie to the
210
Scriptures, as all-sufficient to direct, to resolve, and to determine"
(CPW 1:563).
In order to insist on the sufficiency or Scripture, M ilton must
deal with the oft-raised objection that the Scriptures are difficult to
understand. H e replies, as do m ost biblicist discussions of
herm eneutics since A ugustine, that "that which is m ost necessary to be
known is m ost easie" (CPW 1:566). B esides, he says, G od in his
goodness m akes his com m ands known clearly: "The very essence of
Truth is plainness, and brightnes; the darkness and crookedness is our
own" (CPW 1:566).
This is all com m onplace herm eneutics, but then M ilton m oves
beyond the com m onplace to link style itself with theological error. H e
suggests that the style of the Fathers is redolent with the very sound of
heathen superstition:
But let the Scriptures be hard; are they more hard, more
crabbed, more abstruse then the Fathers? H e that cannot
understand the sober, plain, and unaffected stile of the
Scriptures, w ill be ten tim es more puzzl’d with the knotty
A fricanism s, the pam per’d metafors; the intricat, and involv’d
sentences of the Fathers; besid es the fantastik, and declam atory
flashes; the crosse-jingling periods which cannot but disturb,
and com e thwart a setl’d devotion worse then the din of bells,
and rattles. (CPW 1:568)
M ilton suggests here, as he does elsew here, that the Scriptures are not
just a source of truth, but also a m odel for discourse. T hose who prefer
the more intricate writings, the m ore convoluted style, are them selves
morally suspect: "they fe e l them selves strook in the transparent
211
streams of divine Truth, they would plunge, and tum ble, and thinke to
ly hid in the foul w eeds, and muddy waters, where no plum m et can
reach the bottome" ( CPW 1:569).
Thus, even though M ilton seem s to move beyond the
argum entative expectations established by Hyperius and his follow ers,
M ilton is true to their insistence that the Scriptures them selves are the
m odel for style. This claim is both im plicit and explicit. It is im plicit
when he appears to be thinking of various allusions to and snatches of
phrasing in the A uthorized or "King James" Version, even when not
specifically citing a passage. It is explicit when he uses scriptural
m odels to defend his own stylistic practice, as he does in A n A pology
Against a P am phlet. There, he explains that appropriate controversial
decorum is taught by the Scriptures, as when he defends the vehem ent
tone of A nim adversions:
The know ledge [that prelaty is erroneous], and not of that only,
but of what the Scripture teacheth us how we ought to withstand
the perverters of the G ospell were those other m otives which
gave the anim adversions no leave to rem it a continuall
vehem ence throughout the book. For as in teaching, doubtlesse
the Spirit of m eeknesse is m ost powerfull, so are the m eeke only
fit persons to be taught: as for the proud, the obstinate, and
false D octors of m ens devices, be taught they will not; but
discover’d and laid open they must be. ( CPW 1:874)
The M odest Confutant com plains that M ilton’s language is not only
vehem ent but som etim es even scurrilous: "Such language you should
scarce hear from the m ouths of canting beggars at an heathen altar;
212
much lesse was it looked for in a treatise of controversall T h eologie, as
yours might have been thought, had you not thus prevented it."94
The issue of argum entative decorum had b een a feature of the
antiprelatical debate at least since M arprelate, and w henever
scurrility appears, the bishops will com plain of a breach of decorum, if
not a lack of charity. The first page of the first M arprelate tract (1588)
introduces the issue, if only satirically: " ’May it please y ou ’ to give me
leave to play the dunce for the nonce, as w ell as he; otherwise dealing
with M aster D octo r’s book, I cannot keep decorum personae."95 Some
of M ilton’s seem ing scurrility, as Kranidas has argued, is actually a
reflection of Puritan zeal against the church of "lukewarm Laodicea"
figured in the third book of the A pocalypse and redirected by the
Puritans against the A nglican establishm ent. It was appropriate to
find L aodicea nauseating; Christ did.96
94 A M odest Confutation (London, 1642), 2.
95 The E p istle, in The M arprelate Tracts 1588. 1589. ed. W illiam Pierce
(London: James Clarke), 1911.
96 Thom as Kranidas, "Milton and the R hetoric of Zeal," Texas Studies
in Literature and Language 6 (1965): 423-32. Cf. R evelation 3:16-17:
"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will
spue thee out of my mouth. B ecause thou sayest, I am rich, and
increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that
thou art w retched, and m iserable, and poor, and blind, and naked." For
a more general discussion of the issue of decorum, see Thomas
Kranidas, The Fierce Equation: A Study of M ilton’s D ecorum (The
H ague, 1965).
213
It also was not until the eighteenth century that neoclassical
standards of behavior disapproved of the serious controversialist. To
ask M ilton to "be nice" in the early 1640’s is to m isread his century.
Pierre Charron (1541-1603), in his im m ensely popular seventeenth-
century work on behavior, counsels the controversialist,
not to fear or to be troubled with the rude incivility and bitter
speeches of m en, whereunto he must harden and accustom e
him self. G allant m en bear them with courage; this tenderness,
and fearful and cerem onious m ildnesse, is for wom en. This
society and fam iliaritie must be valiant and manly, it must be
courageous both to give hard speeches, and to endure them, to
correct and to be corrected. It is a fading pleasure, to have to do
with a people that yield, flatter, and applaud a man in all
things.97
Charron asks the controversialist to harden him self father than to
expect gentle treatm ent from others.
In defending his use of veh em en ce in A n A p ology. M ilton
declines to use arguments from classical rhetoric even though, as he
says, his use of either in appropriate circum stances was justifiable in
that forum:
If therefore the question were in oratory, whether a vehem ent
vein throwing out indignation, or scorn upon an object that
merits it, w ere am ong the aptest Ideas of speech to be allow ’d, it
were my work, and that an easie one to make it cleare both by
the rules of best rhetoricians, and the fam ousest exam ples of the
G reek and R om an Orations. But since the R eligion of it is
disputed, and not the art, I shall make use only of such reasons
and autorities, as religion cannot except against. ( CPW 1:899)
97 Pierre Charron. Of W isdom e. 1601, 6th edn. (London, 1651), 299-
300.
214
Rather, M ilton’s "reasons and authorities" are exam ples drawn from
the Scriptures, the authority of which was rarely questioned in the
1640’s. The most perfect speaker in the Scriptures, M ilton says, is
Christ him self. H e directs his com m ents to the needs of the every
occasion and the condition of every person. Christ divided his gift
am ong the m em bers of his Church, so now different m en speak
according to their tem peram ent (CPW 1:900). Thus, M ilton claim s to
speak from a G od-given tem peram ent as w ell as to the rhetorical
situation. H e also phrases this discussion within a m inisterial context.
M ilton also points out biblical figures who have the same
tem peram ent. John the Baptist spoke harshly because he was a "strict
man remarkable for austerity" ( CPW 1:899). The H ebrew prophets,
castigating the p eople, "tels them in a terme im m odest to be utter’d in
coole blood, that their wives shall be d efil’d openly" (CPW 1:901-902).
H e contrasts the range of diction allow ed by the Scriptures (and
therefore by G od, their author) with the overly nice Talm udic
requirem ent that all obscene words in the Scriptures must be replaced
with "more civil words." This m eans, M ilton explains ironically, that
these scholars "were of cleaner language than he that made the
tongue" (CPW 1:902-903). It also allows him to suggest that H all is not
really one of the elect because H all is depending on the exegetical
m ethods of those who have not yet been converted.
M ilton also employs his equation betw een style and morality to
attack Laudian liturgy, a subject to which he devotes m ore time than
215
either H all or the Smectymnuans. N ot only w ill a good man have a
good style, he says, but conversely a bad style can corrupt a good man.
Bishop H all argues consistently that the liturgy is to be honored, even
though, as he says in one place, som e spurious additions might have
crept in liturgy. The content of it, he insists, is "holy, and ancient."98
M ilton responds:
let it be suppos’d the substance of them may savour of som ething
holy, or ancient, this is but the matter; the form e, and the end of
the thing may yet render it either superstitious, fruitlesse, or
im pious, and so, worthy to be rejected. The G arm ents of a
Strumpet are often the sam e materially, that cloath a chast
Matron, and yet ignom inious for her to weare, the substance of
the tem pters words to our Saviour were holy, but his drift
nothing less.99
M ilton’s choice of analogy here is particularly fruitful, given the
disputes over vestm ents which had form ed part of the church-
government controversy from its beginning.100
In this chapter, I have attem pted to show that M ilton
appropriates hom iletic structures in his controversial prose. I have
98 Joseph H all, A D efen ce of the H um ble R em onstrance (London,
1641), 19.
99 Anim adversions (1641). CPW 1:686. This connection betw een style
and morality does not im plicate a connection betw een grammar and
morality. M ilton looked down on grammarians as inferior thinkers (see
his attack on Salm asius), and even wrote a grammar of his own to allow
pupils to m ove on to more im portant subjects.
100 See also M ichael Lieb, "Milton and the Organicist Polemic." M ilton
Studies 4 (1972): 79-99, regarding controversies over m inisterial dress.
216
concentrated here upon his procedures against Bishop Joseph Hall,
but this exam ple is hardly an isolated case of M ilton approximating the
"office of a pulpit." M ilton in fact continues to think in m inisterial
terms for the next thirty years. H om iletic practice informs both
Paradise Lost (1667) and Paradise R egained (1671) and can help to
explicate them. I will be discussing his use of hom iletics in the two
epics in the follow ing chapters.
217
Chapter Four: Paradise Lost and the Sermon Types
R eaders have trouble with the ending of Paradise L ost. A fter the
epic and engaging difficulties of Satan, A dam and Eve, the action gives
way to a two-book, sacred history lesson narrated by M ichael to Adam.
These tedious books are rarely taught to undergraduates, and they may
have caused Sam uel Johnson to pronounce that none ever wished
Paradise Lost longer. 1 M odern critics vary in their assessm ent of the
r
how the final section differs from the rest of the epic. In C.S. L ew is’s
opinion, the historical section is one of M ilton’s few artistic failures
because it presents "an untransm uted lump of futurity" at a "momentous
part of the narrative" in writing that is "curiously b ad."2 Louis L. Martz
finds the last section successful theologically but disastrous poetically.
H e speaks of a "growing sense that M ilton is out of touch with the
central conception of his p o em ."3 Stanley Fish, who proposes that the
central character in Paradise Lost is the reader, nevertheless contends
1 "Paradise Lost is one of the books which the reader admires and lays
down and forgets to take up again. N one ever wished it longer than it
is." Sam uel Johnson, "Milton," in Sam uel Johnson, ed. D onald G reene,
The Oxford A uthors (Oxford and N ew York: Oxford University Press,
1984), 711.
2 C.S. Lewis. A Preface to Paradise Lost (1942: repr. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1961), 129.
3 Louis L. Martz, " Paradise L ost: The Journey of the Mind," in The Par
adise Within: Studies in Vaughan. Traherne, and M ilton (New Haven:
Y ale University Press, 1964), 142.
218
that during the final two books, the reader is a spectator, not a
participant, and that it is the reader’s responsibility to find ways to
enjoy the "altered style."4
Som e recent readings have focused on the frustration of typology.
R egina Schwartz finds so much deferral of closure in the final two books
("Summary conclusions that continue, and so do not summ arize or
conclude; m om ents of enlightenm ent that turn out to be veiled after
all") that she suggests M ilton is actually talking about death, a subject
which would be sym ptom atic of his disappointm ent in the deferred
m illennium .5 W illiam W alker states that "some features of M ilton’s
presentation of history insist not on the explanatory value of the theory
[of typology] but precisely on the difficulties of its articulation," since
the types of the Old T estam ent lead not to closure but to the different
interpretive tasks of the N ew T estam ent.6
I propose that M ilton follow ed a structuring of the final two
books which has not been considered: the serm on. The structure of last ^
two books parallels the structural organization of the entire epic, which
4 "There is still to be sure a drama of the mind, but it is A d am ’s .... The
force generated by the ’altered style’ of Books XI and XII will vary in
proportion to the effort the reader has expended in reaching them. If
they fail now, it is because he has failed before." Surprised bv Sin: The
R eader in "Paradise Lost" (1967; repr. Berkeley, Los A n geles and
London: University of California Press, 1971), 303.
5 R egina Schwartz, "From Shadowy Types to Shadowy Types: The
U nendings of Paradise L ost." M ilton Studies 24 (19881: 137.
6 W illiam W alker, "Typology and Paradise L ost. B ooks XI and XII,"
M ilton Studies 25 (1990): 245-64.
219
depends upon the twin sermon types of correction and consolation.
Understanding these structures can help explicate the ending by
suggesting a different m odel from Virgil and a different kind of
discourse for grace, proposing a style not so altered from the rest of the
epic, and even explaining why the m ultiple closures are appropriate
when they occur.7
B efore I trace the serm onic form at of the last two books, I want
first to argue that M ilton’s corrective and consolatory procedure still
follow s the m ainstream of seventeenth-century English hom iletics.
M ilton’s stress on practice rather than doctrine would appear to be a
departure from my argument in the preceding chapter that the
redargutive sermon was the center of rhetorical energy for the pulpit.
Y et although the intellectual dem ands of doctrinal argum entation
7 E. Patricia Vicari has suggested that the concluding section of R obert
Burton’s A natom y of M elancholy can also be considered a sermon. H er
reasons are that Burton is him self a priest, and also that he employs
those features which W. Fraser M itchell deem s m ost characteristic of
sermon style (exem plum , anecdote, and allegory). E. Patricia Vicari,
The V iew from M inerva’s Tower: Learning and Im agination in "The
A natom y of Melancholy" (Toronto, Buffalo, and London: University of
Toronto Press, 1989): 121-25. But while Burton’s concluding section on
religious m elancholy is serm onic in intent, that is, it aims to produce a
particular affect in its audience, in this case a return to the love of G od,
it is not serm onic in form . It is not an exegesis of a finite scriptural text
but rather an exuberant and centripetal m editation on the love of God.
N evertheless, V icari’s reading of Burton is suggestive, and it is
unfortunate that she has not exam ined more texts contemporary with
him. H er sources on preaching seem to be lim ited to one seventeenth-
century preacher, Thom as Adam s, and also W. Fraser M itchell’s
English Pulpit Oratory (1932). M itchell, as I have shown in chapter two,
tends to downplay form al serm on characteristics in favor of literary
ones.
220
continue to be recognized in the years follow ing M ilton’s debate with
Hall, the religious focus is shifting from doctrine to practice in
seventeenth-century England, and in fact the focus on doctrine had
never been as strong as it was on the Continent. M ilton him self
consistently favors practice over doctrine. H is discussions of the
ministry are strongly disciplinarian in tone. In fact, he discusses
m inisterial censure as a sophisticated rhetorical act, superior to the
purely physical reprehension of the civil magistrate.
In this chapter I will first show this shift in focus from issues of
doctrine to issues of practice in religious controversy, before showing
M ilton’s role in this shift, and I will concentrate on how this latecom er
prefers to discuss pastoral activity as rem edial or as "ministerial
warfare." H aving laid this foundation, I will then exam ine Paradise Lost
in light of the serm on types of correction and consolation, and show how
these types help explicate its vexatious ending.
I. The H om iletic Shift from Faith to Practice
W hen R aphael and M ichael descend to speak to A dam and Eve,
neither of them com es to instruct the human pair in R eform ation
doctrine. Rather, they com e to prevent disobedience, now or in the
future, and to remind or teach about G o d ’s m ercies. M ilton’s em phasis
on practice over doctrine is typical of the later seventeenth century, and
to som e extent of England in general. On the C ontinent in the m id
sixteenth century, Hyperius focu ses on teaching doctrine, "which alone
221
is of great im portance to the establishing of G od ’s church, and to the
amplifying thereof."8 In late seventeenth-century England, G eorge
Stanhope reverses this em phasis in a university sermon, a sermon
preached on the same text which gave Hyperius his serm on types.
Instead of privileging the doctrinal or redargutive applications,
Stanhope glories in epanorthosis:
C orrection, that is, according to the com m on A cceptation of the
Word, Reform ing of M anner. A nd in this indeed, consists the
peculiar Glory of Christianity, that it makes the world better,
sw eetens M ens Tem pers, purifies their H earts and A ffections,
tam es their wild Passions, and checks those Exorbitancies, which
renders them odious to G od, U n easie to them selves, and
Troublesom e to one another.9
This late seventeenth-century vision of a housebroken Christian who is
fit for the company of a fastidious God reflects considerable social
change, such as the im portation of neoclassical standards of decorum
from France.
The stress on practice is abundantly illustrated in the religious
literature of the century. John D ow nam e asserts the im portance of
practice at the beginning of A G uide to G odlvnesse (1622):
the end of all arts and sciences is the practice of them .... A nd as
this is to be confessed in all other arts, so cannot it be denied of
Divinity and R eligion, the practice w hereof doth in excellency
8 Andreas Gerhard Hyperius. Of Framing of Divine Serm ons. 1553,
trans. John Ludham (London, 1577), 110.
9 G eorge Stanhope. The P erfection of Scripture Stated, and Its Suf
ficiency Argued: in a Sermon Preached at the Publick C om m encem ent
at Cam bridge. Sunday. July iv. 1697 (London, 1697), 27-28.
222
surmount the knowledge and theorie, as being the m aine end
whereunto it tendeth.1®
Likewise the remarkably learned and irenic John H ales (d. 1656) in
"Abuses of Hard Places of Scripture" rejects a Christianity of purely
creedal form ulae. H e refers instead to the "true religion" of the Epistle
of Jam es, that is, doing works of charity and abstaining from evil:
So that the thing which in an especial refined D ialect of the new
Christian Language signifies nothing but M orality and Civility,
that in the Language of the H oly G host imports true R elig io n .11
Thom as Pope Blount also em phasizes the im portance of practice in
reducing factionalism in Essays on Several Subjects (1691):
where Learning and K nowledge go in the Front, Pride and
A m bition always follow in the Rear. H ence it is observ’d, that
R om e for the first five hundred Years, w hen it Flourish’d in
Virtue and Valour, was without K nowledge; And so soon as
learning came amongst them, they then began to degenerate,
and to run into F actions.12
One major reason for this shift in em phasis from doctrine to practice is
the success of the R eform ation in establishing its doctrinal position.
The creeds have been form ulated, the books written, the heresies
refuted. A s John H ales expresses it, "For no man in these days can be
10 John D ow nam e. A G uide to G odlvnesse. or a Treatise of a Christian
Life (London, 1622), 2.
11 John H ales, "Abuses of Hard Places of Scripture," in The G olden
R em ains of the Ever M em orable Mr. John H ales of Eton C ollege &c.
(1659; London, 1688), 37. Cf. Jam es 1:27: "Pure religion and undefiled
before G od and the Father is this. To visit the fatherless and widows in
their affliction, and to keep him self unspotted from the world."
12 Thom as Pope Blount, Essays on Several Subjects (London, 1691), 35.
223
long W eak [in doctrine], but by his own default, so long and careful
Teaching as hath been and every day is."13
In 1692, G ilbert Burnet proclaim s that the work left to be done
in the R eform ation is by no m eans doctrinal, but rather practical:
the R eform ation] has now for above an Hundred Y ears m ade a
full stand, and in m ost places it has rather lost ground, than
gained any .... the D octrine is the same; and it has b een of late
defended with greater A dvantages, with more Learning, and
better R easoning than it was at first; yet with much less Success.
Burnet blam es the ministry for the im passe. Com pared with the
R om an clergy, the lives of Protestant m inisters are corrupt, and "the
M anner and the Labours of the Clergy, are real A rgum ents . . . which
. . . perswade more universally than B ooks can do."14
By the eighteenth century, an em phasis on practice is
com m onplace in religious discussions. Bernard M andeville insists in
1720 that
what is com m only understood by Faith and Believing, is the
easiest part of Christianity, in which very few are defective, but
. . . the m ost difficult part of our R eligion consists in conquering
our Passions for the Love of God, and in O bedience to his
C om m ands.15
W hen in 1730 Joseph Trapp urges his audience to adopt a m eek (i.e.,
13 John H ales, "Abuses of Hard Places of Scripture," in G olden
R em ains (1659; London, 1688), 45.
14 G ilbert Burnet. A D iscourse of the Pastoral Care ILondon. 1692), x-
xi.
15 Bernard M andeville. Free Thoughts on R eligion, the Church, and
N ational H appiness (London, 1720), A2v.
224
receptive) attitude toward preaching, he is underscoring the need for
practice, not doctrine. H e assumes that his auditors are instructed in
the Christian religion. They are instructed to the point of judging the
preacher’s perform ance rather than the m essage. But rather than
satisfying o n e ’s curiosity, he says, one ought to satisfy on e’s
conscience:
N ot censoriously carping at the Perform ance of the Preacher,
nor passing captious R eflection s on his Thoughts, and
Expressions: In a word, N ot im itating the example of T hose,
who go to a Church, as they do to a Theatre, to be Criticks, as
w ell as Auditors .... Faith (says the A p ostle) com eth by
H earing: and how shall they hear without a Preacher? But still
we must carefully rem em ber that Both are in order to som ething
else: The End of Preaching, and H earing, is P ractise.16
Seventeenth-century English religion em phasized practice, but in one
sense England had always stressed practice. The R eform ation in
England produced no sixteenth-century Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli to
establish doctrine. Rather, the early R eform ers at Cambridge met to
discuss Lutheran m aterial im ported by sym pathetic m erchants, and
W illiam Tyndale, one of the greatest figures of the English
R eform ation, put his major efforts into Bible translation.17 Salvation
by faith alone was not an English form ulation, but a C ontinental one,
16 Joseph Trapp. Of Preaching. H earing, and Practising the Word of
God. A Sermon (London, 1730), 13-14, 18.
17 See A .G . D ickens, The English R eform ation. 68-82, for details as to
the early growth of Lutheranism at Cambridge, the role of merchant
adventurers in London and elsew here, and the efforts of individual
reformers.
225
and no matter* how much the English em braced it they had a history
which predisposed them to consider practical issues.
E ngland’s chief contribution to the international m ovem ent was
John W ycliffe (c. 1330-84), the "morning star of the Reformation,"
w hose work influenced John H us and the Bohem ian reform ation.18
But W ycliffe did not propose salvation by faith, although he did cast
doubt on sacram ental theology and the im portance of the pope.
A ccording to A .G . D ickens, the "two chief positive teachings" of his
Lollard follow ers w ere that the priests should em phasize preaching
rather than the sacram ents and that a vernacular Bible should be
freely available to both clergy and laity. But the Lollards also stressed
the role of works in salvation. In fact, one of their favorite B iblical
texts was the E pistle of St. Jam es, which insists that "faith without
works is dead."19 By contrast, Luther distrusted this book of the Bible,
calling it in one early writing "an epistle of straw."20
18 C f. M ilton’s Of R eform ation : "England having had this grace and
honour from God to bee the first that should set up a Standard for the
recovery of lost Truth, and blow the first Evangelick Trum pet to the
N ations . . . our W icklefs preaching, at which all the succeding
R eform ers more effectually lighted their Tapers" (CJPW 1:525-26).
19 A .G . D ickens. The English R eform ation . 24, 30.
20 In Luther’s preface to his 1522 edition of the G erm an New T esta
ment: "Sanct Johannis Evangeli und seine erste Epistle. Sanct Paulus
Epistel. sonderlich die zu den Rom ern. G alatern. Ephesern. und Sanct
Peters erste Epistel. das sind die Bucher, die dir Christum zeigen. und
alles leren. das dir zu w issen nott und selig ist. oh du schon fein ander
Buch noch lere numm er sehest noch horist. Darumb ist sanct Jacobs
E pistel ein rechte stroern E pistel gegen sie. denn sie doch kein
Evangelisch art an ihr hat. D och davon w eitter inn andern vorrh ed en."
("The gospel of St. John and his first epistle, the epistle[s] of St. Paul,
especially those to the Rom ans, G alatians, [and] E phesians, and St.
226
The institutional history of the English R eform ation was also
largely concerned with practical matters. The H enrician "reformation"
was a matter of church governm ent and adm inistration, of the
dissolution of m onasteries and other ecclesiastical structures and the
consolidation of power under the king as head of the church; Catholic
doctrine was left intact until it was reform ed under the brief reign of
Edward VI. U nder Mary Tudor, much of the energy w ent into
reversing H enrician or Edwardian policy, and Q ueen E lizabeth
insisted on an external conformity, which since it concerned behavior
rather than actual belief was more of a practical than a doctrinal issue.
Even am ong the most biblicist, the em phasis on practice was
always potential, as in the Puritan sermon of "doctrines and uses."
W hereas H yperius’s ideal preacher put his rhetorical energies into
establishing the proper doctrinal atm osphere for salvation, the
Puritans put their energies into producing evidence of that salvation.
A s insular theorists W illiam Perkins, Richard Bernard and W illiam
A m es dom esticated the ideas of Hyperius, the focus of rhetoric moved
P eter’s first epistle, these are the books which show you Christ, and by
reading them all, you com e to know what is necessary and blessed. Y ou
may have already seen or heard another fine book read, namely the
epistle of St. Jam es, which is a real epistle of straw com pared with these.
It has no gospel in it. It should not continue to be read with the
others.") D eustch e B ib el. W A 6:10. N iels H em m ingsen similarly
excludes from the New Testam ent canon the following: II Peter, II
John, III John, James, Jude and R evelation. The P reacher. 1555, trans.
John H orsfal (London, 1574), 3.
into application, in which the auditor was m oved to action rather than
merely to assent.
M oreover, all theorists stressed the necessity of preaching to the
com m on capacity, and the Puritan call for "plain" preaching, that is,
unadorned by unfam iliar foreign term s or learned allusions,
underscores how com m on that capacity was. The com m on mind was
not suited to abstruse doctrinal argum entation; it n eed ed first to
understand in what ways it had fallen short of G od ’s standards.
W illiam H aller dem onstrates the extent to which even early Puritan
preaching addressed m oral issues rather than doctrinal
controversies.21 H ening Graf R eventlow , who argues that English
D eism represents an outgrowth of Puritanism, insists that "ethics" are
the central concern in the English R eform ation. R eventlow , however,
also links the pietism of the English R eform ation to C ontinental
sources rather than native ones:
If we want to arrive at an open assessm ent of the character of
Puritanism we may not overlook the strongly hum anistic traits
which are to be found in a m ovem ent which lays such strong
stress on piety .... the em ergence of ethics as their central
concern shows that the Puritans continued the concerns of
pietism .22
21 W illiam H aller, "Physicians of the Soul," in The R ise of Puritanism .
3-48.
22 H ening Graf R eventlow , The Authority of the Bible and the R ise of
the M odern W orld, trans. John Bow den (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1985), 97.
228
The English religious em phasis on behavioral issues was paralleled by
a stress on rhetorical stress. For Hyperius, rhetorical expertise is
necessary only in the redargutive serm on. W illiam Chappell, on the
other hand, says that these skills are also necessary for practical
issues:
N ow follow the uses, which have respect to the heart, or will, and
affections. But these especially doe vindicate to them selves all
manner of R hetorical preparation .... A nd here som etim es may
be som ewhat mixed with the use which belongs to another, but
obliquely, as they shall seem to conduce for the sharpning or
softning of one another.23
According to Chappell, reprehension of sin w ill be the m ore effective
if the preacher "doe sacredly professe, that he doth not of his own
accord, and willingly descend to those extreme remedies" (165), which
ech oes the redargutive requirem ent that one reprove error in charity
rather than contentiousness. W illiam Perkins has much the same
advice, "alwaies, in the very hatred of sinne, let the love of the person
appeare in the speeches."24
John W ilkins also calls rhetoric into play for exhortation,
another practical issue:
Exhortation . . . so principall a part of Preaching, that A ct. 13.15
all that was to be spoken is called Exhortation. The chiefe end
of an Orator is to perswade, (say the Philosophers) Finis
oratoris est persuasio.25
23 W illiam Chappell. The Preacher (London, 1656), 153-54.
24 W illiam Perkins. The Arte of Prophesying. 1607. in Works (London
and Cambridge, 1612-13), 11:669.
25 John W ilkins. E cclesiastes (London. 1646), 18. Cf. A cts 13:15, "And
after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue
sent unto them, saying, Ye m en and brethren, if ye have any word of
229
M atthew Sutcliff (1590) also glosses a verse in the book of A cts to find
rhetorical expertise in exhortation, saying that
the text hath in express terms that he did exhort, kai parekalei
pantas te [ . . . ] kardias prosm enein to kurio. that is, he exhorted
them all with purpose of heart to cleave to the Lord: in which
speech there are evident markes of affectionate words and
perswasions used by Barnabas, which nam e if it doe signifie the
sonne of consolation as S. Luke interpreteth the same
[Act.4.36.], evill should hee deserve if, he did neither comfort,
exhort, nor apply, but onley barely teach.26
Richard Bernard (1607) recom m ends rhetorical expertise for
both reproof of false doctrine and reprehension of sin. For both, "the
use of R hetoricke is necessarie with the figures, to make the
disswasion and reprehension more forcible upon the reasons, which
are also to be enlarged and enforced upon the offenders conscience."
A nd in his discussion of consolation, he says, "As before is requisite
the use of R hetoricke, so heere in this place likewise."27
During the Interregnum, John C ollinges calls for those with
em inent rhetorical abilities to put them in the service of practice,
since, as he says, sinners have grown so intellectually sophisticated:
We live in an age when the worst of m en are much prejudiced
against the wayes of G od and his G ospell O rdinances, and in
exhortation for the p eop le, say on."
26 M atthew Sutcliff, A Treatise of E cclesiastical D iscipline (London,
1590), 22-23. Cf. A cts 11:23, which relates that when Barnabas had
arrived in A ntioch and "had seen the grace of G od, he was glad, and
exhorted them all that with purpose of heart, they would cleave unto the
Lord."
27 Richard Bernard. The Faithful Shepheard (1607), 68, 70.
230
which many such m en there are that are very learned and
c r itic a ll. . . Surely in such tim es those should be sent out who
are of m ost em inent A b ilities, and furnished even with humane
Art, to perswade in the m ost m oving way, and to insinuate
them selves into the hearts of their hearers, otherwise the
O rdinances of G od shall yet be made more contem ptible.28
A m ong the most effective m eans of persuasion detailed by the
theorists was the preacher’s own life, which was already ancient
rhetorical w isdom but was also insisted upon in the serm on manuals.
H yperius’s requirem ents for the preacher include not merely learning
and the ability to com m unicate, but "sanctimony of life."29 Pierre
G erard’s work on the ministry, of which an English translation
appeared in 1598, spends three chapters on establishing "what the life
. . . of M inisters ought to be." Sermon construction proper is not
addressed until page 184.30 N eils H em m ingsen insists that true
preachers, though they preach "learnedly, orderly or cunningly" to
others, preach even more to them selves, "that our audience seeing our
wise and holy sayings to agree together, with our good and godly dedes
may by our exam ple fram e also their life."31 Richard Bernard spends
28 John C ollinges, R esponsoria ad erratica pastoris (London, 1652),
35.
29 A ndreas Gerhard Hyperius. Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 1553,
trans. John Ludham (London, 1577), 4-8.
30 Pierre Gerard. A Preparation to the M ost H olie M inistrie (London.
1598), A3r. I have been unable to locate any reference to Pierre Gerard
beyond this translated text. It appears to have been written by a
sixteenth-century French Protestant.
31 N iels H em m ingsen, The Preacher. 1555, trans. John H orsfal
(London, 1574), dedication.
231
several pages expounding the biblical requirem ents of the preacher’s
"Christian walk" as listed in the pastoral epistles of Titus and Timothy.
The preacher should be unblam eable, mature, watchful, tem perate,
m odest, hospitable, gentle, in love with virtue, continent, and bold and
constant in his profession. H e should be clear from various vices, not
wilfully contrary, not covetous, not "given to wine," not pugnacious or
quarrelsom e, not brawling or litigious. "A godly life," Bernard
concludes, "is a Seale to sound doctrine."32 John W ilkins, although he
specifically devotes his work to the "artificiall abilities" of preaching,
also notes that spiritual abilities are requisite, and these are only
attained by "Prayer, an hum ble heart, and a holy life."33
The specifically English em phasis on practice in religion and
hom iletics is reflected in the work of John M ilton, Englishm an. H e,
too, believed that the R eform ation was stalled at the practice stage,
not at the doctrinal. In Of R eform ation, he com plains of this im passe
in term of church discipline that
albeit in purity of D octrine we agree with our Brethren
[overseas]; yet in D iscipline, which is the execution and applying
of D octrine hom e . . . we are no better then a Schisme, from all
the R eform ation, and a sore scandall to them .34
32 Richard Bernard. The Faithful Shepheard (London. 1607), 90-93.
Cf. I Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
33 John W ilkins, E cclesiastes (London, 1646), 3.
34 Of R eform ation (1641L CPW 1:526.
232
H e also says that doctrine has been sufficiently dissem inated in
England. In A n A pology against a Pam phlet (16421. M ilton argues
that, although the laity could still use more preaching, they have had
sufficient doctrinal instruction to be able to judge a preacher, and that
none can judge of a Christian teacher, but he who hath, either
the practize, or the know ledge of Christian religion .... And
who alm ost of the m eanest Christians hath not heard the
Scriptures often read from his childhood, besides so many
Serm ons and Lectures more in num ber then any student hath
heard in Philosophy, w hereby he may easily attained to know
when he is wisely taught and when weakly. (CPW 1:933)
M ilton usually privileges practice over doctrine in descriptions of the
ministry. For instance, in A n A pology against a Pam phlet (1642) he
produces three tests by which a minister may be judged, by his
doctrine, by his life, and by the life of him who judges (CPW 1:933). H e
does not suggest that the judgm ent be rendered according to the
doctrine of him who judged. In these three tests, practice
preponderates. H e goes even further in Anim adversions (1641),
specifically rejecting doctrinal controversies in favor of
dem onstrations of appropriate Christian behavior and church
discipline:
H ypocrites, the G ospell faithfully preach’d to the poore, the
desolate parishes visited and duely fed, lyterers throwne out,
w olves driven from the fold, had b een e a better confutation of
the Pope and M asse, than w hole H ecantontom es of
controversies, and all this careering with speare in rest and
thundering upon the steele cap of Baronius or Bellarm ine (CPW
1:731).
M ilton also believed, and b elieved consistently over decades,
that preaching and not physical com pulsion was the appropriate
233
remedy for sin. H e refused to allow the civil m agistrate to enforce the
behavior taught by the preacher. H e says as much in A reopagitica
(1644):
G od uses not to captivat under a perpetually childhood of
prescription, but trusts him with the gift of reason to be his own
chooser; there were but little work left for preaching, if law and
com pulsion should grow so fast upon those things which
hertofore w ere govern’d only by exhortation (CPW 11:513-14).
H e also insists on the preacher’s right to correct sin in A Treatise of
Civil Power (1659), which rejects the use of civil force against the
individual conscience as being not only un-Christian (and illogical) but
also less effective than the G od-given means:
Christ hath a governm ent of his own, sufficient of it self to all his
ends and purposes in governing his church; but much different
from that of the civil m agistrate; and the difference in this verie
thing principally consists, that it governs not by outward force,
and that for two reasons. First because it deals only with the
inward man and his actions, which are all spiritual and to
outward force not lyable: secondly to shew us the divine
excellen ce of his spiritual kingdom, able without worldly force
to subdue all the powers and kingdom s of this world, which are
upheld by outward force only ( CPW VII:255).
The m eans for this spiritual governm ent, M ilton tells us later, are tw o
fold: "the settlem ent of religion belongs only to each particular church
by perswasive and spiritual m eans within it self, and that the defence
only of the church belongs to the magistrate" (CPW VII:271). The
"perswasive" m eans refer to preaching; the "spiritual" m eans are
actually also persuasive, but also partake of divine authority. They are
the so-called "keys" of spiritual discipline by which the individual
believer is adm onished and which were originally announced by Christ
234
to Peter: "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven:
and w hatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and
w hatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"
(M atthew 16:19).
M ilton’s discussions of the keys in Christian D octrine is fairly
standard for the period. H e discusses the adm inistration of discipline
in order of degrees of severity. First, those who are w eak and have
fallen away are to be treated with gentleness. Second, differences
betw een m em bers of the church are to be com posed and more serious
offenders are to be warned or publicly rebuked. If they continue to be
disobedient, they are segregated from the com m union or even ejected
from the fellow ship. This last m easure is not m eant to destroy the
m em ber but was a charitable and last-ditch effort to secure his or her
repentance and conversion, if possible (CPW VI:610-11).
M ilton’s reading is more or less the standard Protestant
interpretation of the various biblical texts on ecclesiastical discipline,
except that he does not locate them in the m inister but rather in the
entire church. "This power is not com m itted only to Peter or to any
particular pastor in his nam e, but to every particular church as a
totality, however few its members" ( CPW VI:609). This
congregational locus is consistent with M ilton’s rejection of
ordination. A s M atthew P oole tells us in his commentary,
M atthew 16:19 was not read as conferring a power of absolution of sins
and excom m unication into the hands of Peter and his successors, as the
Catholic church read it, but rather that "the Church hath a Power, in a
235
due Order, and for just, to case Persons out of its Communion."35
A nother, m ilder reading was that the keys were purely declarative.
That is, that the proclam ation of the gospel alone without further
disciplinary action was figured in P eter’s speech. This is John H a les’s
position, for instance:
The Keys of H eaven com m itted to Peter, and Com m and to fee
his Sheep, import no more than that com m on Duty laid upon all
the D isciples, To teach all N ations.36
W hereas M ilton and many others suppose an authoritative
intervention betw een the sin and the sinner with actual social
consequences, H a les’s idea of church discipline is lim ited to a
declaration. But he considers that declaration to be fairly strong:
all shutting of the Kingdom of heaven, is either com m on to all,
or casual, befalling only som e. The com m on Exclusion is that
State of Nature, w herein we all are involv’d, as we spring from
the first Adam: The second Exclusion is that which befals
Christian relapsing into Sin. The first shutting was at the Fall,
and was then prefigur’d unto us, by the barring up of the way
unto the Tree of Life. W hat active, what judiciary part can any
M inister of the G ospel have here? A ll that the A p ostles could
do here, was but to open to M en this their Misery.
35 M atthew P oole. A nnotations U pon the H oly Bible. W herein the
Sacred Text Is Inserted and V arious R eadings A n n ex’d, together with
the Parallel Scriptures. The M ore D ifficult Term s in Each V erse
Explained. Seem ing Contradictions R econ ciled . Q uestions and D oubts
R esolved. And the W hole Text O p en ed . 4th edn., 2 vols (London,
1700). A s is usual with R eform ation com m entaries, P o o le ’s A n n ota
tions is arranged according to the canonical order of scriptural books,
from G en esis to R evelation. P oole treats the gospel of M atthew and the
rest of the New Testam ent which follow s it in volum e II.
36 John H ales, "Miscellanies," in Several Tracts by the Ever-m em orable
Mr. John H ales ([London?], 1676), 203.
236
Furtherm ore, H ales limits the keys to declaration only specifically so
as to avoid the Catholic interpretation: "Either ministry of heaven is
only declarative, or any one can get in as long as his sins are not
detected by a priest."37
Spiritual discipline as view ed by seventeenth-century English
Protestants, then, can be either declarative or authoritative. In either
case, it is persuasive. It belongs with preaching as a verbal alternative
to physical force, and verbal alternatives to physical force belong to
the realm of rhetoric. In both preaching and church discipline, the
preacher must verbally w oo the congregation, urging them to act on
what they have been taught. In Of R eform ation (1641), M ilton
declares: "there is no act in all the errand of G ods M inisters to
mankind, w herein passes m ore lover-like contestation betw eene Christ
and the Soule of a regenerate man lapsing, then before, and in, and
after the sentence of Excommunication" (CPW 1:608).
M ilton’s m eans of discipline are correction and consolation,
both rem edial activities. A s I have shown in chapter two, M ilton
believed, as did his tutor Chappell, that the two m odes belonged
together. W hen R aphael arrives to prevent sin, and when M ichael
arrives to teach the fallen, they both em ploy these practical serm on
types for serm onic ends, as I w ill show in the follow ing section.
37 John H ales, "Of the Power of the Keys," in Several Tracts
([London?], 1676), 134-35.3
237
II. Correction and C onsolation in Paradise Lost
The serm on types of correction and consolation are central to
Paradise L ost. N ot only do they structure the action and m otivate
various explicit statem ents, but they inform the angelic discourses at the
m iddle and end of the epic. R ap hael’s and M ichael’s discourses follow
the same form at as serm ons, work for the same ends as serm ons, and
achieve the same hoped-for results.
In the first few lines of the poem , M ilton announces his epic
subject as A d am ’s disobedience, its m ortal outcom e, and the prom ise of
redem ption:
Of M an’s First D isob ed ien ce, and the Fruit
Of that Forbidden Tree, w hose m ortal taste
Brought D eath into the World, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden, till one greater Man
R estore us, and regain the blissful Seat,
Sing H eav’nly Muse.
(PL 1:1-6)
The structure of M ilton’s poem follow s his announced subject, with its
action leading up to and away from the forbidden tree, all the while
consoling us with the prom ise of Christ. The twin considerations of
correction and consolation structure the epic throughout, som etim es
explicitly and som etim es preveniently.
Prevenient adm onishm ent is m andated not only by M ilton’s
theology, but also by the serm on manuals, which forbid the preacher to
238
correct an uncertain sin.38 The Father sends R aphael to warn A dam so
as to give him no excuse for his im pending disobedience: "Lest wilfully
transgressing he pretend/Surprisal, unadm onist, unforewarn’d" (V .244-
5). Raphael warns A dam repeatedly about the fall which G od has
already foreseen . In B ook VI, he urges him to "persevere upright" (631-
32), In B ook VII to "beware" and govern his appetite lest Sin surprise
him (545-47). In B ook VIII, R aphael warns A dam several tim es. H e
repeats the interdiction about the tree (323-35), cautions A dam against
uxoriousness (532-59), and concludes his discourse with more
adm onishm ents (633-43).
A dm onishm ent must precede correction, and adm onishm ent is
not reserved for divinities alone. A dam and Eve also remind one
another that the tree is forbidden. In recounting her dream to Adam ,
Eve calls it the "Tree/O f interdicted knowledge" (V .51-2). A s they part
on the fatal day, A dam warns Eve to beware of Satan:
for thou know’st
W hat hath been warn’d us, what m alicious Foe
Envying our happiness, and of his own
D espairing, seeks to work us w oe and shame
By sly assault.
(IX .252-6).
Eve acknow ledges that she overheard R ap h ael’s warning, even though
she is scandalized that A dam doubts her firm ness (IX .274-81). After
the fall, A dam reminds Eve that he had warned her (IX .1170-73). Satan
38 "Nihil reprehendatur de quo non certo constat." Officium
concionatoris (Cam bridge, 1676), 35
239
him self verbalizes the interdiction ironically. In B ook IV, w hile he is
urging the human pair to sleep, he speaks a line that sounds like a series
of "no’s": "Sleep o n ,/B le st pair; and O yet happiest if ye se e k /N o
happier state, and know to know no more" (IV .774-5).
Many of the major characters and voices in the poem enunciate
correction. A t the beginning of B ook IV, the narrator w ishes for the
"warning voice" of the A pocalypse. B efore the fall, the Father foresees
the disobedience of A dam and corrects fallen man in absentia.
"enthrall’d /B y sin to foul exorbitant desires" (III.176-7). A fter the fall,
the Father says that they should have rem em bered his injunction against
the tree (X .12-3).
But correction in Paradise Lost is balanced by consolation, as
that term was understood by the serm on theorists directly affecting
M ilton. Richard Bernard said that the em otion to be achieved by the
consolatory serm on type was "joyfulnesse, to be of a cheerfull spirit,
with patience, hope and constancie."39 This is not, as critics have
com plained, the consolation of Paradise Lost.40 But W illiam A m es, a
more direct influence on M ilton and who included significant
discussions of preaching in both Marrow of Sacred Divinity and
39 Richard Bernard, The Faithful Shepheard (London, 1607), 70.
40 Louis L. Martz, for instance, says at one point, "Nothing could be
further from the prom ised sympathy and consolation." " Paradise L o st:
The Journey of the Mind," in The Paradise W ithin. 158.
240
C onscience with the Power and the Cases T h ereof, had this to say about
consolation:
From Christian hope or confidance, ariseth consolation, which
is, a confirm ation of the soule, against the griefe and feare that
doth oppresse it, for it is not properly a rejoicing of the soule (as
som e thinke) but rather a repression, or a m itigation, or an
allaying of griefe, feare, or sadnesse. For that a man is said to
receive comfort and consolation, when he hath in som e sort put
away griefe, although joy be not yet com e in the place, or if his
sadnesse, and sorrow, be at least in som e sort m itigated and
lessen. For som etim es there may be a mixture of sorrow and
consolation together.41
Such consolation, carefully qualified, balances the correction which
structures Paradise L o st. The Father is prevenient in this kind of
com fort as w ell as in reproof. Even as he castigates A d am ’s "foul
exorbitant desires," he prom ises to "renew/H is lapsed powers"
(III.175-7). O nce A dam and Eve have fallen, the Father even sends
them prevenient grace to enable them to pray for pardon (XI. 1-8). A s
M ichael descends on his m ission, the two begin to find "Strength added
from above, new hope to spring/O ut of despair" (X I.138-9). W hereas
the eleventh book of Paradise Lost is about correction, the twelfth
book is about the sober consolation recom m ended by A m es. A s
M ichael is com m anded, he gives the human pair counsel which will
enable them to leave E den "not disconsolate" (X I.113).
A s the Father and his angels console A dam and Eve, the fallen
humans soon seek to console each other. A dam urges "let us . . .
41 W illiam A m es, C onscience with the Power and the Cases T hereof
(London, 1643), 36.
241
striv e/in offices of Love, how we may light’n /E a ch other’s burden in
our share of woe" (X .958-61). In fact, only H ell can offer no
consolation, and the villain of this poem about correction and
consolation is one who can know neither repentance nor comfort. H e
realizes, as does G od, that "feign’d submission" would only produce a
m ore profound fall and punishm ent later on, "So farew ell H ope . . .
Farewell Remorse" (IV:96, 108-109).
The com plem entary pattern of correction and consolation in
Paradise Lost is paralleled and reinforced by recurrent im ages of
rising and falling. Satan, "aspiring/To set him self in Glory above his
P eers” is punished by continual abasem ent: "Him the Alm ighty
P o w er/H u rl’d headlong flam ing from th’E thereal Sky/W ith hideous
ruin and com bustion d ow n /T o bottom less perdition" (1.38-9, 44-47).
Adam and Eve also fall. In fact, since E den is set on a high hill, their
"fall" from thence to the "subjected plain" of XII.640 is literal as w ell as
spiritual. But they are also capable of repentance, and once they
recognize that they are fallen they can be lifted up.42
This redem ptive m ovem ent is a com m on paradox in the
seventeenth century. A s John D on ne says, "Be this my Text, my
Sermon to mine ow n e/T h erefore that he may raise the Lord throws
42 For an extended discussion of the spatial organization of Paradise
L ost, see Jackson I. Cope, "Time and Space as M iltonic Symbol," in The
M etaphoric Structure of "Paradise L ost." (1962; repr. New York:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1979), 50-71.
242
down" (29-30).43 This is not to say that M ilton is espousing a facile,
felix culpa idea that humankind has benefited from a "fortunate fall."44
M ilton’s preferred role as disciplinarian m inister does not permit such
a strong consolation. Rather, M ilton is tem pering the hom iletic m ode
of correction with the more subdued consolation of the serm on
manuals. H e believed, as did Chappell, that the two m odes belonged
together because they "rectified" a "two-fold distem per of the heart."45
So far I have argued that the serm on types of correction and
consolation structure and inform Paradise L o st. But they do more
than that. They also inform the two angelic discourses which com e at
the m iddle (V -V I) and end (XI-X II) of the epic. T hese discourses, of
course, are also conversations which are freighted with significant
cultural and them atic m aterial. R obert Fallon, for instance, has
43 John D onne, "Hymne to G od My G od, in My Sicknesse," The
C om plete Poetry of John D o n n e , ed. John T. Shawcross (G arden City,
N.Y.: Anchor, 1967), 392.
44 R egina Schwartz offers a more com plex discussion of the fall and
G od ’s redem ption in terms of his continued creation: "Milton ’cannot
praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that
never sallies out and sees her adversary’--not in man, and not in the
universe. The crown of life is for him that endureth tem ptation
(Jam es 1:12), and just as the Son’s righteousness is deifed by his
tem ptation, so, odd as it may sound, the F ather’s may be too. Chaos
offers an awful tem ptation: not to create; to let darkness reign. A nd so,
in M ilton’s schem e, creation, like all acts, becom es a ch oice— a choice,
of course, that is freely made." R em em bering and Repeating: Biblical
Creation in "Paradise Lost" (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988), 37.
45 W illiam Chappell. Of the U se of H oly Scripture (London, 1653), 119.
243
argued cogently that the military elem ents of R ap h ael’s account of the
war in heaven furnishes an angelic analogue of "military obedience"
against which to view A dam and E ve’s disobedien ce.46 The structure
of the two final books of Paradise Lost has also been analyzed in som e
details by Barbara Lewalski, who identifies the final section as a
"mixed-genre work in the prophetic mode" chiefly m odeled after the
B ook of R evelation and com bining prophetic vantage and purpose of
the two books, M ichael’s corrective dialogue, and various
"postlapsarian kinds" of lyric.47 Y et without positing a mixed genre,
one can also dem onstrate that these discourses are sermons.
The fact that the speakers are angels rather than human
preachers does not disqualify them from their role. In the second and
third chapters of the A pocalypse, the human leaders of the seven
churches are referred to as "angels," as in the verse beginning "Unto
the angel of the church of Ephesus write" (2:1). These seven "angels"
were routinely understood throughout the R eform ation to be
m inisters. R eform ation England produced an extensive commentary
on these angels, both because the entire book of R evelation fortified
46 "As an analogy, ’military o b ed ien ce’ is m ost apt, indeed may be the
closest parallel in human terms to the paradoxical condition of those
who, endow ed with reason and will, surrender both in acts of absolute
obedience to the word of God." R obert Thom as Fallon, Captain or
C olonel: The Soldier in M ilton’s Life and Art (Columbus: University
of M issouri Press, 1984), 214.
47 Barbara K. Lewalski, "Paradise Lost" and the R hetoric of Literary
Form s. 254-79.
244
the Protestant mind against "the great whore of Babylon" in R om e
(who claim ed that m iraculous, angelic intervention in human affairs
was still possible) and also because the specific identity of the
Ephesian angel was an important issue in the prelatical debate.
John Bale, in The Im age of Both Churches (1551), calls the
angel of Ephesus "the m essenger or preacher of the Christian
congregacion of Ephesus."48 Jam es Brocard in 1582 explains, "It is
wrytten to the A ngell, because God through hys M ynisters hath always
bestow ed his worde upon the Church."49 G eorge Gyffard’s Sermons
U pon the W hole B ooke of the R evelation (1596) understands the term
likewise: "the m inisters of the G osp el are called A n gels here,"50
Arthur D e n t’s 1607 commentary on R evelation has the same reading:
"By this word A ngell, [the author] m eaneth not the invincible Spirit
which we call the A n gell of heaven . . . But by the word A ngel, he
m eaneth the M inister or pastor of every Church: which therefore is
called an A ngel, because he is the M inister of God, as the word
signifieth."51 In 1650, H ezekiah H olland paraphrases the beginning of
48 John Bale, The Image of Both Churches A fter the M oste W onderfull
and H eavenly R evelacion of Sainct John the Evangelist (London, 1551),
D3r.
49 James Brocard, The R evelation of S. John R ev eled , trans. James
Sanford (London, 1582), 40.
50 G eorge Gyffard, Sermons U pon the W hole B ooke of the R evelation
(London, 1596), 33.
51 Arthur D ent, The Ruine of R om e. Or. A n Exposition U pon the
W hole R evelation (London, 1607), 26.
245
chapter two as, " To the A n g el. That is, Pastor."52 A nd Jam es Durham
in 1658 says that all the letters "are directed to the A ngels, or
M inisters of the Churches."53.
Thom as Brightm an’s gloss on "angel" goes into som e detail
about preaching and its responsibilities, and does so in terms of the
H yperian types:
Every one of the Epistles are inscribed to the Pastours, not that
they should have them privately to them selves, but that they
should com m unicate them with the rest of the Church . . . But
they are sent to [the individual pastor] by nam e, partly because
he is the dispensatour of doctrine, exhortation, reproofe &c.
even as the use of the Church doth require: partly because the
safety of the w hole congregation, resteth chiefly upon the
integrity of the Pastours.5^
M ilton him self com m ented on the R evelation passage because it was
part of the controversy over church governm ent. Som e held that the
singular form "angel" supported the idea of a bishop holding sway over
subordinate m inisters, w hile others read it as a singular term to be
taken in the plural, a figure not without example elsew here in the
Scripture. Paul Baynes claim s the first reading: "Such pastor as the
seven A ngels, Christ ordained. But such were D iocesan Bishops . . .
52 H ezekiah H olland, A n Exposition or. A Short. But Full. Plaine. and
Perfect Epitom e of the M ost Choice Com m entaries U pon the
R evelation of Saint John (London, 1650), 10.
53 Jam es Durham , A C om m entarie U p on the B ook of the R evelation
(London, 1658), 66.
54 Thom as Brightman, A R evelation of the A pocalypse, that is. The
A pocalypse of S. John (Am sterdam , 1611), 32.
246
the A ngels were singular persons in every Church, having
E cclesiastical prehem inence and superiority of power."55 Som e
com m entators interpreted this an gel/b ish op to be in fact Timothy,
w hom St. Paul had left in Ephesus as his deputy.56
Thom as Brightman, writing in exile from Am sterdam , rejects the
prelatical reading: "Neither are [the letters] sent to any one A ngell,
but to the w hole, that I may so say, C ollege of Pastours. who are
com prehended in this com m on word. For there was not one A n gell of
Ephesus, but many."57 M ilton also denies that "angel" refers to a
bishop, and he takes several paragraphs in A nim adversions (1641) to
gloss the term as a collective one in the larger context of the two
chapters; the epistle to Ephesus, he says, would not conclude with
adm onitions to the church as a w hole or threatenings to rem ove the
church for the m ere faults of the individual bishop (CPW 1:712-13). In
the seventeenth-century mind, then, the term angel could com prehend
not only the angels proper (M ichael, G abriel) but also the act of
preaching and the controversy over church governm ent.
55 Paul Baynes, The D io c esa n ’s Trial (London, 1621), 25.
56 See, for instance, John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition U pon A ll
the E pistles and the R evelation of John the D ivine (London, 1647), 498.
Cf. I Tim othy 1:3: "I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, w hen I
w ent into M acedonia, that thou m ightest charge som e that they teach no
other doctrine."
57 Thom as Brightman, A R evelation of the A pocalypse (Am sterdam ,
1611), 32.
247
M ilton’s day not only accepted angels as types of preachers, but
they also extended preaching to small, inform al auditories. Parish
visitation to and exhortation of individuals was particularly urged
during the later seventeenth century. The need for such individiual
instruction is the burden of Richard Baxter’s G ildas Salvianus
(1656).58 G ilbert Burnet claims at the end of the century that the
worst Protestant abuse is the neglect of such pastoral care, and he
speaks about such care in terms of the H yperian sermon types, calling
it "the Instructing, the Exhorting, the A dm onishing and Reproving, the
directing and conducting, the visiting and com forting the P eople of the
Parish."59
There are, of course, major differences betw een the discourses
of the two angels. R ap h ael’s prevenient adm onishm ent is an after-
dinner chat. M ichael’s is a moving descriptio of the bitter
consequences of the fall, follow ed by a m ore hopeful narration about
the prom ised redem ption. The differences are produced by both the
different audience and the different speaker. R aphael is a "sociable
spirit" speaking to the lords of the world. M ichael, the warrior angel,
has com e "to se ize /P o ssessio n of the garden" and is speaking to two
felon s on probation. The differences betw een the two discourses
58 Richard Baxter, G ildas Salvianus. or The R eform ed Pastor (London,
1656).
59 G ilbert Burnet, A D iscourse of the Pastoral Care (London, 1692), xvi.
248
depend partly on these rhetorical considerations of tim e, place and
persons, as w ell as the tem peram ent of the individual speaker.
The angelic discourses follow a serm onic form at in a number of
ways. For one, they both have explicit and preacherly aims. R aphael
begins his discourse on these explicit terms:
Son of H eav’n and Earth,
Attend: That thou art happy, owe to God;
That thou continu’st such, owe to thyself,
That is, to thy obedience; therein stand.
(PL V .520-231
R aphael begins his actual discourse only here. The initial cerem ony of
dinner is no more central to R ap h ael’s speech than it is to the angels’
who advise Abraham of S od om ’s im pending destruction in G en esis 18.
In both cases, the angels participate in the prandial ritual before
announcing why they have com e. In the G en esis account, the men
(angels) then go toward Sodom while the Lord tells A braham about
their m ission.60 R aphael ends his discourse by saying "let it profit thee
to have heard/B y terrible example the rew ard/O f disobedience"
(V I.909-912).
60 There are m ore parallels. M ilton appropriates A braham ’s
expostulation to the Lord for the Son’s speech to the Father (PL III.153-
5), where the Son says, "that be from thee far/T h at far be from thee,
Father, w ho art Ju d ge/O f all things m ade, and judgest only right," His
speech ech oes A braham ’s at G en esis 18:25: "That be far from thee to
do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the
righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee. Shall not the
Judge of all the earth do right?"
249
M ichael likewise announces the purpose of his discourse:
know I am sent
To show thee what shall com e in future days
To thee and to thy Offspring; good with bad
Expect to hear, supernal Grace contending
W ith sinfulness of Men; thereby to learn
True patience, and to tem per joy with fear
And pious sorrow, equally inur’d
By m oderation either state to bear.
(X I.356-62)
A t the end of M ichael’s sermon, A dam him self recounts its lesson in
the passage beginning "Henceforth I learn, that to obey is best"
(X II.561-73). M ichael is satisfied: "This having learnt, thou hast
attain’d the su m /O f wisdom; hope no higher" (X II.575-6).
In our day, we might question w hether one could learn m erely by
listening to a sermon, but in the seventeenth century, preaching, even
alm ost in terms of the auditory reception itself, was crucial to
soteriology. Even a conform ist m inister like Sam uel H ieron (1576?-
1617) rejects the m ere reading of the text as sufficient:
They which feare God . . . cannot but acknow ledge, that they . . .
find their judgem ents better strengthened, their faith more
confirm ed, their consciences m ore wrought upon, and their
affections m ore quickned by the word, when it is effectually
preached & applyed, then w hen it is but only read unto them.
And no marvell, for indeed it cannot be, that a briefe clause of
holy Scripture, wherein, in a short tenour of words (such is the
riches of the sacred text) many particulars are com prised, being
onely read, should profit so much, as if by preaching it were
expounded and according to occasions, applyed unto Gods
p eo p le.61
61 Sam uel H ieron, The Preacher’s Plea: or A Treatise in Form e of a
Plaine D ialogue. Making Known the W orth and N ecessity of That
W hich We Call Preaching, in Works (1635?), 507-508.
250
D ouglas A. Northrup closes his discussion of the two different
tem poral structures of Paradise Lost by com paring it with the duality
experienced by individual Christians, who live their own lives in daily
sequence, but are also called on by God to see life in the different
tem poral perspective of Scripture: "All Christians have available to
them the revelations from eternity that are contained in the Bible and
which function for man just as the narrations of R aphael and M ichael
function for A dam and Eve."62 But M ilton’s own age did not
necessarily consider private reading of the Bible to be sufficient.
Rather, it insisted on the agency of the preacher to unpack the
m eaning of Scripture. A s H ieron says, "The Text, is the word of God
more abridged: Preaching, is the word of God m ore enlarged.” 63
A nother indication of the serm onic nature of the angelic
speeches is the extent to which both of them "move the passions," that
is, appeal to various em otions in the hearer to assist his intellect and
his w ill to perform the right actions. Hyperius ends the first of his two
books with an extended discussion of the passions, which he identifies
as crucial to the preacher: "The Preacher shall not em ploye his least
care in movinge of affections, forasm uch as all the learned do
confesse, that he standeth of not one thing more in n eed e, then he doth
62 D ouglas A . Northrup, "The D ou ble Structure of Paradise L ost."
M ilton Studies 12 (1979): 88.
63 Sam uel H ieron, The D ignitie of Preaching, in W orks (London,
1635[?J), 583.
251
of this one onely faculty."64 The auditor’s em otions were generally to
be m oved at the end of the sermon. A ccording to John W ilkins, "The
Conclusion should consist of som e such m atter as may engage the
hearers to a serious rem em brance and consideration of the truths
delivered." M ilder passions (ta e th e ) are appropriate to the
introduction, but ta path e. the "more eager and vehem ent affections
will best becom e the conclusion."65
Similarly, M ilton’s discussion of m inisterial tem peram ents in A n
A pology A gainst a Pam phlet (1642) begins calmly, describing those
who are "severe and ever of a sad gravity that they may win such, &
check som etim es those who be of nature over-confident and jocund."
In the end, however, M ilton’s discussion itself becom es passionate,
and suggests the marriage of poetry and pulpit he proprosed in R eason
of Church-G overnm ent:
in tim es of opposition w hen either against new heresies arising,
or old corruptions to be reform ’d this coole unpassionate
m ildnesse of positive w isdom e is not anough to damp and
astonish the proud resistance of carnall, and false D octors, then
(that I may have leave to soare awhile as the Poets use) then
Z eale w hose substance is ethereal, arming in com pleat diamond
ascends his fiery Chariot drawn with two blazing M eteors figur’d
like beasts, but of a higher breed then any the Z odiack yields,
resem bling two of those four which E zechiel and S. John saw,
the one v isag’d like a Lion to expresse power, high autority and
indignation, the other of count’nance like a man to cast derision
and scorne upon perverse and fraudulent seducers; with these
the invincible warrior Z ea le shaking loosely the slack reins
64 Andreas Gerhard Hyperius. Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 1553,
trans. John Ludham (London, 1577), 41.
65 John W ilkins. E cclesiastes (London. 1646), 19-20.
252
drivers over the heads of Scarlet Prelats, and such as are
insolent to m aintaine traditions, brusing their stiffe necks under
his flam ing w heels. (CPW 1:900)
A ccording to M ilton in this passage, "the poets use" to fly into such
vehem ent flights, and there are certainly echoes of Sidney’s poet, who
"disdaining to be tied to . . . subjection, lifted up with the vigour of his
own invention . . . goeth hand in hand with nature, not enclosed within
the warrant of her gifts, but freely ranging only within the zodiac of his
own wit."66 A t the sam e tim e, however, som e of the serm on manuals
suggested similar m eans of stirring the passions. Hyperius suggests
"diligent consideration of things before o n e’s eyes” and "vehement
imagination."67 Richard Bernard includes exclam atio. interrogation.
prosop op oeia, apostrophe, and serm ocinatio.68
In R ap h ael’s discourse, the passion aroused in still-sinless
A dam is partly adm iration ("Great things, and full of wonder in our
ears,/F ar differing from this W orld, thou hast reveal’d," VII:70-71),
but also partly curiosity about the beginning of the world. R aphael
agrees to answer his "desire/O f knowledge within bounds" (119-120),
but warns him gently against undue inquisitiveness:
K nowledge is as good, and needs no less
H er Tem perance over A p petite, to know
In m easure what the mind may w ell contain,
66 Sir Philip Sidney, The D efen ce of Poesy, ed. K atherine Duncan-
Jones, 216.
67 A ndreas Gerhard Hyperius, Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 1553,
trans. John Ludham (London, 1577), 43.
68 Richard Bernard, The Faithful Shepheard (London, 1607), 66-67.
253
O ppresses else with Surfeit, and soon turns
W isdom to Folly, as Nourishm ent to Wind.
(VII: 126-30)
R ap hael’s warning perm its M ilton to stay within the bounds of what
contemporary cosm ology had decided or debated, but it also reflects
the concern of serm on theorists and preachers that congregations not
be encouraged in m ere curiosity. For this reason, old heresies were
not to be exhum ed, and congregations w ere to listen for their
con scien ce’s, not their curiosity’s sake.69
M ichael’s discourse causes A dam to fe e l the more profound
em otions proper to his fallen state. A ccording to D ebora Shuger,
R enaissance theorists cham pioned two rhetorical m eans for moving
the passions. One of these was m agnitudo. the im portance of the
subject itself, which could be assisted by am plificatio. that is, the
repetition or elaboration of the m essage. The other m eans was
enargia or hvpotvposis. vividness of description.70 M ichael makes use
of both of these m eans, enargia in B ook XI and m agnitudo in Book
XII. In B ook XI, the correction represents the Old T estam ent Law and
is visual, iconic. A dam is exhorted by M ichael, "ope thine eyes, and
first b e h o ld /T h ’effects which thy original crime hath wrought"
(X I.423-4). In B ook XII, however, words replace im ages. C onsolation
69 For an extended discussion of the topic of im proper curiosity in
M ilton’s day see Howard Schultz, M ilton and Forbidden K nowledge
(1955).
70 D ebora K. Shuger, Sacred R h etoric. Chapter Five, especially pp. 194-
223.
254
is verbal. It is so described in the serm on manuals, where the vivid
imagery of exhortation and reprehension gives way to prom ises.
G eorgia Christopher insists that the m ost significant change
betw een m edieval and Protestant Christianity is the disjunctive shift in
em phasis from cerem ony to word:
Luther’s exegesis m akes a radical shift from physical to verbal,
not simply from physical to m ental, reference. In nearly every
case, the referral of im ages to verbal m atters calls in question
the power of visual im ages to describe the m otions of faith.71
A ccording to Scripture itself, grace is verbal, not visual: "And the
word was made flesh, and dwelt am ong us . . . full of grace and truth"
(John 1:14). Nor can consolation be visual: "For we are saved by hope:
but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet
hope for?" (R om ans 8:24). The prom ise of G en esis 3:15 is contained
in metaphor, not im age. Its m eaning must be puzzled out verbally.
W hen Satan explains the prom ise at face value to his follow ers in Book
X, he does so to his detriment:
I am to bruise his heel;
His Seed, when is not set, shall bruise my head:
A W orld who would not purchase with a bruise,
Or much m ore grievous pain? Y e have th’account
Of my perform ance: What remains, ye G ods,
But up and enter now into full bliss.
(X .498-503)
It is in that m om ent that Satan and his follow ers are temporarily
turned into serpents.
71 G eorgia Christopher, M ilton and the Science of the Saints
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), 7-8.
255
Law is iconic; grace is verbal. In B ook XI, M ichael seeks to
prevent further disobedience by rem inding A dam of his sin towards
"Th’excepted Tree" and then revealing the results of that sin. In order
to prevent further disobedience, he m oves Adam to sorrow over sin by
m eans of a series of vivid pictures. W hen A b el is slain, "Much at that
sight was A dam in his h eart/D ism a y’d" (X I.448-49) and says, "Alas,
both for the deed and for the cause!" (461). W hen Adam sees the
various ways in which his offspring w ill die, he w eeps (X I.495-99);
when he sees how the godly give them selves up to uxoriousness, he is of
"joy bereft" (X I.628). W hen he sees how pervasive evil is in the tim e of
Enoch, A dam is "all in tears" and "Lamenting . . . full sad" (X I.674-75).
Adam is particularly moved over the Flood:
How didst thou grieve then, A dam , to behold
The end of all thy Offspring, end so sad,
D epopulation; thee another Flood,
Of tears and sorrow a F lood thee also drown’d,
A nd sunk thee as thy Sons; till gently rear’d
By th’A ngel, on thy feet thou stood ’st at last,
Though com fortless, as w hen a Father mourns
H is Children, all in view destroyed at once.
(754-61)
Correction is assisted by vivid pictures, but em otions proper to
consolation, are moved by verbal prom ises. These em otions,
according to one serm on manual are hope, joy, constancy and
patience.72 In Book XII, M ichael com forts A dam with the m agnitudo
of G o d ’s redem ption. In fact, he had already prefigured this comfort
72 Officium concionatoris (Cam bridge, 1676): " A ffectus praecipue hie
m ovendi sunt: 1. spes: 2. gaudiam: 3. constantia: 4. p atien tia" (34).
256
in B ook XI, when A dam "Greatly rejoic’d" to see the redem ption of
N oah, X I.869J3
W hen M ichael tells A dam about G od ’s redem ptive dealings with
Israel, A dam interrupts him in joy, "O sent from heav’n ,/E n lig h t’ner of
my darkness, gracious thin gs/T hou hast reveal’d . . . now first I
fin d /M in e eyes true op’ning, and my heart much ea s’d" (X II.270-272,
273-74); when A dam hears about Christ, he is even m ore m oved. H e is
"with such joy/Surcharg’d, as he had like grief b een dew ’d in tears"
(X II.372-73), and he calls M ichael "Prophet of glad tidings,
fin ish er/O f utm ost hope!" (X II.375-76). W hen he hears of the end of
all tim e and the glorification of the saints, A dam "Replete with joy and
wonder" says, "O goodness infinite, goodness immense!" (X II.468-69).
Sleeping Eve is also com forted. W hen she awakes from her dream, she
can speak of the "consolation, yet secure" of knowing her role in the
eventual redem ption (X II.620-623).
M ichael’s final discourse includes a wide number of
consolations, m ore than could actually be included in any one sermon.
Richard Bernard lists the general categories of consolation as follows:
G ods providence; his prom ises of helpe and blessings, his
m inaces against the en em ies of the godly, his power, his
constancie: from the benefits of tryall: from experience of
G ods form er love, and exam ples of patience and of deliverances,
73 Similarly, in Sonnet XIX, M ilton begins the volta at the end of the
octave rather than the beginning of the sestet: "But patience to
preven t/T h at murmur, soon replies," 8-9.
257
the short abiding here, and durableness of a happie estate after
death.74
T hese item s might be individually handled in different sermons;
M ilton com bines them all in this archetypal serm on of consolation.
They all find their analogues in A d am ’s conclusion as he departs
"greatly in peace of thought":
H ow soon hath thy prediction, Seer blest,
M easur’d this transient W orld . . .
H enceforth I learn, that to obey is best,
A nd love with fear the only God, to walk
A s in his presence, ever to observe,
H is providence, and on him sole depend,
M erciful over all his works ....
that suffering for Truth’s sake
Is fortitude to highest victory
A nd to the faithful D eath the G ate of Life.
(X II.554-5, 561-6, 569-71)
To the extent that M ichael’s discourse is serm onic, then, it contains
not a single serm on, but a m ultitude of them. Just so, the Scripture
itself furnishes all of the m aterial for the pulpit. M ultiplicity of
serm on m aterial may explain why R egina Schwartz found in the last
books so many "summary conclusions that continue, and so do not
sum m arize or conclude."75 But what we have at the end of Paradise
Lost is not deferral of closure but rather enjam bm ent of closure, not
one lesson, but many. And all these serm ons are produced from the
74 Richard Bernard, The Faithful Shepheard (London, 1607), 69-70.
75 R egina Schwartz, "From Shadowy Types to Shadowy Types," 137.
258
exegesis of the single prom ise of G enesis 3:15, that the seed of the
wom an would bruise the head of the serpent. In fact, John Boys, a
well-known divine of the earlier seventeenth century, said that this
verse generated all sermons:
And in truth, all our Serm ons are nothing else but rehearsals of
that old Spittle Sermon, (as it w ere) preached by G od him self to
decayed A dam and Eva, G en. 3.15. For first, all that is said by
Christ and his blessed A p ostles in the New T estam ent, is
summarily nothing else, but a repetition and explanation of that
one prophecy, sem en m ulieris conteret caput serpentis.76
This verse also furnishes serm on m aterial for M ichael the heavenly
preacher, and for M ilton the preacherly poet.
This m ultiplicity in the final two books stands in contrast to the
simplicity of R ap h ael’s discourse. Both of the angelic discourses are
explicitly aim ed at correction, and also consolation w hen necessary,
but R aphael does not need to repeat his m essage. H e begins with a
warning, "If ye be found obedient" (V .501), delivers his vividly stated
prevenient correction in terms of the one exem plum of disobedience
available, the war in heaven, and receives the desired result: "Adam
soon rep ea led /T h e doubts that in his heart arose" (VII:59~60).
Since he is presenting only a prevenient adm onishm ent to A dam
and Eve, R ap hael’s consolation is more a rem inder of their present
bliss than anything. Only w hen they have fallen will M ichael need to
apply the sterner types of consolation appropriate to fallen humanity.
76 John Boys, "Sermon for the Second Sunday in Lent," in The Works of
John Boys (n.p., 1638), 242.
259
In a sense, R aphael fulfills the narrator’s desire for a warning
voice (IV. 1), though far less harsh than the apocalyptic angel’s.
R ap h ael’s congenial correction is m eant to keep the human pair on the
way of obedience, where their true happiness and comfort lies. His
discourse fulfills the aims of M ilton’s ideal poetry in R eason of
C hureh-G overnm ent. making "the paths of honesty and good life . . .
appeare to all men both easy and pleasant" (CPW 1:818). Correction,
theoretically at least, need not be burdensom e unless one is already
fallen, although one might question w hether M ilton really ever can
leave his disciplinary burden behind.
In this chapter I have shown how M ilton structures Paradise
Lost around the twin serm onic m odes of correction and consolation,
and how this structure explains many elem ents in the final two books
which are unsatisfactory to a m odern audience. Paradise R egained is
also structured around correction and consolation. In the shorter epic,
M ilton’s Christ continually corrects the plausible but deadly doctrines
of Satan by showing how they will lead to sin. In a sense, Christ has a
lim itless field for correction because he has an auditor who w ill not
repent. But he also has an auditor who cannot repent and therefore
cannot be consoled. It is a mark of how strong a role consolation plays
in M ilton’s thinking that he must import it into Paradise R egained by
reference to Christ’s m other and his disciples, all of whom are
consoled byw ords instead of pictures. H is disciples, "from . . . high
hope to . . . r e la p se /U n lo o k ’d for . . . fa ll’n" (PR II.30-31), gain
260
consolation by rem inding them selves of G od ’s mercy in the past and
the evidence of his providence for the future, both categories of the
consolatory sermon:
But let us wait; thus far he hath perform ’d,
Sent his A nointed, and to us reveal’d him,
By his great prophet, pointed at and shown,
In public, and with him we have convers’d;
Let us be glad of this, and all our fears
Lay on his providence; he w ill not fail
Nor will withdraw him now, nor w ill recall,
M ock us with his blest sight, then snatch him hence;
Soon we shall see our hope, our joy return.
Thus they out of their plaints new hope resum e.
(PR 11:49-58)
Mary herself m oves back and forth betw een worry and the cantus
firmus lines of p atience, "I will not argue that, nor w ill repine" and
"But I to wait with patience am inur’d" (PR 11:94, 102). But although
Paradise R egained also m akes use of correction and consolation, it
em bodies other, more striking elem ents of m inisterial practice as well.
It is to these that I now turn.
261
Chapter Five: Paradise R egained and Contemporary
D efen ses of Scriptural Style
In one of the m ost fam iliar passages of Paradise R ega in ed .
M ilton appears to reject the study of classical rhetoric along with all
other hum ane learning. In this passage, Satan tem pts the Savior with
the culture of G reece, the "Mother of A rts/A n d Eloquence" (IV:240-
41). The Savior rejects this tem ptation, replying that such eloquence,
com pared with "Sion’s songs," is but "varnish on a H arlot’s cheek" (343-
47), and that the "majestic unaffected style" of the H ebrew Scriptures is
far superior to "all the Oratory of G reece and Rome" (359-60).
M iltonists have either deplored this passage as a disappointing
palinode or have sought to explain it in terms of M ilton’s own
philosophy of education, but they have done so without reference to the
important seventeenth-century defenses of scriptural style which stand
behind the passage. To som e extent, such defen ses are inherent in the
Protestant enterprise and figure in every seventeenth-century
discussion of preaching or exegesis, but the defenses grow more anxious
and polem ical in the second half of the seventeenth century,
highlighting the difficulty of judging a Sem itic text in terms of classical
canons of style at a tim e when challenges to the Bible w ere increasingly
being raised by a vernacular neoclassicism , by a contem ptuous "wit," and
262
by a growing theological skepticism .1 In the passage in Paradise
R egain ed . M ilton is not rejecting rhetoric and human learning but
rather declaring a position in a contem porary debate. A s he had argued
before in the antiprelatical debates, he is again declaring that superior
style is the mark of what is godly.
In this chapter I will first show how M ilton’s defense of scriptural
style in the Paradise R egained passage represents a statem ent about the
superiority of biblical style in the context of a wider discussion. I will
then com pare M ilton’s position to that of the scientist R obert Boyle,
another quasi-m inisterial figure of the later seventeenth century. I will
also show how contem porary defenses of scriptural style were m ade in
response to neoclassicism and wit. Finally, I w ill draw som e conclusions
as to how an awareness of the larger controversy over style can help us
to understand Paradise R ega in ed .
I. The A thens T em ptation and
D efen ses of Scriptural Style
In the earlier decades of this century, much of the critical
com m ent on the A thens passage assum ed that M ilton had to som e
1 D ebora K. Shuger has addressed at length the issue of "sacred
rhetoric" in the English R enaissance, including the issues of H ellen ism
and H ebraism , in Sacred R h etoric. To my know ledge, however, no one
has addressed the issue of how the style of Scripture itself was being
defended during this period.
263
degree abandoned his earlier loyalties to humanism by the time he
wrote both Paradise Lost and Paradise R eg a in ed . Typical of such
readings is that of G.F. Sensabaugh, who speculated that M ilton was
influenced, on the one hand by writing Christian D octrine and on the
other by the failure of the Com m onwealth, to change his fundam ental
aims for man and society.2 D ouglas Bush, though he adm itted that
M ilton’s rejection of learning was "relative rather than absolute," still
proposed that this rejection represented a new interest in "ultimate
things," as M ilton had "a strenuous and disappointed life behind him."3
Irene Sam uel, however, overturned such readings in 1949 w hen she
argued that M ilton’s later poem s uphold his earlier notions of "due
sequence and organic unity in learning."4 Sam uel’s article has been
justly cited ever since in discussions of Paradise R egain ed , but Sam uel
lim its her discussion to M ilton’s own corpus, and especially to the
discourses by R aphael and M ichael in Paradise Lost and by Christ in
2 G.F. Sensabaugh, "Milton on Learning." Studies in Philology 43
(1946): 260-63. Barbara K iefer Lewalski provides a good summary of
these readings by which "the poem has often been view ed as a sorry
portrait of an aging Puritan m asochistically flagellating him self for his
early hum anistic allegiances." Barbara K iefer Lewalski, "Theme and
Structure in Paradise R egain ed ." Studies in Philology 57 (1960):186-87.
See also M ilton’s Brief Epic: The G enre. M eaning, and Art of "Paradise
Regained" (Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press, 1966), 282.
3 D ouglas Bush. The R enaissance and English H um anism . (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1939), 125.
4 Irene Sam uel, "Milton on Learning and Wisdom," PM LA 64 (1949):
711.
264
Paradise R eg ain ed . Her article therefore does not consider the
influences which larger intellectual and societal realities may have had
on M ilton.
Howard Schultz supplies som e of this inform ation. In M ilton and
Forbidden K now ledge. Schultz exam ines what he calls the "learned-
ministry controversy" and its three related issues: tithes, ordination,
and university learning. H is main point is that the learned-m inistry
controversy is itself an issue w hich organizes and controls other
concerns of theology or philosophy:
If we once lose sight of politics we shall hardly steer a true course
through som e cross-current of paradox. D isputants who worried
the question of learning--m ystics against legalists, skeptics
against dogm atists, A ncients against M oderns—espoused now this
side and now that in the learned-m inistry controversy as their
politics guided. The quarrel, bound up with the question of
toleration, cannot therefore be resolved into som e more fam iliar
abstraction or given som e m erely philosophic nam e. It was
essentially and distinctly the learned-m inistry controversy.5
Schultz argues that in Paradise R egained Christ is being tem pted as the
head of the Church, with the result that the poem becom es an
antiprelatical tract. Barbara Lewalski justly takes exception to such a
narrowed interpretation for the total work, though she does note its
value in identifying ecclesiastical references.6 Even with his extended
5 Howard Schultz, M ilton and Forbidden K now ledge. 207.
6 Barbara K. Lewalski, "Theme and Structure in Paradise R ega in ed ."
188. In M ilton’s Brief E p ic. Lewalski calls Schultz’s reading "tempting"
(283). She also relates Christ’s rejection of hum ane learning to
reform ed Protestantism , citing I Corinthians 2:4-5 as the biblical locus
classicius of such rejection (286-88). ("And my speech, and my
preaching was not with entising words of mans w isdom e, but in
dem onstration of the Spirit, and of power, etc.") A s I have shown in
chapter two, this rejection of human learning was lim ited in the
265
focus, however, Schultz does not consider the contem porary issues of
scriptural elocutio or style which parallel and inform this debate. We
need now to examine the passage in question in terms of those very
issues.
The A thens tem ptation begins after Christ has rejected Satan’s
suggestion that he ascend the throne of R om e in order to gain the
throne of David. Satan now tem pts Christ with another type of activity.
The life of learning which he offers, it should be noted, is not one of
contem plative retirem ent from the world, but rather one like M ilton’s,
in which contem plation leads to active verbal involvem ent with it:
. . .thou thyself seem ’st otherwise inclin’d
Than to a worldly Crown, addicted more
To contem plation and profound dispute.
(PR IV :212-14).
Satan rem inds the Savior how as a child he engaged the doctors in the
tem ple (a notably m inisterial activity, it should be noted), and he urges
Christ to gain the kind of learning which will permit him to
com m unicate with the heathen and to argue down their heresies:
W ithout thir learning how wilt thou with them,
Or they with thee hold conversation m eet?
H ow wilt thou reason with them, how refute
Thir Idolism s, Traditions, Paradoxes?
' Error by his own arms is best evinc’t.
(231-5)
rhetorical realm to those aspects which could not be ratified by
scriptural exam ple.
266
The m atter and m ethod which Satan offers for this learned expertise are
all represented by "Athens, the eye of G reece, M other of A rt/A n d
E loquence, native to fam ous wits" (240-41).
The tem pter then enum erates a truncated version of the liberal
arts curriculum, beginning and ending with the philosophical schools,
and sandwiching in the m iddle the know ledge of music, poetry, and
rhetoric (244-80). Satan restricts his discussion of music to a few of the
m odes, as if "the secret p o w er/O f harmony in tones and numbers hit"
resides only in the A olian and D oric.7 Likewise, he restricts his
discussion of poetry to H om er and the tragedians. H e also restricts
rhetoric to deliberative oratory:
T hence to the fam ous Orators repair,
Those ancient, w hose resistless eloquence
W ielded at will that fierce Dem ocraty,
Shook the A rsenal and fulm in’d over G reece,
To M acedon, and A rtaxerxes’ Throne.
(267-71)
There may be a significant difference betw een R eform ation and
C ounter-R eform ation artes praedicandi as to the genera dicendi. The
C ounter-R eform ation writer V alerius thought that it was judicial
rhetoric which had "little scope." H e put a great deal of em phasis on
deliberative, which aims at persuasion and dissuasion.8 Hyperius
7 For a discussion of M ilton’s understanding of music, see Christopher
G rose, "The Lydian Airs of L A lle g r o and II P en seroso." JGEP: Journal
of English and G erm anic Philology 38 (1984): 183-99.
8 Joseph M. Connors, "Hom iletic Theory in the Late Sixteenth
Century." The A m erican E cclesiastical R eview 138 (1958): 318-19.
267
rejects these traditional genera dicendi as being irrelevant to the
preacher, although he stresses the m oving of the passions in order to
persuade.9 A t any rate, the "resistless eloquence" here is diabolical,
encouraging G reece to enslave neighboring nations rather than spread
democracy.
Christ rearranges Satan’s argument into the issues of philosophy,
poetry, and rhetoric, in each case showing that the H ebrew culture is
superior to the G reek, and the source of all this superiority is the
H ebrew Scriptures. First, Christ dism isses G reek philosophy as an
epistem ology which is barren because it is devoid of superior revelation,
"Ignorant of them selves, of God much more" (310). Then he shows how
the H ebrew Scriptures exceed the beauty of G reek poetry: the law and
the histories ("our own Law and Story," 334) provide superior exam ples
of hymns, the Psalter is "with artful terms inscribed" (335), and the
Babylonians’ praise of H ebrew lyrics show that G reece borrowed its
culture from Israel. In fact, G reece has not only borrowed H ebrew
culture, but has im itated it poorly, lacking its inspiration:
R em ove their swelling Epithets thick laid
A s varnish on a H arlot’s cheek, the rest,
Thin sown with aught of profit or delight,
W ill far be found unworthy to compare
W ith Sion’s songs, to all true taste excelling,
W here G od is prais’d aright, and G odlike men,
The H oliest of H olies, and his Saint;
Such are from G od inspir’d, not such from thee.
(343-50)
9 Andreas Gerhard Hyperius, Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons. 1553,
trans. John Ludham (London, 1577), 17, 45-49.
268
Finally, Christ considers G reek oratory and Satan’s claim that the
deliberative orators of G reece were the foundation of proper
governm ent. Christ explicitly grants that these orators appear to be
"Statists in d eed ,/A n d lovers of thir Country" (354-55). M oreover, he
also im plicitly accepts the im portance of oratory in establishing a civil
society, a com m onplace of R enaissance rhetoric. N evertheless, Christ
dism isses the G reek orators of the past on two different counts. First,
they lacked divine revelation and inspiration, w hereas the H ebrew
prophets were "men divinely taught" and thus far better able to teach
"[t]he solid rules of Civil Government" (357-58). The second count on
which Christ dism isses G reek oratory is stylistic. The style of the G reek
orators is no match for the "majestic unaffected stile” of the H ebrew
prophets:
In them is plainest taught, and easiest learnt,
W hat makes a N ation happy, and keeps it so,
W hat ruins Kingdom s, and lays C ities flat;
T hese only, with our Law, best form a King.
(362-5)
Thus ends Christ’s response to the A thens tem ptation, a response which
has prom pted much critical com m ent in this century.
W hat has been little noted is that the argument reflects defenses
of Scriptural style which are being raised by M ilton’s contem poraries.
T hese defenses were more nervous and polem ical than those of the
earlier seventeenth century and were m otivated by various cultural,
linguistic and theological changes.
269
Earlier in the seventeenth century, statem ents that the Scriptures
were eloquent in style as w ell as m atter were w idespread but lacked the
anxiety and polem ical context of later ones. Rather, they spoke to the
im plicit contrast betw een the classical canons of elocutio (style) which
underlay and interpreted the R enaissance interest in language and the
foreign elocutio of the H ebraic Old T estam ent and the H ebraicized
G reek of the New.
One such statem ent praising the style of the Scriptures is to be
found in a "rhetoric" (i.e., discussion of tropes and figures) published in
1634 by John Barton, a Staffordshire schoolm aster. H e announces on
his title page that his discussion is "Exemplified out of H oly Writ," that
is, illustrated by passages from the Scripture as the best exem plar of
style.10 H e cites E cclesiastes 12:10 as his authority for this judgm ent of
superiority: "The Preacher sought to finde out acceptable words." As
he says in the preface:
The sacred Scripture (how beit altogether eschewing, and utterly
condem ning the im pertinent use of frothie criticisms, yet) in
beautiful varietie, m ajesticall style, and graceful order, infinitely
and incom parably transcends the m ost pithie and pleasing strains
of hum ane E loquence.
B arton’s text is not particularly polem ical, unless it be in terms of
scholarly questions about rhetoric itself. H e does make a passing
reference to the Pope at A4, for instance, w hen he asserts that the
appropriate referent to "rock" is Christ rather than Peter in the phrase
10 John Barton. The Art of R hetorick C oncisely and Com pletely
H andled (London, 1634), A l.
270
"on this rock I w ill build my church," but even there he is more
concerned to set the definition of metonymy straight than to settle
questions of ecclesiology.
John D on ne also protests that the eloquence of the Scriptures
surpasses that of G reek and R om an literature:
There are not so eloquent books in the world, as the Scriptures:
A ccept those nam es of Tropes and Figures, which the
Gramm arians and R hetoricians put upon us, and we may be bold
to say that in all their Authors, G reek and Latin, we cannot find
so high, and so lively exam ples, of those Tropes, and those
Figures, as we may in the Scriptures: whatsoever hath justly
delighted any man in any mans writings, is exceeded in the
Scriptures.1^
Janel M ueller, com m enting on D o n n e ’s m ethodology, asserts, "In
D o n n e ’s age . . .it was universally assum ed that the qualities of Biblical
expression set a m odel for the serm on to follow."12 In light of such
praise of scriptural style by D on n e and others, it is surprising to see that
C.A. Patrides found M ilton’s own preference for scriptural style to be
unusual. Patrides in effect insists that M ilton’s age revered the content
of the Scriptures but not the style:
W hen Jesus remarks that G reek achievem ents are ’unworthy to
com p are/W ith Sions son gs’ . . .his chief intention is not to
denigrate classical culture but to uphold the primacy of ’those
w ritt‘n R ecords pure’ as the depository of ’true w isd om .’
M oreover, this had grown into the burden of Christian teaching
even before Jerom e inquired rhetorically, ’Flow can Florace go
with the psalter, Virgil with the gospels, Cicero with the
11 John D onne, C ollected Serm ons, ed. Potter and Simpson, 11:7.241-
47.
12 Janel M ueller, "The M ode of Discourse," in D o n n e ’s Prebend
Serm ons (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971), 135.
271
apostles?’ It is conceivable that many p eop le may concur with
Jerom e’s opinion not of style but of content: M ilton echoes him
in Paradise R egain ed . A las, seized by enthusiasm , perhaps even
fanaticism , both Jerom e and M ilton dared to propose the B ib le’s
literary superiority .... W e are astonished.13
But as I will show, M ilton’s opinion of the stylistic superiority of the
Scriptures is by no m eans unusual for his age. D on n e says as much, and
so does Barton. To som e extent, D o n n e ’s com m ent is the same kind of
defense of the Scripture which will be made in the later half of the
century. H e finds scriptural elocutio superior to G reek and Rom an.
But the later defenses have a polem ical edge which D o n n e ’s lacks. The
context of his com m ent above is not the refutation of external
opponents but rather the conviction of the soul. H e is preaching a
lenten serm on for which the argument is that hearing but not acting on
the word of G od is the worst sin of all.14
W hen M ilton’s Christ, however, asserts the superiority of
scriptural inspiration, he asserts it in a p olem ic with the devil him self.
M ilton’s contem poraries were defending the Scriptures in the same
polem ical terms. T hese defenses range in length from prefatory
remarks in specialized rhetoric texts to book-length treatm ents. The
rem ainder of this section w ill primarily describe these defenses and how
M ilton relates to them. Som e of the texts I w ill be considering were
published after M ilton’s death in 1674. The concern to defend the
13 C.A- Patrides. M ilton and the Christian Tradition (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1966), 148-49.
14 John D on ne. C ollected Serm ons, ed. Potter and Sim pson, 11:7.70-79.
272
scriptures as stylistically superior extended past his work and even into
the next century.
II. Contem porary D efen ses of Scriptural Style
One place where the Scriptures are defended as being adequately
ornam ented is in the num erous texts of the later seventeenth century
which deal with "sacred rhetorick," that is, with tropes and figures found
in the Scriptures. The prefaces to these works invariably protest the
eloquence of the sacred text. Thus John Smith insists in the preface to
The M vsterie of R hetorique U n vail’d (1657) that "the holy Scripture is
not barren of, but abounds with tropes and figures of all sorts . . .like a
pleasant garden, bedecked with flow ers, or a fruitful field, full of
precious treasures."15 Later, Cornelius Norwood protests in D ivine
E loquence (1694) that "the H oly Scripture is no barren or unfruitful
land . . .it abounds with all sorts of Tropes and Figures . . .it is the
richest Treasury, containing the best, and m ost excellent form s of
R hetorick, of any book whatsoever."16
15 John Smith, The M vsterie of R hetorique U nvaird. W herein 130 the
Tropes and Figures are Severally D erived from the G reek into English-
T ogether with Lively D efin ition s and Variety of Latin. English.
Scriptural Exam ples. Pertinent to Each of T hem Apart. Conducing
Very Much to the Right U nderstanding of the Sense of the Letter of the
Scripture, fthe W ant W hereof O ccasions Many D angerous Errors This
Day) Em inently D elightful and Profitable for Young Scholars, and
Others of A ll sorts. Enabling T hem to D iscern and Im itate the Elegancy
in Any A uthor They R ead. &c. (London, 1657), A5v.
16 Cornelius N orwood. D ivine E loquence: Or. an Essay U p on the
Tropes and Figures C ontained in the H oly Scriptures: and R educed
273
T hese texts them selves are collections of scriptural texts which
illustrate various tropes and figures. They are more or less elaborate,
depending on their audience. John Prideaux (Sacred E loq u en ce. 1659)
lists only seven each of what he considers to be the most useful tropes,
figures, and schem es, and providing scriptural examples. For tropes he
lists hyperbole, catachresis. em phasis, m etonvm ia. ironia. m etaphora.
and svnechdoche. For figures he lists epizeuxis. anaphora, epistrope.
epanalepsis. epanados. paronom asia, and polvptoton. For schem es he
lists ecp h on esis. epanorthosis. apostrophe, p rosop op oeia, aporia.
anacoinosis. and svnchoresis.
Prideaux’s restricted scope may due to his audience; he directs
his text to clergy, as he indicates in his opening definition: "Sacred
E loquence is a L ogicall kind of R hetorick, to be used in Prayer,
Preaching, or Conference; to the glory of God, and the convincing,
instructing, and strengthening our brethren."17 (This definition also
evidences the ubiquitous influence of Hyperius: "convincing,
instructing, and strengthening" are versions of doctrine, practice, and
com fort.) Prideaux also includes sections on passions, characters,
antitheses, and parallels, but none of them are exhaustive. Such clergy
U nder the Proper Titles of Rhetorick. A lso Several Texts of Scriptures.
W hich Fall in with the Figures. Are Briefly Interpreted: Especially
T hose That Seem to Favor the Papist of the Socinian (London, 1694),
A 3.
17 John Prideaux. Sacred Eloquence: Or. the Art of Rhetorick. As It Is
Lavd Down in Scripture (London, 1659), 1.
274
as the High-Church Prideaux would want to recognize would already be
university educated and in no need of an extensive education in
rhetorical ornam ent. On the other hand, Sacred E loquence may be a
truncated treatise; it is a posthum ous publication and may not represent
fully Prideaux’s intention.
Cornelius N orwood, by contrast, is writing for a lay audience. In
D ivine E loquence (1694) he lists several exam ples of every trope and
figure which he could "reduce under the proper Titles of Rhetorick,"
such as epizeuxis ("Crucify him, crucify him," 40-42), anidiplosis
("whether we live or die, we do it unto the Lord," 42-3), epanalepsis
("Rejoice in the Lord alway, and again I say, Rejoice," 47), paronom asia
("let the dead bury their dead," 49), polvptoton ("Evil m en . . .deceiving
and being deceived," 50-51), ecphonesis ("O Jerusalem , Jerusalem!" 50-
54), and pleonasm us L'O foolish p eop le, and unwise," 78-9). Norwood
concentrates on the ornam entation of a single text. Such an
identification of tropes and figures found in a single text is not new.
A braham Fraunce (1588) discusses rhetoric in terms of the tropes and
figures found in various classical and R enaissance texts, but especially
in Sir Philip Sidney’s A rcad ia.18 Fraunce, however, is not attem pting to
prove that Sidney’s text is adequately ornam ented. Nor is he using his
discussion as an occasion to refute theological errors.
18 Abraham Fraunce, The A rcadian Rhetorike: or. The Praecepts of
R hetorike M ade Plaine by Exam ples (London, 1588).
275
T hese discussions of scriptural elocutio usually have a polem ical
aim. The royalist Prideaux reveals his A nglican position by frequently
choosing biblical exam ples which suggest the supremacy of bishops and
the evil of rejecting monarchy. Norwood, on the other hand, is
defending a m ore fundam entally biblicist position. H e goes out of his
way to explicate Scriptural tropes and figures which he claims are
m isused by Catholics and Socinians (proto-D eists) to support erroneous
doctrines. Similarly, John Smith indicates in his title that his discussion
of elocutio will lead "to the right understanding of the sense of the letter
of Scripture, (the want w hereof occasions many dangerous errors this
day)," and in his preface he reminds his readers of the rules for
recognizing and properly interpreting figural language, for "it is very
dangerous to make figures, w here the Scripture m akes none."19
A lon g with such warnings and p olem ical subtexts, these works
contained protestations of scriptural elegancy, protestations which
becam e virtually obligatory in works about scriptural style, especially
toward the end of the century and continuing into the follow ing one. In
one such book, Tropologia (1681), the entire preface is dedicated to
proving scriptural elo q u en ce.20 This preface alternates the authors’
19 John Smith. The M vsterie of R hetorique U n vail’d (London, 1657),
A6v.
20 Thom as D elau n e and Benjam in Keach, Tropologia: A Key to O pen
Scripture-M etaphors. W herein the M ost Significant Tropes, (as
M etaphors. &c.) and Express Sim ilitudes. R especting the Father. Son &
H oly Spirit, as A lso Such as R espect the Sacred Word of God. Are
O pened and Parallel-w ise A pplied. T ogether with the D isparities:
From W hich Practical Inferences A re D educed, for Edification of the
R eader (London. 1681).
276
own protestations about the "grave and m asculine style of the Bible"
with citations from authorities who have praised scriptural eloq uence in
the past: A ugustine, Jerom e, Gregory N azianzen, Lactantius, Flacius
Illyricus, Beza, the two M irandolas, and G lassius. T ropologia is a fo lio -
length discussion of "scripture-metaphors" begun by Thomas D elaune,
continued by Benjam in Keach, and designed for use by the D issenting
m inister. K each’s 1682 continuation. T roposchem atalogia. contains
further protestations:
tho the Stile of the H oly Scripture is not varnish’d with that
D elicacy of superficial O rnam ent, that jingling Cadency of
Sounds, and Fancy-pleasing Trifles, as the pom pous Oratory of
G reece and R om e is beautified with; yet it has Q ualities far more
excellent: "Tis grave and m asculine; it hath a m agnificent,
com m anding E legance, peculiar to it self, suitable to the lofty
Things it treats of, which no other Writing can im itate.21
T roposchem atalogia is also polem ical. It includes "divers arguments to
prove the D ivine Authority of the H oly Scriptures, w here also ’tis
evinc’d, that by the G reat W hore [of the B ook of R evelation] is m eant
the Papal Hierarchy, or present State and Church of Rome" (title page).
Protestations of adequate ornam entation in the Scriptures
continue into the follow ing century. Anthony Blackwall, for instance,
21 Benjam in Keach. Troposchem atalogia: Tropes and Figures: or. A
Treatise of the M etaphors. A llegories, and Express Sim ilitudes. &c.
C ontained in the Bible of the Old and N ew T estam ent. To W hich is
Prefixed, Divers Argum ents to Prove the D ivine Authority of the H oly
Scriptures .... P hilologia. T he Second Part. W herein the Schem es, or
Figures in Scriptures. Are R educed under Their Proper H eads, with a
Brief Explication of Each (London, 1682), A3r.
277
proclaim s on the title page of his Sacred Classics D efen d ed and
Illustrated (1725) that "all the excellen cies of style, and sublime
beauties of language and genuine eloq uence do abound in the sacred
writers of the New Testament." Blackw all’s text is a detailed argument
that the original G reek Scriptures should not be faulted for barbarisms,
solecism s and "false Greek" because those usages were also found in the
best G reek writers. John Berriman in 1741 insists that reverence for the
Scriptures is not restricted to content only, but also to manner of
expression: "The Fathers in every A ge have done just the same as the
D ivines of the present A ge now do: They have clothed their own
thoughts in Scripture language."22 Berrim an’s context is a discussion of
accurate transm ission, but his com m ent shows that the stylistic qualities
of the Bible were still a topic in the eighteenth century.
A nother place where the Scriptures are defended as being
adequately ornam ented are in defenses of the inspiration of the Bible,
in response to the growing skepticism of the R estoration. One such text
is Thom as G ery’s The Fort-Roval of Christianity D efen d ed (1657),
which attem pts to dem onstrate that Scripture is in fact G od ’s word and
not a human invention. Gery draws on arguments both external and
internal to the Bible for this dem onstration. His external arguments are
the testim ony of the early church, m iracles, the w illingness of martyrs to
22 John Berriman. Theos ephanerothe en Sarki. or. A Critical
D issertation U pon I Tim, iii.16 (London, 1741), 32.
278
die for it, and its miraculous survival amid all attem pts to destroy it. H e
supplies eight internal proofs, of which the first three are its majesty, its
purity, and its profundity.23 Gery has a polem ical aim as w ell. The
second half of his text, which he calls its "application,” is a discussion of
several of the controversial issues in soteriology.
N ot all defenses of the Bible considered both its style and
inspiration. Som e, like a tract by W illiam A ssh eton (1694), defended its
inspiration only.24 M ilton’s Christ, as we have seen, blends the issue of
inspiration and style. The Scriptures, he says, are stylistically superior
because they are inspired by G od him self. By contrast, pagan literature
lacks this inspiration and is stylistically inferior. Just as in his
controversy with Joseph H all, M ilton takes superior style as the mark of
what is godly.
A nother contem porary concern which the scriptural apologists
addressed was the divergent interpretation of scriptural m etaphors.
23 Thom as Gery, The Fort-R oval of Christianity D efen d ed . Or. A
D em onstration of the Divinity of Scripture, by Wav of Excellency Called
the Bible (London, 1657), sig. A. The other five internal proofs are its
harmony, its prophecy, its repugnancy to human nature, the impartiality
of its "pen-men," and its power on the soul (to reveal thoughts, to terrify
consciences, to convert and com fort souls).
24 W illiam A ssheton. A D iscourse A gainst Blasphem y. Being a
C onference with M.S. Concerning 1. The R udeness of A theistical
D iscourse. 2. The Certainty and Eternity of H ell Torm ents. 3. The
Truth and Authority of the Holy Scriptures. (London, 1694). A lthough
the subtitle prom ises a discussion of "the rudeness of atheistical
discourse," the text argues m ostly from dogm atic statem ents about the
m iraculous, with little or no regard for stylistic concerns.
279
N ot only did defenses of scriptural style deal with those who rejected
the Bible on the basis of figurative language, but also with those who
differed with their doctrinal interpretation of that figuration. The list
of these opponents included som e old enem ies (i.e., Papists and also
enthusiasts who, because of their b elief in miracles, were assum ed to be
Papists in disguise), but it also included that other product of the
Reform ation: the antim iraculous rationalism of M ichael Servetus and
other supposed heretics.
Servetus (d. 1553) was a Spanish physician and theologian w hose
antitrinitarian views antagonized both Catholics and Protestants. H e
was burned in effigy after escaping from the Inquisition and in person
after he appeared in G eneva. H is death influenced the thinking of many
other rationalist antitrinitarians, notably L aelius Socinus, as I will
discuss below.
The seventeenth century had inherited the sixteenth century’s
assum ption that the Bible was herm eneutically stable. A t the beginning
of the century, controversialists could still speak confidently of "rightly
dividing the word of truth" with the concom itant assum ption that a
sim ple presentation of the truth would silence the opposition. Hyperius
dem onstrates this confidence, as I have already noted, when he says,
"For it is out of all question, that a true sentence or opinion being
offered, w hatsoever is inferred repugnant thereunto, is to be counted
am ong false and erroneous opinions."25 Likewise, John Preston
25 Gerhard A ndreas Hyperius, Of Framing of D ivine Serm ons, trans.
John Ludham (London, 1577), 55. Cf. St. P aul’s exhortation to a
neophyte m inister in II Timothy 2:15: "Study to shew thyself approved
280
discusses confutation of error in little detail, referring m ost of the
effort to a diligent dem onstration of the proof: "First, it is necessary
that it be shewed how evidently it is drawn from the main point, for that
w ill be like the breaking out of a great light that scatters mist."26
But this confidence in evident dem onstration eroded over the
course of the century.27 A s everyone quoted the same texts to prove
different positions, the argum entative center m oved away from a
theorized "pure" reading of Scripture to a defense of the strategies
which produced that reading. Figurative language itself is a charged
theological issue during this period because so many theological
doctrines are encoded in figures of speech. For instance, the Church of
R om e insisted that Christ’s body was physically present in the bread of
com m union, that "This is my body" was not a m etaphor but rather a
sim ple statem ent of fact. Similarly, pro- and antiprelatical
controversies in England could turn on how one interpretated figural
language about Christ and his church.
unto G od, a workman that needeth not to be asham ed, rightly dividing
the word of truth."
26 John Preston, "The Paterne of W holesom e Words," in R iches of
Mercy to M en in Misery (London, 1658), 324.
27 For an example of a late-sixteenth century collapse of the b elief in a
single perception of the world, see Lawrence D. G reen, "Modes of
Perception in the Mirror for M agistrates." H untington Library
Quarterly 44 (1981): 117-33.
281
One such published controversy is betw een the R obert Ferguson,
a D issenter, and the young W illiam Sherlock, later D ean of St. Paul’s.
In The Interest of R eason in R eligion (1675), Ferguson devotes som e
150 pages to a discussion of m etaphor and other figures in order to lay
the groundwork for his refutation of Sherlock’s haughty and juvenile
anti-N onconform ist text, A D iscourse Concerning the K nowledge of
Jesus Christ (1678).28 Sherlock does not directly engage the nature of
figurative language, but he does argue that the scriptural relation of
Christ to his church is toward the group rather than the individual:
"Thus Christ is called a H ea d , but he is the H ead of the Church, which is
his Body . . .N o particular Christian is the Body of Christ, but only a
M em ber in this Body."29
Ferguson rejects Sherlock’s ecclesiology, and he locates that
rejection within an explicit discussion of the figurative language in
which Scripture describe the church, and of figurative language in
general. Thus, he takes several pages to distinguish m etaphors from
"similitudes" and parables, which he further distinguishes from
28 R obert Ferguson. The Interest of R eason in R eligion, with the
Import and U se of Scripture-M etaphors: and the Nature of the U nion
Betwixt Christ and B elievers ('with R eflection s on Several Late
W ritings. Especially Mr. Sherlocks D iscourse Concerning the K nowledg
of Jesus Christ. & c.l M odestly Enquired Into and Stated (London,
1675); W illiam Sherlock, A D iscourse Concerning the K nowledge of
Jesus Christ (London. 1678).
29 R obert Ferguson. The Interest of R eason in R eligion (London.
1675), 88.
282
paroim ae. m ysteries, or types. H e also links the nature of the m etaphor
with anthropopatheiai and m etonym .30
One of the m ost challenging rereadings of scriptural figuration
was that of L aelius Socino or Socinus (1525-62) and his nephew Fausto
(1539-1604), Italian antitrinitarians. Laelius was already pursuing
various theological inquiries w hen Servetus’s execution attracted him to
the question of the Trinity. H is antitrinitarian views survived in his
papers and thence in the writings of his nephew Faustus, who acquired
the papers. Faustus was am ong a number of rationalist antitrinitarians
who, as A d olp h von Harnak points out, had remarkably sim ilar careers.
They com bined rationalism with ethics, they were all from northern
Italy or southern France, and they passed through Switzerland to
Poland, M oravia or Transylvania. (Faustus took refuge in tolerant
P oland.)31 The works of Faustus Socinus (including posthum ous
com pletions) were the beginning of Socinianism as a theological force.
Socinus rejected orthodox Christian soteriology, saying that those
scriptural passages dealing with salvation were actually only m etaphors
("Tota redem ptionis nostrae per Christum m etaphora" : "All those
things of our redem ption by Christ are metaphors"). Thus as late as the
nineteenth century R alph W aldo Em erson, a lineal descendent of this
30 R obert Ferguson. The Interest of R eason in R eligion (London.
1675), 298ff.
31 A dolph von Harnak, History of D og m a, trans. N eil Buchanan, 7 vols.
(N ew York: R ussell and R ussell, 1958), 7:133-35.
283
school of thought, can say: "The idiom s of [Christ’s] language, and the
figures of his rhetoric, have usurped the place of his truth; and churches
are not built on his principles, but on his tropes."32 A ccording to
Socinus, Christ did not die as a sacrifice for sin but rather lived as an
ethical m odel for all men. A lthough Socinus him self urged the worship
of Christ, who was divine by office if not by nature, it was the ethical
application of Christianity which Socinians stressed.33
A s noted above, many of the defenders of scriptural elocutio
explicitly warn against both Papist and Socinian readings, which were
the Scylla and Charybdis of biblical interpretation. A ccording to such
authors as Cornelius N orwood, Benjam in K each, Thom as D elaune and
others, the Catholics overlooked the m etaphorical form ulations of som e
doctrines w hile the Socinians overlooked any doctrines couched in
tropes. Thus, in terms of the Eucharistic form ula "This is my body which
is broken for you" (I Corinthians 11:24), one could either find no
m etaphor ("This is my body—") or else could dismiss any soteriological
doctrine contained in that m etaphor ("— which is broken for you").
32 Ralph W aldo Em erson, "An A ddress D elivered B efore the Senior
Class in Divinity C ollege, Cambridge, Sunday Evening, July 15, 1838," in
Ralph W aldo Emerson: Essays and L ectures, ed. Joel Porte (N ew York:
Library of A m erica, 1983), 80. It should also be noted that although
Em erson rejects the biblicism on which New England was founded and
stands at som e distance from that tradition, he still calls preaching "a
holy office" (p. 83).
33 For a descriptive analysis of Socinian doctrine, see A dolph von
Harnak, History of D ogm a, trans. N eil Buchanan, 7:137-67.
284
In the next century, Peter Browne (1728) will take the position
that one cannot use m etaphors at all for theological discussions.
Rather, he insists in heavily em piricist terms that language describing
G od must use a point-for-point analogy drawn from sense im pressions.
Browne argues that since the true and real nature of G od and the other
world are utterly incom prehensible to us, our reasonings about the
nature of those things are precarious and inconclusive, but revelation
m akes the supernatural known to us via the m ediation of analogy with
natural things.34 M etaphors are dangerous because they can be used by
heretics:
Our m odern D eists and Freethinkers, and A theists . . . are . . . the
natural Growth and Offspring of Socinianism: They are as so
many H ead daily sprouting up from that figurative M etaphorical
M onster: each of which m ultiplies by being cut off, and they
increase their number by being as daily confuted.35
Brow ne’s proposed solution is "a dexterous application of that true
Analogy (which hath a solid Foundation in the Nature of things, and
ever carries in it a sure, and certain, and consistent Parity of
R e a so n l."36 This is an ingenious solution, although Browne does not
explain how one could verify w hether such an analogy has been correctly
applied betw een sense im pression and som ething else which cannot be
34 Peter Browne, The Procedure. Extent, and Limits of H um an
U nderstanding (London, 1728), 13-14.
35 Peter Browne, The Procedure. Extent, and Lim its of Human
U nderstanding (London, 1728), 40.
36 Peter Browne, The Procedure. Extent, and Lim its of H um an
U nderstanding (London, 1728), 41.
285
apprehended. H istorians of stylistic change have justly stressed the
impact on prose style of the new scientific community and its efforts to
purge m etaphors, inter alia, from language.37 A t the sam e time,
however, proponents of religious discourse are making the same effort,
though for different reasons. B acon influenced language change, but so
did Socinus.
A t any rate, herm eneutic confusion was inherent in the very kind
of style which seventeenth-century orthodoxy wanted to find in
Scripture in general, and in scriptural m etaphor in particular. R obert
Ferguson (1675) shows that there is no stable relationship in a
m etaphor betw een signifier and signified. Christ may be called a lion,
but so may a tyrant. "Instances of this kind of num erous, and in the
U nfolding and explicating of M etaphors, great Sobriety as w ell as
D iligence is to be observed."38
It could be asked from our m odernist perspective whether the
instability of biblical figuration did not lead to a deconstructive aporia
in which the deferral of m eaning was endless, or to som e kind of
37 Robert A dolph, The R ise of M odern Prose Style: Richard Foster
Jones, The Seventeenth Century (Stanford: Stanford University Press,
1951); Brian Vickers, "The Royal Society and English Prose Style: A
Reassessm ent," in Brian Vickers and Nancy Struever, R hetoric and the
Pursuit of Truth: Language Change in the Seventeenth and E ighteenth
Centuries (Los A ngeles: W illiam Andrew s Clark M em orial Library,
1985), 3-76.
38 R obert Ferguson. The Interest of R eason in R eligion (London.
1675), 302.
286
deadlock over increasingly subtle, rival interpretations.39 W ho, after
all, gets to say which texts are figurative, and hence who gets to declare
their true m eaning? But we should not make this problem more
difficult than it was for M ilton and his contem poraries, who still
referred the m eaning of language, and especially Scripture, to a
validating force. For the Protestant, as Jaroslav Pelikan points out, all
authentically canonical Scripture was self-verifying.40
W here M ilton and his contem poraries differed was not on
w hether or not Scripture could be interpreted, but the strategies by
which to do so. On contem porary, Thom as H obbes, proposed to solve
interpretational deadlocks by investing the A nglican church with
absolute pow er to decide them , unless the question transcended reason,
in which case it required a m iracle for confirm ation.41 M ilton, w hose
"interests and tenets were diam etrically opposite" those of H obbes,
proposed a different solution for interpreting holy writ.42 This solution
39 Joseph A . D an e has dealt at length with the problem of oversubtle
interpretation in m odern criticism. See, for instance, The Critical
M ythology of Irony (Athens: University of G eorgia Press, 1991); "The
D efen se of the Incom petent Reader." Comparative Literature 38
(1986): 53-72; and "Inquisitorial H erm eneutics and the M anual of
Bernard Gui," TENSO : B ulletin of the Societe G uilhem IX 4 (1989):
59-74.
40 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition. 4:340.
41 H ening Graf R eventlow , The Authority of the Bible and the R ise of
the M odern W orld. 204-216. R eventlow argues throughout his chapter
on H obbes (194-222) that m odern criticism of the philosopher has erred
by failing to recognize the extent to which H ob b es’s arguments are
inform ed by early-seventeenth-century A nglican biblical humanism.
42 John A ubrey’s "brief life" or biography of M ilton contains this note
and interpolations: "His widow e assures me that Mr. H obbs was not one
287
was for the individual believer to depend on the Spirit of G od and his
own reasoning faculty:
Every believer is entitled to interpret the scriptures; and by that I
m ean interpret them for him self. H e has the spirit, who guides
truth, and he has the mind of Christ. Indeed, no one else can
usefully interpret them for him, unless that person’s
interpretation coincides with the one he m akes for him self and
his own con scien ce.43
A s different as the two m en were in their approaches, both H obbes and
M ilton assum ed that the Scripture could be adequately interpreted.
M ilton shares som e characteristics with the Socinians, although
his soteriology was sacrificial and his biblical herm eneutics
conventional.44 H e is, however, a rationalist antitrinitarian, and
antitrinitarian rationalism may have stylistic im plications. For
instance, the style of John K nowles (fl. 1648-1668), an autodidact and
antitrinitarian, bears certain sim ilarities to M ilton’s. In A M odest Plea
for Private M ens Preaching (1648), K nowles adopts the same persona as
M ilton does, that of the educated and reasonable man cutting through
unnecessary academ ic complications, w hile at the sam e time
com pressing allusions which support his points into pithy phrases. He
claims, for instance, that preaching is not an arcane matter but rather
of his acquaintance: yl her husband did not like him at all: but he would
grant/acknow ledge him to be a man of great parts, a learned man.
Their Interests & tenets did run counter to each oth er/w ere
diam etrically opposite." H elen Darbishire, Early Lives of M ilton. 7.
43 Christian D octrine I:xxx: CPW VI:583-84.
44 For M ilton ’s soteriology. see Christian D octrine I.xiv: "Redemption
is that act by which Christ, sent in the fulness of tim e, redeem ed all
believers at the price of his own blood" ( CPW VI:415). For his biblical
herm eneutics, see Christian D octrine I.xxx ( CPW VI:582).
288
the proclam ation of "house-top-discoveries, which concerne all."45 H e
also insists, as does M ilton, on free inquiry into the truth:
[I] am resolved neither to b elieve nor practice any thing, till I
enjoy a satisfactory reason, why I should either so believe or
practice. By which course I have been gratiously led out of many
im braced errours, and (I hope) gratiously led into many yet
unresolved scruples, for satisfaction w herein I waite on the God
of discoveries.4®
K nowles is close enough to M ilton in several respects to make an
analysis of the connections betw een his theology and his style worth
pursuing. M ilton outlines an epistem ology in the prefatory "Epistle" to
his Christian D octrine which is sim ilar to that of Knowles: "I m ade up
my mind to puzzle out a religious creed for m yself by my own exertions,
45 John Knowles. A M odest P lea for Private M ens Preaching (n.p..
1648), 3. Cf. M atthew 10.27, "What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye
in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops."
See also Luke 12.3. In spite of these com pressions, however, K now les’s
style has far few er em bedded expressions and much less energy. The
follow ing passage is fairly typical of Knowles: "Knowledge and
utterance are as needfull for this worke, as councell and strength for the
war. And when G od puts his words into m en, and gives words to them to
make discoveries of G osp el M ysteries, hee then sufficiently fits them to
preach the G ospel. H e that hath know ledge and wants utterance cannot
preach, but he that hath both is put in a posture fit to preach; preaching
being nothing else but a prom ulgation or speaking of our apprehensions
unto others" (3). On the other hand, the fact that K nowles style is less
em bedded than M ilton’s should not im m ediately discourage
com parison, since M ilton’s style is unusually com plicated. For the
extent to which M ilton’s sentences are em bedded, and especially for a
discussion of the extent to which he uses "right-branching," see Thom as
N. Corns, The D evelop m ent of M ilton’s Prose Style (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1982), 35.
46 John K nowles. A M odest Plea for Private M ens Preaching (n.p..
1648), A2r.
289
and to acquaint m yself with it thoroughly. In this the only authority I
accepted was G od ’s self-revelation" (CPW VI: 118). K nowles also refers
to som e of the sam e causes and authors which M ilton cites. H e
m entions religious refugees in the Low Countries and New England
(including Hugh P eters) whom M ilton m entions in his antiprelatical
tracts. M ore importantly, K nowles cites W illiam A m es, w hose Marrow
of Sacred Divinity was one of the two foundational systems beneath
M ilton’s Christian D octrin e. Thus, K nowles is another rational
antitrinitarian with an A m esian background; a further exam ination of
his work might illum inate the extent to which such theological
tendencies influence style.
In this section I have shown how M ilton’s defense of scriptural
style in the A thens tem ptation parallels other defenses being made by
his contem poraries. In the follow ing section I will exam ine a book-
length defense of scriptural style written by R obert Boyle, who was not
only a Royal Society scientist but also, like M ilton, a quasi-m inisterial
figure who devoted much tim e to th eological and biblical studies. Boyle
defines style in terms of decorum in order to move his defense out of the
narrow realm of elocutio conceived in terms of tropes and figures. In
many ways, his defense parallels the im portant discussion of
A u gu stin e’s D e D octrina Christiana, which in M ilton’s time was the
single m ost im portant authority on scriptural style next to the Bible
itself.
290
III. D efen ses of Scriptural Style:
The Case of R obert Boyle
One of the m ost extensive seventeenth-century discussions of
Scriptural style is that of Robert Boyle, the fam ous scientist and ardent
Christian apologist. H e was, like M ilton, a learned, quasi-m inisterial
layman with an ongoing interest in the Scriptures; he was even
approached at the R estoration about ordination. In spite of his
com m itm ents to "natural philosophy," Boyle also gave theology
considerable attention. H e learned enough Hebrew, G reek, Chaldean,
and Syriac to read the Scriptures in the original. H e also supported
projects to distribute the Scriptures, underwriting most if not all of the
costs for the Indian, Irish, and W elsh Bibles, and also portions of the
Turkish and M alay ones.47
B oyle’s genial essay, Som e Considerations Touching the Style of
the H oly Scriptures (1661), was a book-length defense of scriptures. It
was w ell received, going through four English editions as w ell as one in
Latin.48 Boyle fills som e 250 pages with reasons why H oly Writ should
47 Dictionary of N ational Biography, s.v. "Boyle, H on. Robert."
48 R obert Bovle. Som e C onsiderations Touching the Style of the H oly
Scriptures Extracted from Several Parts of a D iscourse (Concerning
Divers Particulars B elonging to the B ible! fLondon. 1661). W ing
reports the follow ing editions, all published in London: English, 1661,
1663, 1668, and 1675 (W ing B-4025 through 4208); Latin, 1665 (W ing B-
3933).
291
be considered eloquent despite its supposed stylistic inadequacies such
as obscurity, incoherence or inelegance. His own text, presented in the
form of a "letter to a friend" is itself som ewhat disjointed. H e begins,
for instance, with a shotgun argument as to why the Scriptures should
not be dism issed on stylistic grounds. The English text of the Bible is a
translation, and the need to keep as close to the H ebrew and G reek
sense m eans losing the elegancies of the other tongue (7), som e of the
m aterial is spoken by "Souldiers, Shepherds and Women" and cannot be
expected to be eloquent (16-17); and som e of the material reported is
lies, even the lies of the devil him self, because this is a book where "the
A n tid ote is exhibited with the Poison" (19-20). Boyle assures us that
there are "interesting and abstruse" parts of Scripture "with which to
reward elevated and com prehensive intellects" (24). A t the same time,
the text must be able to appeal to all peoples, not just those who "make
their own abilities the m easure of all discourse" (26).
In spite of his diffuse presentation, however, Boyle defends
Biblical language against charges that it is obscure, disjointed or
incoherent, and inelegant by appeal to a single principle--that of
decorum. D ecorum is one of the foundational concepts of rhetoric, in
that the speaker must consider tim e, place, and persons of his audience,
and also consider w hether he intends to please, instruct or m ove them.
Boyle uses this principle of decorum to explain som e of the supposed
difficulties with the Bible: since it must appeal at once to a vast number
of audiences and situations, it will therefore of necessity often seem
obscure or disjointed. Boyle does, it is true, offer several ancillary
292
reasons why individual passages might seem obscure: 1) detractors and
lazy men say so (30); 2) one needs to understand the intellectual and
cultural clim ate of the time in which the passage was written (34-36); 3)
som etim es the obscurity is inherent in the subject (38-39); 4) som e
readers wish to insist that plain passages are obscure in order to find
"metaphysical quercks" in them (40ff); 5) the gospel is hid to those who
are lost (43); 6) som e passages make us sensible of our own weakness
(45); and (7) Scripture is the best expositor of itself (47). N evertheless,
his greatest single argument for scriptural style is that of decorum.
The argument from decorum is a fam iliar one in the scriptural
defenses of M ilton’s contem poraries. One of the com m onplaces of
these defenses is Gregory the G reat’s paradoxical assertion that the
Scripture is a river where the lamb can wade and the elephant can
swim.49 Thom as H all (1654) uses Gregory’s statem ent to illustrate the
herm eneutic principle that the obscure places in the Bible are explained
by the plain ones: "In Scripture there are places where the Lamb may
wade, and the Elephant may swim."50 Richard A llestree (1679) uses it
to defend the fam iliar doctrine that the scriptural passages discussing
49 John M. Steadm an traces this com m onplace to G regory’s
comm entary on the book of Job at the beginning of The Lamb and the
E lephant (San M arino, Calif.: H untington Library, 1974).
50 Thom as H all, Centuria Sacra: A bout One Hundred R ules for
Expounding and Clearer U nderstanding of the H oly Scriptures, in
V indiciae Literarum. The Schools Guarded: Or. the E xcellency and
U sefu ln esse of H um ane Learning in Subordination to Divinity, and
Preparation for the Ministry (London, 1654), 77.
293
salvation are pellucid:
in those the Scripture stile is as plain as is possible: condescends
to the apprehensions of the rudest capacities: so that none that
can read the Scripture but w ill find the way to bliss evidently
chalk’d out to him. That I may use of the words of St. Gregory,
the Lamb may wade in those waters of life, as w ell as the Elephant
may swim.51
Benjam in K each (1682) cites the com m onplace to rebuke intellectual
pride:
There are M ysteries, which Nature, as such, (however adorned
with P hilosophical N otions, or M etaphysical Speculations,)
cannot com prehend: They are like the W aters of the Sanctuary,
where a Lamb may wade, and an Elephant may Swim.52
To the extent that these authors em ploy this com m onplace to argue that
audience affects presentation, they are arguing from the principle of
decorum.
B oyle’s m ost extensive arguments are reserved to answer what he
calls the "grand objection against the style of the Scripture":
That the Scripture is so unadorn’d with Flowers of R hetorick, and
so destitute of E loquence, that it is flat, and proves comm only
Inefficacious upon Intelligent R eaders. Insom uch, that divers
great W its and great Persons, especially States-m en, do either
D esp ise it, or N eglect to study it (147).53
51 Richard A llestree. The Lively O racles G iven to U s. Or. The
Christians Birth-right and Duty, in the Custody and U se of the H oly
Scripture (Oxford. 1679), 150.
52 Benjam in Keach. T roposchem atalogia (London. 1682), A3r. Keach
refers to E zek iel’s vision of the slowly rising river issuing from the
tem ple in E zekiel 47:1-5. In the Scripture passage, this river begins
ankle-deep in verse 3, and becom es by verse 5 "waters to swim in, a river
that could not be passed over."
53 R obert Boyle, Som e C onsiderations Touching the Style of the H oly
Scriptures (London, 1661), 147.
294
B oyle’s answer to this objection is five-fold. M ore precisely, it is an
auxesis or a series of reasons building from the least important
argument to the greatest, each of which challenges conventional notions
of rhetoric and eloquence in terms of decorum: 1) parts of the
Scriptures do not require em bellishm ent, 2) the Bible is a translation,
3) notions of eloquence change with tim e, 4) many passages are
conspicuously ornam ented even by W estern standards and 5) the
efficacy of the Scriptures ultim ately depends on the reader’s own
disposition (150-51).
B oyle’s text signals a shift from a R enaissance understanding of
eloquence as "tropes and figures" ( elo cu tio ) to an eighteenth-century
understanding of eloq uence as "style." In this later understanding, style
is discussed in terms of its appropriateness (decorum ) and its affect on
the reader, especially in terms of raising the passions. One of the major
problem s for Scriptural apologetics in the seventeenth century is that
eloquence had grown to m ean nothing more than the discrete presence
of various types of ornam entation ( elo cu tio ). School text after school
text published in the seventeenth century defines rhetoric as elocutio
and pronuntiatio. and elocutio as tropes and figures.54 It was no wonder
54 " R hetorica est Ars ornate dicendi. Partes R hetoricae duae sunt:
E locutio & Pronunciatio . . . E locutio est aut Figura. Tropus est
E locu tio." ("Rhetoric is the art of speaking ornately. The parts of
rhetoric are two, style and delivery. [An elem en t of] style is either a
trope or a figure." Charles Butler, R hetoricae libri duo quorum prior de
tropis et figuris. posterior de voce & gestu praecipit (London, 1671), 1.
" R hetorica est Ars praecepta tradens de exornanda oratione. D ocet
R hetorica exornare orationem . non om nibus om nino m odis. sed suis
quibusdam & sibi propriis. nem pe Tropis & Figuris. Pronunciatione &
A c tio n e ." ("Rhetoric is the art which teaches the precepts of
295
that apologists attem pted to push out this narrow definition of
eloquence even as they insisted that Scripture could be judged by it.
This attem pt partook of a larger move, away from "elo cu tio " as that
evidenced by ornam entation with discrete tropes and figures and toward
"style" as that quality which speaks to the occasion and affects the
reader.
In B oyle’s case, he is borrowing St. A u gustin e’s shift for
explaining why Scripture really is adequately ornam ented with tropes
and figures by challenging the criteria for what constitutes adequate
ornam entation. A ugustine argues in B ook IV of D e doctrina Christiana
that the Bible is stylistically appropriate because it satisfies the stylistic
requirem ents of teaching, pleasing and moving. H e is thus arguing from
decorum .55
ornam enting an oration. R hetoric teaches ways to ornam ent the
oration, not by any m eans, but by those which are proper to it, namely,
by tropes and figures, pronunciation and action." W illiam W alker,
T roposchem atologiae rhetoricae libri duo, quorum prior agit de tropis,
alter de figuris rhetoricis. questionibus & responsionibus concinnati
(London, 1672), l r " Partes R hetorices duae sunt. E locutio &
Pronunciatio . . . E locutio duplex est: Tropus. aut Figura." ("The parts
of rhetoric are two, style and delivery. Style has two parts, tropes and
figures." W illiam Dugard. R hetorices elem enta. questionibus et
responsionibus explicata: quae ita form antur. ut questionibus prorsus
om issus vel neglectis. responsiones solum m odo integram rhetorices
institutionem Tvronibus exhibeant (London, 1688), 1. See also Charles
Bland, The Art of Rhetorick. as to E locutio. E xplain’d: And Familiarly
A dapted to the Capacltyes of School-Bovs. by Way of Q uestions and
Answer (London. 1706), 1-2.
55 A ugustine. On Christian D octrin e, trans. D.W . R obertson, 117-69.
296
A u gustin e’s D e doctrina Christiana is frequently cited by
seventeenth-century scriptural apologists. Richard A llestree cites him
in The Lively O racles G iven to U s (1679):
The Holy G host, as St. A ustin tells us, lib. 2 of Christian
doctrin., chap. 6 has m ade in the plainer places of Scripture
m agnificent and healthful provision for our hunger; and in the
obscure, against satiety. For there are scarce any things drawn
from obscure places, which in others are not spoken m ost
plainly. A nd he farther adds, that if any thing happen to be no
where explain’d, every man may there abound in his sense.56
Thom as W ilson the divine (1615) cites D e doctrina Christiana as
authority for many of his herm eneutic rules.57 A u gu stin e’s work is also
referred to in such preaching texts as Q fficium concionatoris. where it
is cited as proof that the church fathers understood that the author of
wisdom and eloquence in the Scriptures was G od him self.58 In B oyle’s
own apology, A u gustin e’s nam e heads the list of authors who have
56 Richard A llestree, The Lively O racles G iven to U s (Oxford. 1679),
150.
57 Thom as W ilson (the divine), T heological Rules. To G uide U s in the
U nderstanding and Practice of H oly Scriptures. Two Centuries:
Drawne Partly Out of Scriptures Them selves: Partly Out of
E cclesiastical Writers Old and New (London. 1615). See for instance
pp. 13, 21, 27, 30, 40, and 63.
58 " D eus solus prudentiae autor est. et eloquentiae: non verborum
sonus. sed benedictio ad salutem prom ovet. Eph. 6.19. Joan. 16.
A ct.2.27. 2 Cor. 3.6 M os erat Patrum antiquorum. A ugust, de doctrina
Christ, lib. 4. cap. 1." ("God is the author of wisdom and eloquence; he
m oves not [just] the style of words, but good speaking unto salvation
. . . . This was the custom of the fathers of antiquity.") Qfficium
concionatoris (1655; Cambridge, 1676), 11.
297
written helpfully on scriptural style, follow ed by Jerom e, Tertullian,
Lactantius, Chrysostom, and M irandola (188).
D e doctrina Christiana had behind it the authority of one of the
most respected church fathers, and it addressed many of the same
issues with which they were attem pting to deal. They could, for
instance, draw on A u gustin e’s rejection of rhythmic ending
(concinnitas) for authority to reject in their own day an overly narrow
vision of elocutio as m erely a collection of tropes and figures. In D e
doctrina C hristiana. A ugustine assures his Christian readers that "no
one of those things which are so highly regarded and taught in the
schools of grammarians or rhetoricians is lacking in Scripture"
(IV.xx.41). In order to prove this statem ent, A ugustine must show
what his seventeenth-century successors must also show, that those
portions of Scripture which are neither in the grand nor the plain style
are adequately ornam ented and please their audience. A ugustine does
this by playing down the im portance to the m iddle style of individual
ornam ents—in his case rhythmic endings—and stressing the aim of the
m iddle style, which is praise or blame: "Our teacher should speak in a
m oderate manner when he praises or blam es something." H e cites
exam ples from the Scriptures which in many ways are beautiful yet lack
the rhythmic endings which were popular in A u gustin e’s day. The
addition of such endings, he warns, might impair the gravity of the
divine writings.59
59 IV.xix.38, xx.41. A ugustine. Of Christian D octrin e, trans. D.W .
R obertson, 145-46, 149-50.
298
Thus, A ugustine discusses the m iddle style in terms of
decorum --of what it is fitted for— instead of its ornam entation. H e
then moves from this consideration to a point where he nearly
abandons the distinctions betw een styles, except as a question of
variety. A s he explains, it is not enough to gain o n e ’s m ental assent to
the judgm ent that an activity is either praiseworthy or blameworthy;
one must be m oved to perform the activity or abstain from it. For this,
the grand style is necessary, but the grand style is marked more by its
persuasive affect than by the presence or absence of ornam entation:
The grand style differs from the m oderate style not so much in
that it is adorned with verbal ornam ents but in that it is forceful
with em otions of the spirit. A lthough it uses alm ost all of the
ornam ents, it does not seek them if it does not need them
(IV.xx.42).60
But according to A ugustine, the m iddle style can also move the hearer
to action: "when praises and vituperation are eloquently spoken . . .
they so affect som e that they . . . also desire to live in a praiseworthy
way and to avoid living in a way that should be blamed." Such
persuasion is the aim of all such com m unication. A ll styles are useful
in reaching this aim:
Thus those three ends which we described above [to be heard
intelligently, willingly, and obediently] are not to be taken so
that . . . the subdued style pertains to understanding, the
m oderate style to w illingness, and the grand style to obedience;
rather, in such aw ay that the orator always attends to all three
60 IV.xx.42. A ugustine. Of Christian D o ctrin e, trans. D.W . Robertson.
150.
299
and fulfills them all as much as he can, even when he is using a
single style.61
For A ugustine, the danger of the m iddle style is that it may please for
the sim ple sake of pleasure. E loqu en ce without wisdom is vain.62
A ugustine changes the terms of the argument, and so do many
seventeenth-century defenses of scriptural eloq uence, which were
often prosecuted in terms of "style" rather than in terms of figurative
language.
R obert Boyle uses the term "style" throughout his lengthy
defense of Scripture, a "style" which he defines in "that larger sense,
w herein the word Style com prehends not only . . . the Tropes and
Figures, but [the w riter’s] M ethod, his lofty or hum ble character, his
. .. way of writing, . . . in a word, alm ost all the w hole manner of an
Authours expressing himself."63 The stress is shifted away from
surface features to audience need and authorial intention, that is, to
decorum. A s Boyle says, "I pretend not to prove or assert that every
Text of Scripture, especially in translations, is em bellished with the
O rnam ents of Rhetorick."64 A s R obert Ferguson says in The Interest
61 IV.xxvi.56. A ugustine, Of Christian D octrin e, trans. D.W .
R obertson, 160-61.
62 IV.xxvi.57; xxviii.61. A ugustine. Of Christian D octrin e, trans. D.W .
R obertson, 163-64, 166.
63 R obert Boyle, Som e Considerations Touching the Style of the H oly
Scriptures (London, 1661), 2.
64 R obert Boyle. Som e C onsiderations Touching the Style of the H oly
Scriptures (London, 1661), 29.
300
of R eason in R eligion (1675): "Our great End being to instruct and
perswade, and the M odes of Speaking and W riting being but an
Organical Art in order thereunto, all M ethods of D iscourse must be
estim ated by their C om m ensurateness to this End."65
Boyle distinguishes style from what the school texts usually
called "elo cu tio ." There are, he says, two kinds of oratory. One of
them concerns itself with the mere em bellishm ent of conception, but
the other tries to fit ornam entation to the author’s purpose: "there are
writings, w hose M atter and Structure are such, that the Plainest
Language can scarce M is-becom e them."66
This is not to say that discussions of the rhetorical nature of the
Bible published during this period do not display a considerable
overlap betw een discussions of elocutio as tropes and figures and
discussions of elocutio as style. For instance, both of Anthony
Blackw all’s texts, A n Introduction to the Classics (1718) and The
Sacred Classics D efen d ed and Illustrated (1725) still identify rhetoric
as "tropes and figures."67 This focus on form ulae probably reflects the
fact that Blackwall was a schoolm aster and thus concerned with proven
65 R obert Ferguson, The Interest of R eason in R eligion (London,
1675), 291-92.
66 R obert Bovle. Som e C onsiderations Touching the Style of the H oly
Scriptures (London. 1661), 173.
67 Anthony Blackwall. A n Introduction to the Classics (London. 1718);
The Sacred Classics D efen d ed and Illustrated: or. A n Essay . . .
Towards Proving the Purity. Propriety, and True E loquence of the
W riters of the New T estam ent (London, 1725).
301
form ulae for imparting basic knowledge. G eorge Kennedy points out
how both Blackwall and N icholas Burton (Figurae gram m aticae. 1702)
continued the R enaissance tradition of teaching rhetoric at the
elem entary level; the "strongest part of this tradition continued to be
its teaching of tropes and figures."68 In The Sacred Classics D efen d ed
and Illustrated (1725), however, Blackwall is not addressing children
in the schoolroom but rather adults who rem em ber their schoolroom
experience. H e also discusses figural language in terms of the passions
and thus is still addressing his own age.
Scriptural apologists in the seventeenth century confront not
only an overly-atom ized notion of style, but also the m assive difference
betw een the G reco-R om an culture, which provides the R enaissance
with its rhetorical tradition, and the H ebraic culture which informs the
Scriptures. T hese differences are probably easier for A ugustine to
negotiate than for a seventeenth-century apologist. A ugustine is
already a native of one culture, and does not have to deal with such
additional dissonances as the rising English vernacular which
com plicates the seventeenth-century response.69 Seventeenth-century
68 G eorge Kennedy. Classical R hetoric and Its Christian and Secular
Tradition from A ncient and M odern T im es. 228 and note; N icholas
Burton, Figurae grammaticae & rhetoricae Latino carmine donatae. et
exem plis tarn G raecis quam Latinis illustratae: cum indice figurarum
etym ologico. In usum regiae scholae D unelm ensis (London. 1702).
69 A ccording to Peter Brown, A ugustine never considered an
alternative to classical education. H e dealt with the riches of a "pagan"
culture by dem ythologizing them into human institutions rather than
erecting a new structure. A ugustine of H ippo: A Biography (Berkeley
and Los A ngeles: University of California Press, 1967), 264-67.
302
apologists are attem pting to discuss Scripture in terms of two alien
cultures, and in order to appeal to an audience which is defensively
"classical," the apologists are forced, by and large, to defend the
Scriptures, the product of one culture, in terms of the other culture.
Classical rhetoric is shaped by its G reek and Latin origins, w hereas the
Scriptures are written in or at least influenced by Hebrew.
A s Boyle points out, even m ost of the G reek portions are written
by Jews, and those writers’ central G reek text, the Septuagint
translation of the H ebrew Scriptures, has a H ebraic rather than a
G reek style.70 N o wonder, then, that the apologists worked so hard to
defend their text. They were using rules of art derived from Cicero and
arguing with those who found C icero artistic.71
Nor could the apologists convincingly show that the original
H ebrew was m ore eloquent, for the H ebrew world was a distant one for
many of the apologists. R obert Ferguson shows this distance in The
Interest of R eason in R eligion (1675), which as I have shown is an
antiprelatical polem ic based on scriptural m etaphors about the
relationship of Christ with his church. Ferguson suggests that a
Sem itic rhetoric may have more figures than W estern rhetoric. This is
70 R obert Bovle. Som e Considerations Touching the Style of the Holy
Scriptures (London. 1661), 155-56.
71 "’[T]is no M arvell they should find C icero’s Writings to be so
Conform able to their Laws of Art, whilst they fram e those Laws of Art
out of his Writings." R obert Boyle, Som e C onsiderations Touching the
Style of the H oly Scriptures (London, 1661), 170.
303
only a suggestion; he does not supply any details. H e is far more
secure when he is accusing his A nglican fo es of using English
"Asianisms" in their pulpit oratory.72
Similarly, R obert Boyle assum es a distinctly H ebraic eloquence,
but cannot prove it. H is com m ents are tentative:
It being very likely, that am ong those various significations som e
one or other would afford a better sense and a more significant
& sinewy expression than we m eet with in our Translations, and
perhaps would make such passages as seem flat and uncouth
appear E loquent and E m phatieal.73
This is not to suggest that England was devoid of H ebraicists like John
Selden, the dazzlingly learned jurist.74 Boyle m entions contem porary
studies of R abbinical literature which had "cleared up divers Texts
which before w ere Dark."75 Other indications of scholarly interest in
H ebrew are such works as W alter Cross’s late-seventeenth-century
work on H ebrew vowel pointing, The Taghm ical Art (1698), which
argues that many of the vowel points are actually rhetorical, that they
indicate sense and reason rather than pronunciation, em phasis or
sound: "these points govern and rule the C oherence, and D ivisions of
72 R obert Ferguson, The Interest of R eason in R eligion (London,
1675), 297, 318.
73 R obert Boyle, Som e C onsiderations Touching the Style of the Holy
Scriptures (London, 1661), 13.
74 See Jason P. R osenblatt, "Milton’s Chief Rabbi." M ilton Studies
24 (1988): 43-71.
75 R obert Boyle, Som e Considerations Touching the Style of the Holy
Scriptures (London, 1661), 35.
304
M atters, and cadencies of affection."76 Cross him self provides little
specific details about these points, referring instead to the work of the
C ontinental scholar M atthias W asmuth. H is main object is to argue
for the retention of the points in order to confute the heresies of those
who prefer cabalistic uncertainty. Such late-seventeenth-century
works as Cross’s also anticipate the profound interest which the
eighteenth century took in O riental languages.77
B oyle’s text dem onstrates what am ateur H ebrew scholarship in
the seventeenth century could and could not accom plish. It displays
what looks like an encyclopedic know ledge of the issues involved in
understanding Sem itic eloq uence, even if it can neither resolve these
issues nor even, in som e case, grasp them . For instance, Boyle reports
different m ethods of argum entation in the Sem itic world, including
Paul’s own m ethod, which Boyle characterizes as a m eandering river,
gathering strength as it waters everywhere (56-63). But Boyle is less
than specific on what he m eans by this. H e is apparently relying on the
m etaphor itself to make his m eaning clear, and the m etaphor cannot
do this. H e says at another point that arguments are often apodictical
76 W alter Cross. The Taghm ical Art: or. The Art of Expounding
Scripture by the Points. Usually Called A ccents. But A re Really
Tactical: Gram m atical. Logical and R hetorical Instruments of
Interpretation (London, 1698), 17.
77 See for instance Richard Parker’s A n Essay on the U sefu ln ess of
O riental Learning (1739), which not only describes the stylistic
superiorities of Arabic, H ebrew, Chaldean, Syriac, Ethiopian, and
Arm enian, but evidences considerable scholarship at Lincoln C ollege,
Oxford.
305
rather than strictly logical (67-68), without specifying how he means
these two terms. It is possible that Boyle has been defending the Bible
as a self-explicating text for so long that he forgets to explicate
him self.
Som e of B oyle’s arguments reflect R eform ation ars praedicandi
more than know ledge of Sem itic argum entation. Boyle says that within
the system of Sem itic argum entation, there are both arguments which
confirm b elievers’ faith and arguments which confute unbelievers’
errors (65). This distinction is similar to that of Hyperius, who
proposes a serm on type for teaching doctrine and one for reproof of
false opinions. Thus, Boyle may still not be fully aware of the
provenance of his ideas even though he claim s to have visited
M anasseh B en Israel, who was the m ost esteem ed rabbi in Am sterdam ,
which was in turn the m ost im pressive center of rabbinical scholarship
in Europe (90).
Thus far, I have been exam ining Boyle as a case study of the
quasi-m inisterial writer defending the Scriptures. I am not thereby
arguing that Boyle is at all points like M ilton. B oyle’s style lacks the
polem ic edge of his older contem porary. In spite of the fact that he
argues for the superiority of scriptural style against many of the
arguments which troubled M ilton ’s contem poraries, Boyle phrases his
argument in a conciliatory tone. N either the objections which he
reports nor his m anner of reply to them would be out of place in an
eighteenth-century drawing room. M oreover, he m akes som e errors
which would have made M ilton blush. For one thing, he m isquotes the
306
com m onplace illustration about the Scriptures being a place w here the
lamb may wade and the elephant swim. A far less apt rhetorician than
M ilton would know that the entire success of this com m onplace
depends on m aintaining its paradox, yet Boyle dem olishes it, saying
instead: "the R evelation of his truth vouchsafed us by God in them is
like a river, w herein a Lamb may quench his thirst, and which an
E lephant cannot exhaust" (45-46). The fact that neither a lamb nor an
Elephant could hope to exhaust a river seem s som ehow to have
escaped B oyle’s notice.
N either M ilton nor Boyle had a thorough expertise in Hebrew.
The indications are that M ilton had, by the standards of his own age, a
com petent but not expert knowledge of it. H e first studied the
language in his last year or years at St. Paul’s School, at which tim e he
freely paraphrased Psalms 114 and 136. These paraphrases w ere, as
Parker puts it in his biography, "far m ore M ilton than psalmist" (1:18-
19). H e also prepared m etrical translations Psalms 1-8 and 80-88, but
such translations were com m onplace in the R enaissance, and the
accuracy of M ilton’s translation may have owed as much to his
knowledge of other efforts as to any linguistic expertise of his own.78
78 A glance at the critical com m ent of M ilton’s Psalms suggests that his
English is of more interest than his H ebrew. The follow ing articles
stress his place in the translation tradition and the political influences
on those translations done during the Interregnum: Edward Chauncey
Baldwin, "Milton and the Psalms." M odern Philology 17 (1919): 457-63;
Marian H. Studley, "Milton and His Paraphrases of the Psalms,"
P hilological Quarterly 4 (1925): 364-72; W illiam B. Hunter, Jr., "Milton
Translates the Psalms," P hilological Quarterly 40 (1961): 485-94;
M argaret Boddy, "Milton’s Translation of Psalm s 80-88." M odern
Philology 64 (1966): 1-9. Carolyn P. C ollette, "Milton’s Psalm
307
H ebrew was also probably one of the languages which M ilton had his
daughters read to him.79
Harris Fletcher claims extravagant com petence for the poet, as
for instance that M ilton’s knowledge of H ebrew included widely
eclectic forays into original rabbinical sources, but these claim s are
probably too enthusiastic.80 Both Sam uel S. Stollm an and G olda
Werman have afgued that M ilton did not use original sources.
Stollm an argues from the considerable differences betw een rabbinical
H ebrew and biblical H ebrew that "Milton utilized secondary sources
or read the primary sources with lim ited comprehension."81 W erman
proposes that M ilton found much of his Jewish learning from
Translations: Petition and Praise." English Literary R enaissance 2
(1972): 243-59; L ee A. Jacobus, "Milton M etaphrast: Logic and
R hetoric in Psalm 1." M ilton Studies 23 (19871: 199-232. Mary Ann
Radzinow icz, however, explores M ilton’s appropriation of H ebraic
forms into his epics. M ilton’s Epics and the B ook of Psalms (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1989).
79 Parker notes som e disagreem ent over this am ong the early
biographers: Edward Phillips listed G reek, H ebrew (’and I think the
Syriac’), Latin, French, Italian, and Spanish. John Ward, after talking
with D eborah, M ilton’s youngest and brightest daughter, listed all of
these plus Dutch. Aubrey, who spoke with M ilton’s widow rather than
with D eborah, listed Latin, G reek and H ebrew but questioned the
H ebrew (11:1098 n. 88).
80 Harris Francis Fletcher, M ilton’s R abbinical R eadings (Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1930).
81 Sam uel S. Stollm an, "Milton’s R abbinical R eadings and Fletcher,"
M ilton Studies 4 (1972): 195.
308
translations into languages that he knew well, particularly V orstius’s
Latin translation of Pirkei de-Rabbi E liezer (1644).82
M ore recently Jason P. R osenblatt has argued that John Selden
(1584-1654) was the principle source of M ilton’s Jewish learning.
Selden had the expert know ledge of rabbinics which M ilton and his
contem poraries lacked, reading both the Babylonian and Jerusalem
Talmud as w ell as various works of post-talm udic rabbinical literature:
In a Latin tortuous enough to discourage casual readers, Selden
explores thoroughly the Jewish position on natural law,
marriage and divorce, the division of authority betw een clergy
and laity, the lim itations of royal power, and m anifold other
topics that concerned M ilton. To read Selden is to becom e
som ething of an expert in Jewish learning. This m eans that
while M ilton may indeed have lacked the linguistic com petence
to tackle the Talmud directly, his knowledge of rabbinic sources
would n on eth eless have been extensive.83
Such a recourse to an expert would be in accord with M ilton’s habitual
m ethods of research. A s I have noted above, he usually made thorough
use of one or two m agisterial works rather than citing dozens of
m ediocre studies. H e did not style him self a scholar, and in fact
ridiculed the "stuff’d margents" of those who brought scholarly
machinery into polem ics. M ilton’s "due sequence and organic unity in
82 C olda W erman. "Midrash in Paradise L o st: Capitula R abbi E lieser."
M ilton Studies 18 (1983): 145-71. See also "Milton’s U se of R abbinic
Material." M ilton Studies 21 (1985): 35-47.
83 Jason P. R osenblatt, "Milton’s Chief Rabbi," 46-47.
309
learning," as Irene Sam uel points out, required more breadth than
depth.84
In the long run, though, however much the apologists might
know about biblical or rabbinical H ebrew, they still had to defend the
style of the Scriptures in terms of G reco-R om an rhetoric, as
understood by the R enaissance. W hereas A ugustine declared that
classical rhetoric is a problem atic criterion by which to judge the
Scriptures, the seventeenth-century apologists had no choice but to
defend it on those grounds, even though all such efforts to defend the
tropes and figures of Scripture in terms of classical understandings of
elocutio m eant reading a G reco-R om an aesthetic into a largely
Sem itic text.85
In this section I have tried to show how M ilton participates in
contemporary discussions about Scriptural style. Seventeenth-century
scriptural apologists insist that the Bible is eloquent, but in order to do
so, they must redefine eloq uence. It is no longer an ornam entation by
84 Irene Samuel, "Milton on Learning and Wisdom," 711.
85 John Owen, chancellor of Oxford under Cromwell and a leading
D issenter after the R estoration, appears to reject this kind of defense in
The R eason of Faith . . . W herefore W e B elieve the Scriptures To Be
the Word of G od (London, 1677), where insists that only the
illum ination of the H oly Spirit can convince som eone of G od ’s
authorship of the Scriptures. H e rejects "the other way of perswasive
Orations, of enticing words, or A lluring Arts and E loquence, with the
like effects of humane W isdom and Skill" (56-7). Owen, however,
overturns this disclaim er elsew here by also saying that he will not
discuss scriptural style because he has already done so in his
Exercitations on the Epistle to the H ebrews (1668 or 1674).
310
m eans of tropes and figures ( elo cu tio l but a congruence of aim and
ornam ent (style). These defenses eventually help to move literary
criticism into eighteenth-century discussions of stylistic decorum and
sublimity, and also influence the m ove away from argum entation to
polite conversation noticeable in that period. M ilton participates
directly in these arguments in Paradise R egain ed . Christ’s response
about the "majestic unaffected style" of the Scriptures is by no m eans a
retreat from rhetoric and hum anism but a statem ent identifying M ilton
with the progressive side in these discussions. It rem ains now to
explore som e of the contem porary phenom ena which prom pted these
defenses, phenom ena such as N eoclassicism , R estoration "wit," and
skeptical readings of the B ible, before dem onstrating the relations
betw een these issues and Paradise R ega in ed .
IV. The W ider Context of Scriptural D efen ses
Arnold Stein points out that the topos of defending scriptural
style is as least as old as Origen, and that Christ says many "of the
fam iliar, tim e-worn things in rebuking the high claim s of G reek
literature, and quite properly, since they are going to be said for
centuries."86 But what m akes the particular m anifestation of this
86 Arnold Stein. H eroic Knowledge: An Interpretation of Paradise
R egained and Samson A gon istes (M inneapolis: University of
M innesota Press, 1957), 98. H is cite from Origen is Contra Celsum
V I.2: "Had the doctrine and the preaching consisted in the persuasive
utterance and arrangem ent of words, then faith also, like that of the
philosophers of the world in their opinions, would have been through
the wisdom of m en and not through the power of God." H e also cites
311
topos in the later seventeenth century distinctive is that it tends to be
joined with such issues as concerns over the vernacular, concerns over
Scriptural integrity, and concerns over a growing irreverence toward
religious authority as evidenced by "witty" attacks on the clergy and
even the Bible itself. Seventeenth-century English defenses of the
Scriptures are particularly nervous ones. T hese defenses also differ
from their more recent predecessors in the Ciceronian debates; stylists
of the later seventeenth century are m ore concerned with the
vernacular than with the m aintenance of "Latinity."
N eoclassical canons of style assum ed that good writing was a
matter of stylistic im itation and therefore dem anded purity of style in
a m odel. Conversely, a poor m odel would lead to stylistic
contam ination and should be avoided. This dem and for stylistic purity
inevitably led to the scrutiny of the central text of English society: the
Bible. Was its style a good m odel for im itation? If not, then one
should cease reading or hearing it. Boyle com plains that many of his
contem poraries have already m ade this decision, although he does not
identify them:
G.E. von G runebaum , "Descriptions of the Types of Eloquence,"
Chapter 15 of A Tenth Century D ocum ent of Arab Literary Theory and
Criticism (University of Chicago Press, 1950).
312
diverse witty men who freely acknow ledge the Authority of the
Scripture take exception at it’s style, and by those and their own
R eputation divert many from studying, or so much as perusing
those Sacred Writings.®7
W hile such a radical change in reading habits did not appear to trouble
som e, others feared that it would inevitably lead to atheism . This fear
produced som e of the energy with which apologists defended the
stylistic superiority of holy writ. M oreover, the rejection of the
Scriptures on stylistic grounds led these apologists to conclude that
such critics were already m otivated by atheism . Cornelius Norwood
addresses this issue explicitly. H e says in the preface to his D ivine
E loquence (1694):
no G entlem an has any reason to be afraid of losing the Elegancy
of his style, by a frequent Conversation with the holy Scripture;
which has its peculiar G races and B eauties of E loquence . . . I
know there are som e of another opinion; but then, does not their
imm orality influence their mind?®8
In som e ways, these concerns harked back to earlier arguments
about preserving correct Latinity. Izora Scott has reported the
controversies over the im itation of Cicero of the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries.89 The issue of scriptural style was occasionally
87 Som e C onsiderations Touching the Style of the H oly Scriptures
(London, 1661), 1.
88 Cornelius Norwood. D ivine E loquence (London. 1694), A3v.
89 Izora Scott. Controversies over the Im itation of Cicero in the
R enaissance (1910; repr. Davis, Calif.: H erm agoras, 1991).
313
raised during these controversies. In the Q uattrocentro, Pietro Bem bo
urged Sadoleto to refrain from reading St. Paul’s epistles on the
ground that they would contam inate his style.90 Erasmus satirizes
using the C iceronian lexicon for theological discussions:
I, a Christian, must speak to Christians about the Christian
religion. In order that I may speak fittingly, shall I im agine that
I am living in the age of Cicero and speaking in a crowded senate
in the presence of the senators on the Tarpeian Rock? ....
W hither shall our painfully precise Ciceronian turn? Shall he
use Jupiter Qptimus Maximus for the Father of our L ord? For
the Son, shall he say A p ollo or A esculapiu s?91
A t the tim e that the seventeenth-century apologists are defending
scriptural style, som e of these arguments about correct Latinity are
still being raised. Thom as D elaune and Benjam in Keach (1681)
protest that the style of the Scriptures comm ands "the veneration of all
serious men; m ore than the Elaborate flourishes and long winded
periods of Tully."92 Boyle cites the argument of Bem bo, "that Cardinal
. . . who flourished in the last Age" and adds--perhaps inaccurately--
that among the cardinal’s countrymen, "the Com plaint was ordinary,
That the R eading of the Bible untaught them the Purity of the Rom an
Language, and corrupted their Ciceronian style." H e also indicates
90 Izora Scott. Controversies over the Im itation of C icero. 23. She in
turn cites Cambridge M odern H istory, i.564.
91 Izora Scott. Controversies Over the Im itation of C icero. 62. 67.
92 Thom as D elaune and Benjamin Keach, T ropologia (London, 1681),
1 .
314
that a remark attributed to Politian is still being circulated in England,
and w ishes that the remarks of all these foreigners (i.e., Catholic
Italians) would stay abroad:
I wish these sawcy Expressions were but O utlandish, and could
not crosse those Seas that Inviron England . . . For not only ’twas
one, that I am sorry I can call our Country-man, who is recorded
to have solem nly preferr’d one of the O des of Pindarus before
all the Psalms of D avid.93
Boyle declines to identify any of these countrymen by nam e, partly it
w ould seem from gentlem anly reserve, and partly as he says because he
thinks it best to give such objections as little publicity as possible.
M ore than anything, however, Boyle and his fellow apologists
are engaged in a R estoration debate rather than a R enaissance one.
Boyle shows the distance of the Ciceronian debates from his own
defense of scriptural style. W hat he reports from Italy occurred in the
"last Age." In general, the apologists for scripture report worries
about C iceronianism as a distant concern, som etim es alm ost a quaint
one. A t issue for Boyle and his contem poraries is the style of the
vernacular, not correct Latinity. The earlier discussions concerned
recovering a fixed standard of perfection and determ ining which Latin
author was the best m odel for Latin im itation.94 The new discussions
93 R obert Bovle. Som e C onsiderations Touching the Style of the Holy
Scriptures (London. 1661), 147-48.
94 For a more com prehensive discussion of R enaissance theories of
im itation, see G ideon Burton. The R hetoric of Im itation in the
R enaissance (Ph.D. diss., University of Southern California, 1994).
315
shift the question from individual authors to entire cultures. They ask,
as it were, which ancient language and culture should guide the new
vernacular.
The continuing developm ent of English as a full-fledged
language of its own thus com plicates the entire debate. The
vernacular is a live language, not a fixed one, and the Scriptures are
now being read in this im perfect language, specifically in the
A uthorized (King Jam es) version which by now had replaced the other
English translations. For all of its p oetic power, this text is still a
translation, and translations of the Scriptures are often stylistically
im poverished by choice, the translators retaining the sense at the cost
of losing p oetic complexity, as the apologists them selves freely
adm itted. They remind their readers that the style of the original
cannot be judged by translations. A s Boyle puts it, "The Old French
R im ing Translation of Virgil, makes not the A e n e id s much more
E loquent than H opkins and Sternhold have made the Psalms."95
This contemporary factor also com plicates Christ’s response in
Paradise R egain ed . W hen M ilton’s Christ tells Satan that H ebrew is
superior to G reek, he is talking about what in the dramatic context is a
vernacular, not an ancient language. It is "our native Language" (PR
IV:333), "our Law and Story" (334), "our Psalms" (335), "our H ebrew
95 R obert Boyle. Som e Considerations Touching the Style of the Holy
Scriptures (London, 1661), 154.
316
Songs and Harps" (336) which he is extolling, not a textual language in
need of heavy glosses. There is a potential parallel betw een the
vernacular of Christ and the ’native p ip es’ of John M ilton,
Englishm an.
There are also parallels with linguistic concerns of seventeenth-
century England as a w hole, undergoing as it was a portion of the
linguistic revolution which ultim ately saw the com plete replacem ent of
Latin by the English vernacular.96 Like any society undergoing a
revolution, this one looked to its roots. One m anifestation of this
search for origins was in the search for an original m other tongue, a
langue matrice from which all other languages sprang as dialects.
Jam es Knowlson reports that the language most often claim ed to be
this primordial tongue was Hebrew. A related concern was for a
"universal character," a system of writing, either existing or
synthesized, which would allow disparate cultures to understand each
other. Again, one of the candidates for this "character" was Hebrew:
Primitive H ebrew letters . . . were supposed to constitute the
lingua hum ana. the first, truly universal language of mankind,
which was spoken before the confusion of tongues at Babel and
into which G od had, as it were, written the m eaning of his
creation.97
96 For an exam ination of the role played in this revolution by English
language texts, see Linda C. M itchell. Controversies over Grammar
(Ph.D . diss., University of Southern California, 1994).
97 James K nowlson, U niversal Language Schem es in England and
France: 1600-1800 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975), 86.
317
John W ilkins, for instance, recom m ended in Mercury, or The Secret
and Swift M essenger (1641) that the universal character should be
m odelled on H ebrew since that language had the few est radical
words.98
In the m eantim e, Latin already had the authority in linguistic
questions because it had always been the language of scholarly
instruction in England. W hen the em phasis shifted from Latin to
English, Latin retained its authority as a stylistic m odel. In M ilton’s
day, the language being taught in school was still Latin, but Latin
grammar was increasingly being introduced in the vernacular. Earlier
instruction had been entirely in Latin. One example is Lyly’s Short
Introduction of Grammar (1549), in which the only English is in the
title, while all the explanations and exam ples are in Latin. This was
acceptable in 1549, but not a century later. W hen Thom as Farnaby
tried in 1641 to introduce his Svstema grammaticum. a Latin-only
grammar, it was a com m ercial flop. W hat began selling w ell were
Latin grammars with gramm atical explanations in English. Charles
98 John W ilkins. Mercury, or the Secret and Swift M essenger (London.
1641), 15. See also W ilkins’s later discussion of establishing such a
system of writing in An Essay Towards a R eal Character, and a
Philosophical Language (London. 1668).
318
H o ole was im m ensely successful with such texts as his Latin Grammar
of 1651."
M ilton him self advocated the teaching of Latin grammar by
m eans of the vernacular, as evidenced by his own A ccid en ce
C om m enc’t Grammar (1669). This text probably represents his own
efforts at teaching his nephews and others in the 1640’s.100 H e also
argued in 1659 that the poorer English laity could be "taught once for
all" from a w ell-glossed English Bible:
To these I might add other helps, which we enjoy now, to make
more easie the attainm ent of Christian religion by the m eanest:
the entire scripture translated into English with plenty of notes;
and som where or other, I trust may be found som e w holsom
bodie of divinitie, as they call it, w ithout schoole terms and
m etaphysical notions, which have obscur’d rather then explan’d
our religion, and made it seem difficult without cause. Thus
taught once for all, and thus now and then visited and confirm ed
" For an extended discussion of the developm ent of English language
and language instruction, see Emm a Vorlat, Progress in English
Gramm ar. 4 vols. (Louvain, 1964). Vorlat also com m ents on the
im petus given by both A nglicanism and Puritanism toward the
developm ent of the English vernacular: the desire to spread knowledge
of the Bible m andated a truly national language with suppression of
dialects and a standardized orthography (1:11-12). See also Murray
Cohen, Sensible Words: Linguistic Practice in England. 1640-1785
(Baltim ore, 1977); and Vivian Salmon, The Study of Language in
Seventeenth-Century England (Am sterdam , 1979).
100 David P. French discusses its probable period of com position (and
its total lack of impact on English language pedagogy) in his
introduction to A ccidence (CPW V IIL32-36). French also discusses the
moVe from Latin to English instruction at som e length (V IIL36-78).
319
. . . they may be trusted to m eet and edifie one another whether
in church or chappel.101
M ilton had long ago decided to adopt and adorn the vernacular. In his
digression about poetry and the pulpit in R eason of Church-
G overnm ent (1642), he records his decision not only to write poetry
which would be "to G ods glory by the honour and instruction of my
country," but also to write it in English:
For which cause, and not only for that I knew it would be hard to
arrive at the second rank am ong the Latines, I apply’d my self to
that resolution which A riosto fo llo w ’d against the perswasions
of Bem bo, to fix all the industry and art I could unite to the
adorning of my native tongue (CPW 1:810-11).
A t the time he is writing these words, the replacem ent of Latin by the
vernacular is accelerating.
I have shown how defenses of scriptural style often addressed
the issue of R estoration N eoclassicism , which was a concern for the
vernacular rather than the ancient languages. It might be argued that
seventeenth-century defenses of scriptural style are prom pted by the
shift in Puritan prose style from plainness to floridity, proposed by
Richard Foster J on es.102 H arold Fisch in 1952 challenged the nature
101 C onsiderations Touching the L ikeliest M eans to R em ove H irelings
out of the Church: CPW VII:304. M ilton did insist, however, that clergy
be taught the Scripture in the original languages. CPW VII:317.
102 Richard Foster Jones, "The A ttack on Pulpit E loquence in the
Restoration: A n E pisode in the D evelop m ent of the N eo-classical
Standard for Prose." This article originally appeared in Journal and
English and G erm anic Philology 30 (19311: 188-217. R eferen ces here
are to its reprinted form in The Seventeenth Century (Stanford, 1951).
320
of this stylistic shift.103 Fisch insists that while the Puritan stylistic
habits helped shape the plain prose which was increasingly standard
after the R estoration, Jones’s theorized Puritan "floridity" itself was a
m isreading of attacks leveled on the pulpit eloquence of one party by
another, attacks which actually prove the im portance to both sides of a
plainer style. A ccording to Fisch, som e of the attacks are even
m isattributed. For instance, Jones cites John Eachard’s attacks on
licensed (i.e., A nglican) m inisters in Grounds & O ccasions of the
Contem pt of the Clergy (1671) as characteristic of Puritan preaching,
even though Eachard him self said that he had not dealt with
D issenters at all; they were already forbidden to preach and they had
already been dealt with by Sim on Patrick.104
It is possible that Jones might have understood Eachard through
the jaundiced account of Jam es A rderne, author of D irections
Concerning the M atter and Stile of Sermons (16711. Arderne
characterizes Eachard as far more concerned with D issenting sermons
than he really is:
It was when the Witty and Severe A uthor of The Contem pt of the
Clergy had laid together the most ridiculous passages of
Sermons, gathered for the m ost part, either from Non-
103 H arold Fisch, "The Puritans and the R eform of Prose Style." ELH 19
(1952): 229-48.
104 Richard Foster Jones, "The A ttack on Pulpit Eloquence," 242-43.
321
Conform ists, or D ivines of other tim es, that you desired me to
give you som e rules of Preaching.105
This is probably a reference to Eachard’s second work, Some
O bservations U pon the Answ er to an Enquiry into the Grounds &
O ccasions of the Contem pt of the Clergy (1671), and not the original
satire which focu ses on A nglican preaching.
The issue of wit, and especially the contem ptuous wit of many
who dism issed the Scriptures, is another concern addressed by the
scriptural apologists. Such "wits," according to the apologists, are
usually gentlem anly but immature young m en who consider them selves
to be more learned than they really are. Boyle reports:
I have of late Years m et with Divers such V ain Pretenders, who
blush not to Talk of R hetorick more M agisterially than A ristotle
or Tully would; and superciliously to D eride, in Com parison of
their own Writings and their’s who Write like them, not the
Bible only, but the M ost V enerated Authors of A ntiquity.106
Richard A llestree agrees with this assessm ent in The G overnm ent of
the Tongue (1674): "They want learning or industry to sound the depth
of those sacred treasures, and therefore they decry the Scripture as
m ean and poor, and to justify their own W isdom, dispute G o d ’s."107
105 Jam es Arderne. D irections Concerning the M atter and Stile of
Sermons London. 1671), 1.
106. R obert Boyle, C onsiderations Touching the Style of the H oly
Scriptures (London, 1661), 181.
107 Richard A llestree. The G overnm ent of the Tongue (Oxford. 1674),
25-26.
322
Scriptural apologists not only com plained about wit, but they
com plained that it was epidem ic. A llestree urges that lo o se talking
especially needs to be restrained in his own age, "wherein the contrary
liberty has got such a prepossession, that m en look on it as a part of
their birthright, nay, do not only let their Tongues loose, but studiously
suggest inordinances to them."108 The sam e kind of lam entation
occurs in D an iel Burgess’s F oolish Talking & Jesting D escribed and
C ondem ned (London, 1694), an earnest exhortation to avoid various
kinds of sinful speech. Burgess especially condem ns foolish jesting,
"the falling sickness of wit," which is so "universally accepted" (B2r).
In the preface to his D ivine E loq u en ce. Cornelius Norwood
actually im itates the breezy satirical style of the beaux esprits who
assume the Scriptures are not eloquent, even w hile he satirizes them:
I cannot deny, that I have a friend or two, as very B eau ’s, as any
in the Town, and they have a Right and Title to a very just
Com m endation, for the R hetorical Twirle of their long
Perriwigs behind them, or for their m ost admirable use of their
Snuff-box, which is always so obliging, as to give my Sparks a
pretence for a Sneeze, instead of an A nsw er to that Q uestion;
but then, I am very much a Stranger to all their other vertues,
and I am not Oratour enough to say any thing at first sight: and,
after all, let me tell you, Sir, ’tis no such easie m atter neither, to
make a fine Panegyrick upon N othing.109
108 Richard A llestree. The G overnm ent of the Tongue (Oxford. 1674),
B lr.
109 Cornelius Norwood. D ivine E loquence (London. 1694), A2r-v.
323
A nother m isuse was making the Scriptures a topic or source of wit.
A llestree com plains about those who use biblical phrasing in their
jests, "for there are divers who make a great noise of Wit, that woud be
very mute, if this one Topick were barred them," H e also reports that
these wits indulge in gam es of citing Bible texts and challenging their
fellow s to quote the follow ing verse.110 This innovation suggests a
game with a long pedigree. University students would "cap" verses of a
classical author such as H om er or Virgil; students had been capping
H om er for two m illenia. Such a gam e suggests the same loyalty to the
classics which led to the rejection of the Scriptures on stylistic
grounds.
This trivialization of Scripture also suggests the distance
England has travelled from the early R eform ation. A s I noted about in
chapter three, Bernard could com plain in 1607 that young wits, told
that only the m ost intelligent of them could engage in doctrinal
controversy, used to want to challenge giants like B ellarm ine.111 Now
they engaged in parlor games, using the sacred text to dem onstrate a
110 Richard A llestree. The G overnm ent of the Tongue (Oxford. 1674),
27.
111 "Young Cockerils that begin but to crow, may not set upon the great
Cockes of the gam e. There bee many N ovices who have scarce learned
the ar b.c in D ivinities, ignorant in a m aner of the com m on principles of
religion, yet in these daies wil be m edling with the chiefest
controversies: som e crowing against that Sophisticall B ellarm in e."
Richard Bernard, The Faithful Shepheard (1607), 62.
324
certain narrow com petence while disregarding the transcendent
m essage contained in the words.
The abuse of wit is one of the chief concerns of Seth W ard’s A n
A pology for the M ysteries of the G ospel (1673). This text is a defense
of those elem ents of Christianity which might appear ridiculous to
fallen humanity. H is sharpest rebukes are reserved for those whom he
says cannot discern betw een what is true and clear and what is obscure
and absurd, that is, the "wits":
This Im potency is an infirmity to which the Brisk and the
sudden, the forward and im patient, the Talkative and
disputatious, (all such as scorn the dulness of consideration, and
think them selves above the drudgery of thinking) that is to say,
the Wits and Beaux espirts are of all m en living the most
obnoxious.112
Ward argues--as do many such texts— that these so-called wits display
an actual lack of true wit; the source of their humor is "a kind of
Rustical Ignorance and want of Ingenuity" (17). Ward praises the
rhetorical savvy of the A p ostle Paul, who "well understood . . . the
Congruity and decency of speaking and w riting” (4), but he has no
patience with so-called "wits" who abuse rhetoric, as is evidenced by
his list of those liable to hold the gospel in contempt: "The Tropical
Rhetorician, and the Flanting Orator, the Jibing Satyrist, and
Scurrilous Com edian, the Sophistical Philosopher, and Everlasting
Disputant, the C onceited Scribe, and Pharisaical Opinionator" (15).
112 Seth Ward, An A pology for the M ysteries of the G ospel. Being a
Sermon Preached at W hite-H all. Feb. 16. 1672/3 (London, 1673), 15.
325
A t issue once again is decorum. The apologists are defending
the Scriptures in terms of its aims and audience. A s Richard A llestree
says:
I think I may challenge any ingenuous man, to produce any
writing of that antiquity, w hose phrase and genius is so
accom m odated to all successions of A ges. Styles and ways of
address we know grow obsolete, and are alm ost antiquated as
garments: and yet after so long a tract of time, the Scriptures
must (by considering m en) be con fess’d to speak not only
properly, but often politely and elegantly to the present A g e .113
A s far as I can tell, M ilton does not directly address atheistical wit as
an issue in the same way that he discusses the issue of scriptural style.
A search through the concordances for the term "wit" turns up a variety
of uses, but none of them indicates he considered wit to be a rhetorical
problem . For one thing, if these "wits" were politically powerful, it
would have been imprudent for the pardoned regicide to challenge
them. M oreover, if they were as m odish and unthinking as so many of
the apologists paint them, then M ilton’s native intellectual efficiency
would keep him from engaging them further. H e usually did not
attem pt to answer seriously either m ean opponents or trite questions.
Long ago he had said in his Second Prolusion: "I should in any case
shun and avoid the usual trite and hackneyed topics" (CPW 1:234).114
113 Richard A llestree. The G overnm ent of the Tongue f Oxford. 1674),
26-27.
114 There are exceptions to this tendency. C olasterion (1645), his most
scathing tract, was written in answer to a poorly educated man. Then
again, this m an’s text was the sole published response to his divorce
tracts. M ilton wanted a better antagonist than the amateur he got,
which accounts for som e of his abuse. Sonnets XI and XII report
M ilton’s frustration with the response to Tetrachordon.
326
More importantly, com plaints about the abuse of wit tend to
com e from establishm ent figures like Richard A llestree, Seth Ward,
and James Arderne. A llestree, a man of deep personal spirituality,
was nevertheless also com m itted to the dignity of the church. Seth
Ward, although he favored rendering the English church more
com prehensive by modifying the professions required from
conformists, was distinguished for his activity against D issenters.115
Arderne loyally supported the James II, so much so that he was
apparently beaten up by a mob in 1687.116 A nglicanism had shown
itself in the seventeenth century to be as least as zealous about its own
dignity as it was about the gospel. M ilton had declined to take orders
in the church and had no need to defend its dignity. H e had him self
used wit successfully against the establishm ent in Anim adversions
(1641) and A pology against a Pam phlet (1642).
But defense of ecclesiastical dignity were also voiced by figures
from the "other" established church of the Interregnum, and these
were often linked with defenses of the Scriptures as the clergy clashed
with radical sects in the 1640’s and 1650’s which did not accept the
Scripture as the sole doctrinal authority, or in som e cases as an
115 Dictionary of N ational Biography, s.v. "Ward, Seth."
116 John Mackay, "Introduction." D irections Concerning the M atter and
Stile of Sermons (1671), vi-vii.
327
authority at all. Im m anuel Bourne, for instance, published A D efen ce
of the Scriptures (1656) as a "vindication of the honour of M agistrates,
M inisters, and others according to their place and dignities" (A3v).
Bourne is concerned to shore up the authority of Scripture so that its
pronouncem ents about the ministry can be enforced against "prophane
Ranters, A theisticall men, Drunkards, G am esters, and ignorant blind
soules" (A lv ).
Thom as Edwards’s G angraena (1646), an undifferentiated
attack on anyone disagreeing with the Presbyterians, such as M ilton
him self, begins his otherwise rambling list of errors with ten regarding
the Scriptures. The first of these errors is:
That the Scriptures cannot be said to be the Word of God; there
is no Word but Christ, the Scriptures are a dead letter, and no
more to be credited then the writings of men, not divine, but
human inventions (18).
This is the sam e "shallow Edwards" of M ilton’s "On New Forces of
C onscience U nder the Long Parliament" (12) and who includes
M ilton’s first divorce tract in his list of errors.117 N evertheless, among
117 "154. That ’tis lawfull for a man to put away his wife upon
indisposition, unfitnesse or contrariety of m inde arising from a cause in
nature unchangeable; and for disproportion and deadnesse of spirit, or
som ething distasteful and averse in the im m utable bent of name; and
man in regard of the freed om e and em inencie of his creation, is a law to
him self in this matter, being head of the other sex, which was m ade for
him, neither need he hear any judge therein above him self. [Vid.
M iltons doctrine of divorce]." Thom as Edwards. Gangraena: or. a
Catalogue and Discovery of Many of the Errours. H eresies.
B lasphem ies, and Pernicious Practices of the Sectaries of This Tim e
(London, 1646), 34.
328
Edwards’s ramblings are som e telling details about m inisterial
concerns during the Interregnum, including the fear that the Bible is
being rejected not only in terms of its content but also in terms of its
style:
The holy Scriptures are by many in these tim es sleighted and
scoffed at (that grows and spread much) call’d the golden Calf,
that there are many contraditions and lies in them, that they are
no better then a Ballad, that they can make as good Scriptures
(38).
A M inister of Hartfordshire bringing a place of Scripture
against an Anabaptist, to confute him . . . the Anabaptist
confessed he could not answer it, but said, it was the weaknesse
of the A p ostle, and there he wanted the Spirit (39).
A s already noted in chapter one, the concern for a learned ministry is a
R eform ation issue reflecting the same R eform ation stress on doctrine
identified throughout the present study. The R eform ation in England
was begotten in learning, from early m eetings at Cambridge to the
later consolidations of theological giants. One of the ironies of this
learning is that it led to the rejection of such extra-Biblical traditions
as absolute clerical celibacy, a tradition which would have reduced the
cost of acquiring such learning.
This Concern for m inisterial dignity, however, is not m erely an
insular issue, but is also an issue across the Channel in France, where
the superiority of the pulpit is a topos in discussions of rhetoric,
although defenses of scriptural elocutio are usually not.118 In France,
118 E.g.. Anonym ous. Traite de l’excellence et de la pratique de la
chaire (1675): V alentin Esprit Flechier, Discours ou Ion examine si
l’eloquence de la chaire est plus difficile que celle du barreau (1712?);
G abriel G ueret, Entretiens sur 1’eloquence de la chaire et du barreau
(1666); Robert Guyart, La sainct caractere de l’eloquence sacree. vrav
329
however, the majority of French clerics and rhetoricians are Catholic
and would not lay the same stress on Scripture as the sole rule of faith
and practice. In France, as a Catholic country, the Church itself would
be the authority. Otherwise, however, the two phenom ena seem to be
instances of a comm on im pulse to defend an institution in terms of its
stylistic superiority. Thus, the issue of m inisterial dignity informs
defenses of both scripture and the established pulpit. Although
M ilton, who has chosen to stand outside of the established ministry,
does not phrase his defense of scripture in terms of it, he is concerned
in general to m aintain his authoritative m inisterial stance in other
ways (see above chapter four). In fact, Thom as Fuller’s A Com m ent
on the E leven First V erses of 4th S. M atthew (London, 1652) not only
exam ines the three different tem ptations of Christ, but contains som e
defenses of preaching and pulpit style. Even though Fuller is drawing
from the account in M atthew, and therefore reverses the order of the
contrapovson de l ’eloquence de la mode: Extraits des plus eloquents
hom m es du m onde (1638); N icolas de H auteville, L ’art de bien
discourir. ou la m ethode avsee pur inventer, former, etablir. et
m ultiplier un sollde dlscours dans la chaire et dans le barreau (1666);
Laurent Juillart, Sentim ents sur le m inistere evangelique avec des
reflexions sur le style de l’Ecriture sainte. et sur l’eloquence de la
chaire (1689); M ichel La Faucheur, L ’Orateur chretien. ou traite de
l’excellence et de la pratique de la chaire (1675); R ene Rapin,
R eflexions sur l’usage de l’eloq uence de ce tem ps en general, et celle de
la chair en particulier (1671); Jacques Testu, R eflexions chretiennes sur
les conversations du m onde. sur les predicateurs (1697).
330
last two tem ptations (the kingdoms of the world and the pinnacle of
the tem ple), there are som e striking sim ilarities betw een F uller’s text
and Paradise R egain ed . Fuller opens his commentary in heroic terms.
Christ’s tem ptations by Satan were the "most glorious Combat that
ever was fought on earth" (1). The superlative heroism is due to the
em inence of the parties ("Generals seldom fight D u els as here, the
Prince of Peace against the prince of Darkness"), the spacious arena in
which they fight (the w hole world), the infinite stakes, the length and
fierceness of the fight, and the clearness of Christ’s success (2).
Similarly, M ilton begins his short epic identifying Christ as the
"glorious Eremite" fighting in "the D esert, his V ictorious
F ield /A gain st the Spiritual Foe," "By proof th’undoubted Son of God,"
and asks the H oly Spirit for inspiration recount Christ’s "deeds/A bove
Heroic" (PR 1:8-11, 14-15).
Fuller’s commentary on the pinnacle tem ptation might throw
som e light on M ilton’s stress on "standing," and also link it to the
ministry. A t the climax of Christ’s struggle in Paradise R egain ed .
Satan transports him to the highest spire of the tem ple in Jerusalem
and tem pts him to either stand or to cast him self down so as to be
rescued by angels:
There stand, if thou wilt stand; to stand upright
W ill ask thee skill; I to thy Father’s house
Have brought thee, and highest plac’t, highest is best,
Now show thy Progeny; if not to stand,
Cast thyself down; safely if Son of God:
For it is written, H e will give command
331
Concerning thee to his A ngels, in thir hands
They shall up lift thee, lest at any time
Thou chance to dash thy foot against a stone.
(IV :551-59)
In M ilton’s source in Luke, Satan only tem pts Christ to cast him self
down. There is no m ention of standing:
And he brought him to Jerusalem , and set him on a pinnacle of
the tem ple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast
thyself down from hence: For it is written, H e shall give his
angels charge over thee, to keep thee: And in their hands they
shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a
stone. A nd Jesus answering said unto him, it is said, Thou shalt
not tem pt the Lord thy G od. And when the devil had ended all
the tem ptation, he departed from him for a season (4:9-13).
Fuller’s text in M atthew is virtually the sam e as that of Luke, but
Fuller him self adds a discussion of standing. Those who are not called
to greatness but climb up them selves are in danger on their pinnacle.
Those who are called are safe. Finally, he links this standing to his
own call to the ministry in a tim e of ecclesiastical confusion:
W hat makes Tylers, Plumbers, M asons, and Carpenters,
adventure them selves so boldly on the tops of houses? Two
things, namely, their Calling and Custom, begets their
C onfidence. If G od hath called thee and used thee in the height
of honour, he will preserve thee therein .... But, if thou invad’st
the M inisterial office, presum ing to preach, who never was sent;
look to thy self; thou canst not, without usurpation, pretend to
G od’s keeping (110).
Fuller also insists on the sufficiency of the Bible for the preacher, not
only in content, but also in style. H e im agines the elegant reader
com plaining that Christ continues to cite Scripture rather than som e
other text:
332
What, more Scripture still? Enough, and too much (will som e
carnal Palate say) of the M anna of G ods word; now a little of
the fleshpots of Mans Traditions and Inventions, were it but for
novelty and variety sake. O no: Christ still keeps him self to his
Scripture. No wise Souldier will change a tryed sword, of whose
m etal and tem per he hath had experience, yea which hath
proved successful and victorious unto him, for a new blade out
of the forge (166).
Fuller’s commentary on Christ’s tem ptation is joined, in continuous
pagination, by another text, The Just M an’s Funeral, which also extols
the value of Scripture and contains a further parallel to Paradise
R eg ain ed . In this second text, Fuller identifies the fam ously wise
Solom on as a sort of "mental traveller" because of his reading:
"Solomons observations were not all confined to his owne countrey and
kingdom; though staying at hom e in his person, his m inde travelled
into forraigne parts" (200). In the A thens tem ptation, Satan tempts
Christ in similar terms:
Be fam ous then
By wisdom; as thy Em pire must extend,
So let extend thy mind o ’er all the world,
In knowledge, all things in it com prehend.
A ll knowledge is not couch’t in M oses’ Law,
The Pentateuch or what the Prophets wrote;
The G entiles also know, and write, and teach
To admiration, led by N ature’s light.
(PR IV:221-28)
H ere Satan offers hum ane learning to supplem ent that of the Bible.
But what Fuller says is that Solom on’s wisdom could have com e
entirely from reading the Scripture:
His expression I have seen [the righteous perish and the evil
flourish], relates not onely to his ocular, but experim ental
333
discoveries; what Solom on got by the help of History, Study, and
perusall of Chronicles .... To set human writers aside, the
Scripture alone afforded him plentiful precedents herein. O pen
the Bible, and we shall finde (alm ost in the first leaf) just A b el
perishing in his righteousness, and wicked Cain prolonging his
life in his iniquity (200-201).
I do not suggest that M ilton necessarily knew of this text by Fuller, but
I am suggesting that Paradise R egained reflects issues of Scriptural
style and m inisterial practice to an extent which has not been
recognized. Fuller links this pinnacle with the pulpit; many of his
contem poraries wanted to insist on its dignity.
I propose that Paradise R egained be read as an heroic epic in
which the heroic acts are m inisterial and the heroic m eans are the
Scriptures. Satan’s last verbal tem ptation impugns both the
sufficiency and style of the Scriptures; his final physical assault
challenges Christ’s ability to keep his standing on a pinnacle. G od ’s
intention, as he tells G abriel, is to "exercise him in the
W ilderness;/T here he shall first lay down the rudim ents/O f his great
warfare" (1:156-58).
Christian warfare was particularly detailed in two passages in
the New T estam en t.119 The first, E phesians 6:11-18, describes taking
on the "whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the
119 For a fuller discussion of these passages, see my article "Christian
Knights and the R hetoric of R eligious Controversy, 1500-1800," in
Rhetoric in the Vortex of Cultural Studies, ed. Arthur W alzer
(M inneapolis, 1993), 132-34.
334
evil day, and having done all, to stand" (11). The seventeenth-century
paraphrase of this verse by Anglican leader Henry H am m ond reads:
"arm yourselves in every part, with all that the Christian faith hath
provided you with, that in time of tem ptation ye may be able to hold
out against the contrary allurem ents of those hereticks, and in
conclusion to be so far victorious, as not to have been ensnared on
either side."120
The "full armor of God" which St. Paul discusses actually refers
to the panoplia. the standard outfit of the R om an legionnaire, who was
a disciplined and professional foo t soldier fighting at state expense.
During most of the R eform ation, on the other hand, the foot soldier
was poorly equipped and disciplined, and only m em bers of the
aristocracy could afford to be w ell armed. This different
understanding of warfare can be seen in Erasm us’s Enchiridion militis
christiani. "Enchiridion" can m ean either "handbook" or "dagger," and
today we translate "miles christianus" dem ocratically, as "Christian
soldier" or "militant Christian." In the 1534 English translation,
however, the phrase is rendered "Christian knight." Erasmus, after all,
wrote this text to a worldly young noblem an whom he was hoping to
persuade to embrace a life of piety. A las, the young noblem an becam e
even more worldly, but Erasm us’s text may have helped the bulk of
120 Henry H am m ond, A Paraphrase and A nnotations U pon the New
T estam ent. 6th edn. (London, 1689), 631.
335
Christendom to see its learned m en as potential cham pions in the
verbal contests of the R eform ation and C ounter-R eform ation. In
1520, in the wake of rumors that Luther had been assassinated, the
artist Albrecht Durer wrote in his diary, "O Erasm e R oderodam e,
where wilt thou take thy stand? . . . Hark, thou Knight of C h rist. . . ride
forth at the side of Christ our Lord, protect the truth, obtain the crown
of Martyrs!"121
The elite nature of the polem ical warrior can be also be seen in
the R eform ation reading of the second scriptural passage: II
Corinthians 10:4-5. This text reads: "the w eapons of our warfare are
not carnal, but mighty through G od to the pulling down of strongholds;
casting down im aginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself
against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every
thought to the obedience of Christ." The reformers understood by the
context that this passage refers primarily to the censure of both sin and
false opinions by church leaders. M ilton reads it this way in R eason of
Church-Governm ent U rg’d Against Prelatv (1642), where he calls
them "the spiritual w eapons of holy censure, and m inisteriall warfare"
(CPW 1:848).
M ilton’s Christ is not m erely a hero in the R enaissance sense, he
is also a m inisterial hero. H e takes on the w hole armor of God to be
121 D esiderius Erasmus. Enchiridion M ilitis Christiani: A n English
V ersion, ed. A nne M. 0 ‘D onnell, Early English Text Society 282
(Oxford, 1981), xx.
336
exercised in the wilderness. H e corrects sin and comforts his
follow ers. H e casts down all the im aginations of the wickedness in
high places. H e defends the excellence of the Scriptures in the face of
the specious beauty of other texts. And having done all, he stands.
337
Epilogue
W hen M ilton’s Christ defends the B ib le’s "majestic unaffected
style . . . to all true tastes excelling," he is on the forefront of a move
which would continue past his death in 1674. Eighteenth-century
discussions of style investigate how w ell various elem ents of a p ie c e of
writing fulfill requirem ents of decorum and taste. M ilton’s com m ents
belong, even lexically, to the next century, where the issue of taste will
dom inate such works as Hugh Blair’s Lectures on R hetoric and B elles
Lettres (1783).1
M ilton is also at the end of the controversial tradition.
A ntagonistic m ethods of determ ining truth are giving way to
conversational ones, just as discussions of rhetorical elocutio are giving
way to discussions of style. In R eform ation England of the sixteenth
and early seventeenth centuries, the religious controversialist is usually
portrayed as a knight, slaying hideous dragons of false opinion or
charging the troops of error. By the eighteenth century, however, the
religious controversialist, and indeed, any controversialist whatsoever,
is most often portrayed as a boorish pedant, fresh from the university,
who does not know how to converse in polite society. The figure of the
1 Hugh Blair, Lectures on R hetoric and B elles L ettres. ed. H arold F.
Harding, 2 vols. (1783; Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,
1965).
338
knightly controversialist was abandoned for several reasons, among
them that religious discussions m oved from doctrinal to behavioral
issues and that m ethods of inquiry changed from public debates to
drawing-room conversations.2
During the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries in England,
the religious controversialist is perceived as an aristocratic warrior like
the knight, a seasoned warrior engaged in single combat over issues of
doctrine. This im age of the knightly controversialist was finally
abandoned as the topic of religious discussion changed along with the
m eans of arriving at truth. A s we move into the Enlightenm ent,
dogm atic statem ents are rejected and arguments over doctrine give way
to discussions of behavior.3 The center of religious gravity moves away
from doctrinal controversy and toward moral treatises, which are in the
final analysis directions for man in society.
2For a discussion of the possible influence of the "military revolution"
on this change, see my article "Christian Knights and the R hetoric of
R eligious Controversy, 1500-1800," 134-37.
3 For the rejection of dogm atic statem ents, see Joseph G lanvill, The
Vanity of Dogm atizing: or. C onfidence in O pinions. M anifested in a
D iscourse on the Shortness and Uncertainty of Our K nowledge, and Its
Causes: With Som e R eflection s on Peripateticism : and an Apology for
Philosophy (London, 1661). Glanvill later recast this text into the
sparer style of the Royal Society as Scepsis Scientifica: or. Confest
Ignorance, the Way to Science: in A n Essay of the Vanity of
D ogm atizing and Confident O pinion (London, 1665).
339
And man in society becom es the central issue. In eighteenth-
century texts, a controversialist on any topic is no longer a knight. In
fact, the controversialist is scarcely w elcom e in polite society. In 1738,
John C onstable writes that, "Several bring the wrangling Humour from
School-D isputes, and all they seem to have learned there, is to be of any
O pinion but that which is advanced by others."4 The learning which
once was exalted is now suspect. A ccording to the French writer
Bellegarde (1705), the best m odels for im itation are men at court, for a
head full of logical arguments is no match for knowledge of the world.
In fact, says Bellegarde, "Study begets a Crust and Scum on the mind,
and gives it a wrong turn, till the company of Persons of Breeding, purify
and reform it."5
In this social world, issues are no longer decided by controversia.
by public debate, but rather in genial conversations and drawing-room
dialogues which privilege the more worldly-wise speakers. Charles
G ild on’s C om plete Art of Poetry, for instance, makes its critical
pronouncem ents through the vehicle of five polite drawing-room
discussions in which both sexes participate. In G eorge L yttelton’s
D ialogues of the D e a d . B oileau and A lexander Pope are able to have a
genial conversation because P op e’s nasty tem per is m itigated by the
4John Constable. The Conversation of G entlem en (London, 1738), 30.
5Jean Baptiste Morvan de B ellegarde. Letters . . . Regarding the French
M anner of W riting and Expressions (London, 1705), 21-23.
340
mild air of Elysium (122).6 This "social construction of truth," as Nancy
Struever has term ed it, was typical of the eighteenth century.
The ability to engage in pleasant and informal, "polite,"
argument and in the argumentative developm ent of moral and
aesthetic judgm ent, "taste," constitutes a general receptive
com petence, an accom plishm ent in the discovery of true
propriety, "truth." R hetorical discipline is reassem bled as a new
skill which is the duty, property, and talent of a new social elite:
the faculties to be developed in education and social intercourse
enhance, give m eaning to, status and connection: taste, for
example, is a m ode of social com m unication, the hegem onous
social com petence.7
This social construction of truth also reflected standards of behavior
im ported from France, where an absolute central power had already
defeated a religiously contentious nobility.
The figure of the knightly controversialist was annihilated because an
intellectual elite no longer slew dragons of doctrinal error and controversia
was out of favor as a verbal skill. The new hero was the genial
conversationalist, not the man of war, and so closed a chapter in the history
of rhetoric. R hetoric itself m oved on just like it always m oves on, but the
forces which determ ined its direction were, as always, outside of itself.
6 G eorge Lyttelton. D ialogues of the D e a d . 4th edn. (London, 1765),
122 .
7Nancy Struever, "The Conversable World: Eighteenth-Century
Transform ations of the R elation of R hetoric and Truth," in R hetoric
and the Pursuit of Truth (Los A n geles, 1985), 80, 84.
341
Bibliography
Ad C. H erennium de ratione dicendi. Trans. Harry Caplan.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981.
Adam s, H.M. Catalogue of Books Printed in the Continent of Europe.
1501-1600 in Cambridge Libraries. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1967.
Addis, W illiam E. and Thomas Arnold. A Catholic Dictionary.
Containing Som e Account of the D octrine. D iscipline. R ites.
C erem onies. Councils, and R eligious Orders of the Catholic
Church. 4th edn. N ew York, 1884.
A dolph, Robert. The R ise of M odern Prose Style. Cambridge:
M assachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1968.
Advice to a Parson. London, 1691.
A llen, W illiam . A Practical D iscourse of H um ility. London, 1681.
A llestree, Richard. The Art of C ontentm ent. Oxford, 1675.
— • The Divine Authority and U sefu ln ess of the H oly Scripture
A sserted in a Sermon on 2 Tim othy 3.15. Oxford, 1673.
The Lively Oracles Given to Us. Or. The Christians Birth-right and
Duty, in the Custody and U se of the H oly Scripture. Oxford,
1679.
---. The G overnm ent of the Tongue, by the Author of the W hole Duty
Of M an. Oxford, 1674.
A llington, John. The Grand Conspiracy of the M em bers A gainst the
M inde. London, 1653.
Allix, Pierre. R eflexions upon the Books of the Holy Scripture to
Establish the Truth of the Christian R elig io n . London, 1688.
Althaus, Paul. The Theology of Martin Luther. Trans. R obert C.
Schultz. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.
342
A m es, W illiam . Conscience with the Power and the Cases T h ereof.
London, 1643.
The Marrow of Sacred Divinity Brought into M ethod. Drawne Out
of the H oly Scriptures, and the Interpreters Thereof, and Brought
into M ethod. London, 1642.
— . M edulla S.S. T h eologiae. ex sacris literis. earumque. interpretibus.
extracta. & m ethodice disposita. 4th edn. London, 1630.
A m orose, Thomas. "Milton the A pocalyptic Historian: Com peting
G enres in Paradise L ost. Books XI-XII." M ilton Studies
17 (1983): 141-62.
Amyraut, M oise. A D iscourse Concerning the D ivine D ream s
M entioned in Scripture. T ogether with the Marks and Characters
By Which They Might Be D istinguish’d from Vain D elu sio n s.
Trans. James Lowde. London, 1676.
A n A nswer to a L etter of Enquiry into the Grounds and O ccasions of
the Contem pt of the Clergy. London, 1671.
A rderne, James. D irections Concerning the M atter and Stile of
Sermons. W ritten to W.S. a Young D e a co n . 1671. Ed. John
Mackay. Luttrell Society Reprint no. 13. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1952.
A ristotle. The "Art" of R h etoric. Trans. John Henry F reese. London:
H einem ann, 1982.
The Art of Preaching. To a Parson, n.p., 1685.
A ssheton, W illiam . A D iscourse A gainst Blasphemy. Being a
C onference with M.S. Concerning 1. The R udeness of A theistical
Discourse. 2. The Certainty and Eternity of H ell Torm ents. 3.
The Truth and Authority of the Holy Scriptures. London, 1694.
Auerbach, Erich. M imesis: The R epresentation of R eality in W estern
L iterature. Trans. W illard R. Trask. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1953.
Augustine, A urelius (Saint). D e doctrina Christiana. Corpus
Christianorum, Series Latina, 32. Turnholt: Brepols, 1967.
343
— . On Christian D octrin e. Trans. D.W . Robertson. New York:
M acm illan, 1958.
Auksi, Peter Auksi. "Milton’s ’Sanctifi’d B itternesse’: Polem ical
Technique in the Early Prose." Texas Studies in Literature and
Language 19 (1977): 363-81.
Bacon, Francis. The Works of Francis Bacon. Baron of Verulam.
Viscount St. Alban. Lord High Chancellor of E ngland. Eds.
James Spedding, R obert L eslie Ellis, and D ouglas D en on H eath.
14 volum es, 1857-1874. New York: Garrett Press, 1968.
---. A W ise and M oderate D iscourse Concerning Church-Affaires. A s
It Was W ritten. Long Since, by the Fam ous Authour of Those
Considerations. Which Seem To H ave Som e R eference To This.
New Published for the Comm on G o o d . [London], 1641.
Baldwin, Edward Chauncey. "Milton and the Psalms." M odern
Philology 17 (1919): 457-63.
Bale, John. The Image of Both Churches A fter the M oste W onderfull
and H eavenly R evelacion of Sainct John the E vangelist. London,
1551.
Ball, Thomas. Poim enopusgos. Pastorum propugnaculum. Or the
Pulpits Patronage Against the Force of U n-O rdained U surpation.
London, 1656.
Barker, Arthur E. M ilton and the Puritan D ilem m a. 1641-1660. 1942.
London: Oxford University Press, 1955.
Barlow, Thomas. The G enuine R em ains . . . A s A lso D irections to a
Young D ivine for His Study of Divinity, and Choice of Books. &c.
L o n d o n ,1693.
Barton, John. The Art of R hetorick Concisely and Com pletely
H and led. London, 1634. E locutio (scriptural).
Basevorn, R obert of. Forma praedicandi. Trans. L eopold Krul, in
Three M edieval R hetorical A rts, ed. Jam es J. Murphy, 114-215.
Berkeley, Los A ngeles, and London: University of California
Press, 1971.
344
Baumlin, James S. John D on ne and the R hetoric of R enaissance
D iscou rse. Colum bia and London: University of M issouri Press,
1991.
Baxter, Richard. A n A pology for the N onconform ists’ M inistry.
London, 1681.
Catholick Theology: Plain. Pure. Peaceable: for Pacification of the
D ogm atical W ord-W arriours. London, 1675.
— A Christian Directory: or. A Summ of Practical T h eologie. and
Cases of C on science. London, 1673.
— . Gildas salvianus. or The R eform ed Pastor. London, 1656.
— . Of Justification: Four D isputations Clearing and A m icably
D efending the Truth. Against the U nnecessary O ppositions of
Divers Learned and R everend Brethren. London, 1658.
— . A Second Sheet for the Ministry: Justifying Our Calling Against
Quakers. Seekers, and Papists, and A ll That D eny us T o Be the
M inisters of Christ. London, 1657.
Bayley, Peter. French Pulpit Oratory. 1598-1650: A Study in Them es
and Styles, with a D escriptive C atalogue of Printed T exts.
Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
Baynes, Paul. The D io cesa n ’s Trial W herein A ll the Sinnewew of
D octor D ow nham s D efen se A re Brought into Three H eads and
Orderly D issolved . London, 1621.
B ellegarde, Jean Baptiste Morvan de. Letters . . . Regarding French
M anner of W riting and Expressions. London, 1705.
Bentley, Jerry H. H um anists and H oly Writ: New Testam ent
Scholarship in the R en aissan ce. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1983.
Bernard, Richard. Christian. See to Thy C onscience, or A Treatise of
the Nature, the Kinds and M anifold D ifferences of C on science.
London, 1631.
345
The Faithful Shepheard. or the Sheapheards Faithfulnesse.
W herein is . . . Set Forth the E xcellencie and N ecessitie of the
M inisterie. London, 1607.
The Faithful Shepheard A m ended and Enlarged: with The
Shepheards Practise in Preaching Annexed Thereunto: or. His
Maner of Feeding His F lock. London, 1609.
— . The Faithfull Shepheard: Wholv in a M anner Transposed, and
M ade Anew , and Very Much Inlarged Both with Precepts and
Exam ples, to Further Young D ivines in the Studie of D ivinitie.
With The Shepheards Practise in the E n d. London, 1621.
Berriman, John. Theos ephanerothe en Sarki. or. A Critical
D issertation U pon I Tim, iii.16. London, 1741.
Berry, Boyd M. Process of Speech: Puritan R eligious Writing and
"Paradise Lost". Baltimore: Johns H opkins University Press,
1976.
Bewick, John. A n A ntidote Against Lay Preaching, or The Preachers
P le a . London, 1642.
Bible. English. Authorized. The H oly Bible . . . The Text Conform able
to That of the Edition of 1611 Comm only Known as the
A uthorized or King Jam es’ V ersion . Philadelphia: A.J. H olm an,
n.d.
Bible. English. Bishops. The Holy B ible. Contevning the O lde
Testam ent and the N ewe. Set foorth by A u cth oritie. London,
1575.
Bible. English. G eneva. The B ible. That Is. the Holy Scriptures
Co.ntei.ned in the Old & Newe T estam ent. London, 1576.
Bible. G reek. N ew T estam ent. The G reek New Testam ent. Being the
Text Translated in the New English Bible. 1961. Ed. R .V .G .
Tasker. Oxford: Oxford University Press and Cambridge
University Press, 1964.
Bible. Latin. Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam version em . Ed. R obert
W eber. 3rd. edn. Stuttgart: D eutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983.
346
Bible. Latin. Biblia sacra, sive Testam entum vetus. ab Im. T rem ellio et
Fran. Junio ex H ebraeo Latine redditnm. et Testam enttum
novum, a Theod. B eza e G raeco in Latimim versum. London,
1640.
Bilson, Thomas. The E ffect of Certain Sermons Touching the Full
R edem ption of Mankind . . . Preached at Pauls Crosse and
Elsewhere in L ondon. London, 1599.
Blackwall, Anthony. A n Introduction to the C lassics. London, 1718.
— . The Sacred Classics D efen ded and Illustrated: or. A n Essay . . .
Towards Proving the Purity. Propriety, and True E loquence of the
Writers of the New T estam en t. London, 1725.
Blair, Hugh. Lectures on R hetoric and B elles L ettres. 1783. Ed.
Harold F. Harding. 2 v o ls. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press, 1965.
Bland, Charles. The Art of Rhetorick. as to Elocutio. Explain’d: And
Familiarly A dapted to the Capacitves of School-Bovs. by Way of
Q uestions and A nsw er. London, 1706.
Blench, J.W. Preaching in England in the Late Fifteenth and Sixteenth
C enturies. Oxford, 1964.
Blount, Charles. A Just V indication of Learning. London, 1679.
Blount, Thomas. The Academ y of E loquence Containing a Com pleat
English R hetorique. E xem plified. London, 1670.
Blount, Thom as Pope. Essays on Several Subjects. London, 1691.
Boddy, Margaret. "Milton’s Translation of Psalms 80-88." M odern
Philology 64 (1966): 1-9.
Boethius, The T heological Tractates and The C onsolation of
Philosophy. Trans. H.F. Stewart, E.K. Rand, and S.J. Tester.
1918. London: H einem ann, 1978.
Bona, G iovanni. M anuductio ad coelum: or. A G uide to Eternity:
Extracted out of the Writings of the H oly Fathers and A ntient
Philosophy. London, 1672.
347
Borem an, Robert. Triumph of Learning Over Ignorance. London,
1653.
Bosher, R obert S. The Making of the R estoration Settlem ent: The
Influence of the Laudians. 1649-1662. London, 1951.
Bosw ell, Jackson Cam pbell. M ilton’s Library: A Catalogue of the
R em ains of John M ilton’s Library and an A nnotated
R econstruction of M ilton’s Library and Ancillary R ead in gs. New
York and London: Garland, 1975.
Bourne, Im manuel. A D efen se and Justification of M inister’s
M aintenance by Tvthes. A nd of Infant-Baptism. H um ane
Learning, and the Sword of the M agistrate. London, 1659.
— . A D efen se of the Scriptures, and the H oly Spirit Speaking in T h em .
London, 1656.
Boyle, Robert. The Christian Virtuoso: Shewing: That by Being
A ddicted to Experim ental Philosophy, a Man Is A ssisted Rather
Than Indisposed. To Be a Man G ood Christian. [London, 1691].
— • Som e C onsiderations Touching the Style of the H oly Scriptures
Extracted from Several Parts of a D iscourse (Concerning Divers
Particulars B elonging to the B ib le l. London, 1661.
Boys, John. The Works of John B ovs. London, 1629.
Brightman, Thomas. A R evelation of the A pocalypse, that is. The
A pocalypse of S. John. Am sterdam , 1611.
Brilioth, Yngve. A Brief History of Preaching. Trans. Karl E. M attson.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965.
Brinsley, John. Ludus literarius. or. The Grammar S ch oole. London,
1612.
Brocard, James. The R evelation of S. John R ev eled . Trans. James
Sanford. London, 1582.
Broughton, Hugh. A R evelation of the H oly A p ocalypse. [Amsterdam],
1610.
348
Brown, Peter. A ugustine of Hippo: A Biography. Berkeley and Los
A ngeles: University of California Press, 1967.
Browne, Peter. The Procedure. Extent, and Limits of Human
U nderstanding. London, 1728.
Browne, Sir Thomas. The Major W orks. Ed. C.A. Patrides. London:
Penguin, 1977.
Bullinger, Henry. A Hundred Sermons U pon the A pocalypse of Jesu
Christ. London, 1573.
Burgess, D aniel. Foolish Talking & Jesting D escribed and C ondem ned.
London, 1694.
Burke, Kenneth. A R hetoric of M otives. 1950. Berkeley, Los A ngeles
and London: University of California Press, 1969.
Burnet, Gilbert. A D iscourse of the Pastoral C are. London, 1692.
Burton, Nicholas. Figurae grammaticae & rhetoricae Latino carmine
donatae. et exem plis tarn G raecis quam Latinis illustratae: cum
indice figurarum etym ologico. In usum regiae scholae
D u n elm en sis. London, 1702.
Burton, Robert. The Anatom y of M elancholy. Ed. Floyd D ell and Paul
Jordan-Smith. New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1929.
Bush, D ouglas. English Literature in the Earlier Seventeenth Century.
1600-1660. 2nd edn. The Oxford History of English Literature,
no. 5. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966.
— . The R enaissance and English H um anism . Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1939.
Butler, Charles. R hetoricae libri duo quroum prior de tropis et figuris.
posterior de voce & gestu praecipit. London, 1671.
Byfield, N icholas. The Marrow of the O racles of G o d . 12th edn.
London, 1647.
— . The Principles, or the Pattern of W holesom e W ords. 7th edn.
London, 1665.
349
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian R elig io n . 1559. Trans. Ford
Lewis Battles. 2 vols. The Library of Christian Classics.
Philadelphia: W estm inster Press, 1960.
Cam oens, Luis de. The Lusiad. or Portugals Historical! Poem: W ritten
in the Portingall Language by Luis de C am oens. Trans. Richard
Fanshaw (1655). Ed. Jerem iah D .M . Ford. Cambridge: Flarvard
University Press, 1940.
Campbell, G eorge. The Philosophy of R hetoric. 1776. Ed. Lloyd F.
Bitzer. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois
University Press, 1963.
Campbell, Lily B. D ivine Poetry and Dram a in Sixteenth-Centurv
E ngland. 1959. Repr. New York: Gordian Press, 1972.
The Canon Law of the Church of England. Being the R eport of the
A rchbishop’s Com m ission on Canon Law. Together with
Proposals for a R evised Body of C anons. London: Society for
Prom oting Christian K nowledge, 1947.
Caplan, Harry and Henry H. King. "Latin Tractates on Preaching: A
Book-List." Harvard T heological R eview 42 (19491: 185-206.
---. "Pulpit E loquence: A List of D octrinal and H istorical Studies in
English." Speech M onographs 22 (1955): 5-129.
Cardwell, Edward. Docum entary A nnals of the R eform ed Church of
England. Oxford, 1844.
— • Svnodalia: A C ollection of A rticles of R eligion. Canons, and
Proceedings of C onvocations. 2 vols. Oxford, 1842.
Carew, Thomas. "An E legie U pon the D eath of the D eane of Pauls, Dr.
John Donne," in Seventeenth-Centurv V erse and Prose. V ol One:
1600-1660. ed. H elen C. W hite, Ruth C. W allerstein, Ricardo
Quintana, and A.B. Chambers, 2nd edn., 328-30. New York:
M acmillan, 1971.
Carlson, Leland H. Martin M arprelate. G entlem an: M aster Job
Throckmorton Laid Open in His C olors. San Marino:
H untington Library, 1981.
350
Carr, Thomas M., Jr. D escartes and the R esilien ce of Rhetoric:
V arieties of Cartesian Rhetorical T heory. Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press, 1990.
Casaubon, Meric. The Q uestion. To W hom It B elonged A nciently to
Preach, and W hether A ll Priests Might or Did: D iscussed Out of
Antiquity: A s A lso. What Preaching Is. Properly. London, 1663.
Caussin, N icholas. The H oly Court. Trans. Sir T.H. & O thers. London,
1650.
Chalmers, A lexander. The G eneral Biographical D ictionary. London,
1814.
Chappell, W illiam. M ethodus concionandi. London, 1648.
— . The Preacher, or The Art and M ethod of Preaching: Shewing the
M ost A m ple D irections . . . for Invention. M ethod. E xpression.
London, 1656.
The U se of H oly Scripture Gravely and M ethodically D iscoursed.
London, 1653.
Charland, Th.-M. Artes praedicandi: contributions a l’histoire de la
rhetorique au moven age. Publications de l’lnstitut d’Etudes
M edievales d’Ottowa, no. 7. Paris: 1936.
Charles I. Instructions D irected from the Kings M ost Excellent
M aiestie. U nto A ll the Bishops of the K ingdom e. London, 1626.
— . A Proclam ation for the Establishm ent of the Peace and Q uiet of the
Church of England. London, 1626.
Charron, Pierre. Of W isdom . 1601. 6th edn. London, 1651.
Chew, Audrey. "Joseph H all and John Milton." ELH 17 (1950): 274-
295.
Christopher, G eorgia B. M ilton and the Science of the Saints.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982.
Cicero. Brutus. Trans. G.L. H endrickson. London: H einem ann, 1971.
351
— . D e Inventione. D e Optim o G enere Oratorum. T op ica. Trans.
H.M. H ubbell. London: H einem ann, 1949.
---• D e Q fficiis. Trans, by John Brinsley as The First Book of T ullies
O ffices Translated Gram matically and A lso According to the
Propriety of Our English Tongue: For the More Speedy and
Certain Attaining of the Singular Learning Contained in the
Same, to Further to a Pure Latin Stile, and to Express the Mind
M ore Easily. Both in English & L atin. [London?], 1616.
— . D e Q fficiis. Trans, by "T.C." as Tullv’s Three Books of O ffices, in
English. With N otes Explaining the M ethod and M eaning of the
A uthor. London, 1699.
. D e Q fficiis. Trans, by N icholas Grimald as Marcus Tullius C icero’s
Three B ookes of D uties to Marcus his Sonne. [London], 1583.
— . D e Q fficiis. Trans, by Ro. L ’Estrange as Tullys O ffices. London,
1680.
— . D e Q fficiis. Trans. W alter M iller. London: H einem ann, 1921.
— . D e Q fficiis. Trans, by Robert Whvtvnton as The Thre B ookes of
Tullius Qffvce Bothe in Latin Tongue and E nglysshe. [London?],
1535.
— . D e Q ratore. Trans, by J.S. W atson as Cicero on Oratory and
O rators. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1970.
— . O rator. Trans. H.M. H ubbell. London: H einem ann, 1971.
Clark, D onald Lem en. John M ilton at St. Paul’s School: A Study of
A ncient R hetoric in English R enaissance E ducation. N ew York:
Colum bia University Press, 1948.
— . "John M ilton and W illiam Chappell." H untington Library Quarterly
18 (1955): 329-50.
Cochrane, Charles Norris. Christianity and Classical Culture: A Study
of Thought and A ction from Augustus to A u gustin e. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1940.
Cohen, Murray. Sensible Words: Linguistic Practice in England. 1640-
1785. Baltim ore: Johns H opkins University Press, 1977.
352
C ollette, Carolyn P. "Milton’s Psalm Translations: Petition and
Praise." English Literary R enaissance 2 (1972); 243-59.
Collier, Thomas. The Pulpit-Guard R outed in Its Twenty Strongholds.
London, 1651.
Collinges, John. R esponsoria ad erratica pastoris. London, 1652.
V indiciae m inisterii evangeliei. London, 1651.
— . V indiciae m inisterii evangeliei revindicatae. London, 1658.
Collins, Anthony. A D iscourse Concerning R idicule and Irony in
W riting. London, 1729.
Conley, Thom as M. R hetoric in the European T radition. New York
and London: Longman, 1990.
Connors, Joseph M. "Homiletic Theory in the Late Sixteenth Century."
The Am erican E cclesiastical Review 138 (1958): 316-32.
— . "Saint Charles B orrom eo in H om iletic Tradition." The A m erican
E cclesiastical R eview 138 (1958): 9-23.
Constable, John. The Conversation of G en tlem en . London, 1738.
---. R eflections U pon Accuracy of Style. London, 1734.
Cooper, Charles Henry. A nnals of Cam bridge. 5 vols. Cambridge,
1842-52, 1908.
Cope, Jackson I. The M etaphoric Structure of "Paradise Lost". 1962.
Repr. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 1979.
— . "Seventeenth-Century Quaker Style," in Seventeenth-Centurv
Prose: M odern Essays in Criticism . Ed. Stanley E. Fish, 200-235.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1971.
Corns, Thom as N. The D evelop m ent of M ilton’s Prose Style. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1982.
M ilton’s L anguage. London: Blackwell, 1990.
353
"Milton’s Quest for Respectability." M odern Language Review 77
(1982): 769-79.
— , ed. The Literature of Controversy: Polem ical Strategy from M ilton
to Junius. London: Frank Cass, 1987.
Cotgrave, John. Wits Interpreter. The English Parnassus. Or. A Sure
Guide to Those A dm irable A ccom plishm ents That C om pleat Our
English Genrv. in the M ost A cceptable Q ualifications of
D iscourse, or W riting. London, 1655.
Cowper, W illiam. Pathmos: or. a Commentary on the R evelation of
Saint John. London, 1619.
Croft, H erbert. The Naked Truth. Or. The True State of the Primitive
Church. London, 1675.
Cross, W alter. The Taghmical Art: or. The Art of Expounding
Scripture by the Points. Usually Called A ccents. But Are Really
Tactical: Gram matical. Logical and Rhetorical Instruem ents of
Interpretation. London, 1698.
Curtius, Ernst Robert. European Literature and the Latin M iddle
A g e s. Trans. W illard R. Trask. Princeton University Press, 1953.
D ane, Joseph A. The Critical M ythology of Irony. Athens: University
of G eorgia Press, 1991.
— . "The D efen se of the Incom petent Reader." Comparative Literature
38 (1986): 53-72.
— -. "Inquisitorial H erm eneutics and the M anual of Bernard Gui."
TENSO: Bulletin of the Societe G ullhem IX . 4 (1989): 59-74.
D ane, Nathan. "Milton’s Callimachus." M odern Language N otes 16
(1941): 278-9.
D aneau, Lambert. The Judgem ent of the R everend and Godly Lerned
Man. M. Lambert D anaeus. Touching Certaine Points Now in
Controversie. Contained in His Preface B efore His Commentary
U pon the First Epistle to T im oth ie. Edinburgh, 1590 [?].
Darbishire, H elen, ed. The Early Lives of M ilton. London: Constable,
1932.
354
Davidson, Edward H. ’’’G od ’s W ell-Trodden F oot-P aths’: Puritan
Preaching and Sermon Form." Texas Studies in Literature and
Language 25 (1983): 503-527.
Davies, Godfrey. "Milton in 1660." H untington Library Quarterly 18
(1955): 351-63.
Davies, H orton. Like A ngels from a Cloud: The English M etaphysical
Preachers. 1588-1645. San Marino: H untington Library, 1986.
Davis, W alter R. "The Languages of A ccom m odation and the Styles of
Paradise L ost." M ilton Studies 18 (1983): 103-127.
D elaune, Thomas and Benjam in Keach. Tropologia: A Key to Open
Scripture-M etaphors. W herein the M ost Significant Tropes, (as
M etaphors. &c.) and Express Sim ilitudes. R especting the Father.
Son & H oly Spirit, as A lso Such as R espect the Sacred Word of
God. Are O pened and Parallel-wise A pplied. Together with the
Disparities: From W hich Practical Inferences Are D educed, for
Edification of the R ead er. London, 1681.
D ent, Arthur. The Ruine of R om e. Or. A n Exposition U pon the W hole
R evelation . London, 1607.
Dickens, A .G . The English R eform ation. 1964. New York: Schocken,
1978.
Dictionary of N ational Biography. Ed. L eslie Stephens. 63 vols.
London, 1885-1900.
Discovery of 29. Sects H ere in London. A ll of W hich. Except the First.
Are Most D evilish and D am n able. London, 1641.
D onne, John. The Com plete Poetry of John D o n n e . Ed. John T.
Shawcross. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor, 1967.
— . D o n n e’s Prebend Serm ons. Ed. Janel M. M ueller. Cambridge,
M assachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1971.
---. The Sermons of John D o n n e . Ed. Evelyn M. Simpson and G eorge
R. Potter. 10 vols. Berkeley and Los A ngeles: University of
California Press, 1953-62.
355
Dow nam e, John. The Christian Warfare. Against the D evill. World and
Flesh. W herein Is D escribed Their Nature, the M aner of Their
Fight and M eane to Qbtaine V ictorve. London, 1634.
— . A Guide to G odlvnesse. or a Treatise of a Christian L ife. London,
1622.
---. The Summe of Sacred Divinity First Briefly and M ethodically
Propounded: And Then M ore Largely and Cleerelv H andled and
E xplaned. London, [1628?].
Dugard, W illiam. R hetorices elem enta. questionihus et responsionibus
explieata: quae ita formantur. ut questionibus prorsus omissus vel
neglectis. responsiones solum m odo integram rhetorices
institutionem Tvronibus exhibeant. London, 1688.
D u Pin, Louis E llies. A C om pleat History of Canons and W riters of the
Books of the Old and N ew Testam ent, by Way of Dissertation:
with U seful Remarks on That Subject. London, 1699.
— A New Ecclesiastical History of the Seventeenth Century. London,
1725.
---- A N ew Ecclesiastical History of the Sixteenth Century. Containing
an Impartial A ccount of the R eform ation of R eligion, and Other
E cclesiastical Affairs: Especially the R ise and Progress of the
D octrines of Luther. Calvin. Zwinglius. &c. Together with the
Lives and Writings of the E cclesiastical Authors. W ho Flourished
in That T im e. 2 vols. London, 1706-10
Durham, James. A Com m entarie U pon the Book of the R evelation .
London, 1658.
Eachard, John. Grounds & O ccasions of the Contem pt of the Clergy
and R eligion Enquired In to. London, 1670.
— . Som e Observations U pon the Answ er to an Enquiry into the
Grounds & O ccasions of the Contem pt of the Clergy. London,
1671.
Edwards, David L. Christian England (V olum e Twol: From the
R eform ation to the E ighteenth Century. London: Collins, 1983.
356
Edwards, Thomas. Gangraena: or. a Catalogue and Discovery of Many
of the Errours. H eresies. B lasphem ies, and Pernicious Practices
of the Sectaries of This T im e. London, 1646.
Egan, James. The Inward Teacher: M ilton’s R hetoric of Christian
Liberty. V ol. 2 of Seventeenth-Century News Editions and
Studies. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1980.
— . "Milton and the M arprelate Tradition." M ilton Studies 8 (1975):
103-121.
Elliott, Emory. "Milton’s Biblical Style in Paradise R egain ed ." M ilton
Studies 6 119741: 227-41.
Em erson, Everett H. "A N ote on M ilton’s Early Puritanism," in Essays
in H onor of Esm ond Linworth M arilla. eds. Thom as Austin Kirby
and W illiam John Olive, 127-34. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State
University Press, 1970.
Em erson, Ralph W aldo. Ralph W aldo Emerson: Essays and L ectures.
Ed. Joel Porte. N ew York: Library of A m erica, 1983.
Engelhardt, G.J. "Medieval V estiges in the R hetoric of Erasmus."
PMLA 63 (1948): 739-44.
Entzm inger, R obert L. D ivine Word: M ilton and the R edem ption of
L anguage. Pittsburgh: D uquesne University Press, 1985.
Erasmus, D esiderius. E cclesiastae. sive de ratione concionandi libri
quatuor. 1535. Ed. F.A. K lein. Leipzig, 1820.
— . Enchiridion M ilitis Christiani: A n English V ersion . Ed. Anne M.
0 ‘D onnell. Early English Text Society 282. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1981.
Esprit, Jacques. L a fa u ssete des vertues hum aines. Am sterdam , 1709.
Fallon, R obert Thom as. Captain or Colonel: The Soldier in M ilton’s
Life and A rt. Columbia: University of M issouri Press, 1984.
Fell, Philip. Lex T alion is. London, 1674.
357
F enelon, Frangois de Salignac de la M otte. D ialogues sur l’eloquence
en general, et sur celle de la chair en particulier. Am sterdam ,
1718.
R eflections U pon Learning. Trans. O zell. London, 1718.
---. R eflexions sur la rhetorique et sur la p oetiq u e. Am sterdam , 1730.
Ferguson, Robert. The Interest of R eason in R eligion, with the Import
and U se of Scripture-M etaphors: and the Nature of the U nion
Betwixt Christ and Believers (with R eflections on Several Late
Writings. Especially Mr. Sherlocks D iscourse Concerning the
K nowledg of Jesus Christ. & c.l M odestly Enquired Into and
Stated. London, 1675.
Ferriby, John. The Lawfull Preacher: Or. A Short D iscourse Shewing.
That They Only Ought to Preach W ho Are Ordained M inisters.
London, 1652.
Fife, R obert H erndon. The R evolt of Martin Luther. 1957. N ew York:
Colum bia University Press, 1968.
First and Second Booke of D iscipline, as It Was Formerly Set Forth in
Scotland by Publicke A uthoritie. A nno 1560. London, 1641.
Fisch, Harold. Jerusalem and A lbion: The H ebraic Factor in
Seventeenth-Centurv L iterature. New York: Schocken, 1964.
— . "The Puritans and the R eform of Prose Style." ELH 19 (1952): 229-
48.
Fish, Stanley Eugene. Self-Consum ing Artifacts: The Experience of
Seventeenth-Centurv L iterature. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1972.
---. Surprised by Sin: The R eader in "Paradise Lost". 1967. Berkeley,
Los A n geles and London: University of California Press, 1971.
Fitter, Christopher. " ’Native Soil’: The R hetoric of Exile Lam ent and
Exile C onsolation in Paradise L ost." M ilton Studies 20 (1984):
147-62.
Fixler, M ichael. "Plato’s Four Furors and the R eal Structure of
Paradise L ost." PM LA 92 (1977): 952-62.
358
Flechier, V alentin Esprit. Oeuvres m e le e s. Paris, 1712.
Fletcher, Harris Francis. The Intellectual D evelopm ent of John
M ilton. 2 vols. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1956-61.
— . M ilton’s Rabbinical R eadings. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 1930.
Foppen, Jean-Frangois. B ibliotheca Belgica sive virorum in B elgio vita.
scritisque illustrium catalogus librorumque nom enclatura
continens scriptores a clariss. viris. 2 vols. Brussels, 1789.
Forbes, Patrick. A n Learned Com m entarie U pon the R evelation of
Saint John. M iddleburg, 1614.
Forsyth, N eil. "Having D on e A ll to Stand: Biblical and Classical
A llusion in Paradise R egain ed ." M ilton Studies 21 (1985): 199-
214.
Fraunce, Abraham. The Arcadian Rhetorike: or. The Praecepts of
R hetorike M ade Plaine by Exam ples. London, 1588.
Frei, Hans W. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study of Eighteenth
and N ineteenth Century H erm en eu tics. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1974.
French, J. M ilton, ed. The Life R ecords of John M ilton. 5 vols. 1949.
New York: Gordian Press, 1966.
Fuller, Thomas. A b el Redevivus: or the D ead Y et Speaking. The Lives
and D eath of the M odern D ivin es. 1651. Ed. Wm. N ichols. 2
vols. London, 1867.
---. The Church History of Britain: from the Birth of Jesus Christ U ntil
the Year M D C X V I I L London, 1655.
---. A Com m ent on the E leven First Verses of the Fourth Chapter of
S. M atthew’s G ospel. Concerning Christs Tem ptations.
D elivered in XII. Serm ons. London, 1652.
— . The Holy [and Profane] State. Cambridge, 1642.
359
— . Thom as Fuller. Joseph’s Party-Coloured Coat. Containing a
Com m ent on Part of the II. Chapter of the I. Epistles of S. Paul to
the Corinthians (1640), in The C ollected Sermons of Thomas
Fuller. P .P . 1631-1659. ed. John Eglington Bailey and W illiam
E.A. Axon. 2 vols. London, 1891.
Fumaroli, Marc. L ’A ge de l’eloquence: Rhetorique et «res literaria»
de la R enaissance au seuil de 1’epoque classique. Geneva: P roz,
1980.
Gallagher, Lowell. M edusa’s Gaze: Casuistry and C onscience in the
R en aissan ce. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991.
Gardiner, Samuel. M oses and A aron Brethen. or. The E xcellencie.
N ecessity. Consistencie. and U sefu ln esse of Magistracy and
Ministry under the G osp el. London, 1653.
Gardiner, Samuel R. History of the G reat Civil W ar. 4 vols. London,
1893.
Garrett, Cynthia. "The R hetoric of Supplication: Prayer Theory in
Seventeenth-Century England." R enaissance Quarterly 46
(1993): 328-52.
G ee, Henry and W illiam John Hardy. P ocu m en ts Illustrative of English
Church H istory. London, 1896.
G ell, Robert. A n Essay Toward the A m endm ent of the Last English
Translation of the B ib le. London, 1659.
Gerard, Pierre. A Preparation for the M ost H olie M inisterie. Trans.
N icholas Becket. London, 1598.
Gery, Thomas. The Fort-Roval of Christianity P efen d ed . Or. A
P em onstration of the Pivinitv of Scripture, by Way of Excellency
Called the B ib le. London, 1657.
G ilbert, N eal W. R enaissance Concepts of M ethod. New York:
Colum bia University Press, 1960.
G ildon, Charles. The Com plete Art of Poetry. London, 1718.
— . The P e is t’s Manual: or. A R ational Enquiry into the Christian
R elig ion . London, 1705.
360
Glanvill, Joseph. An Essay Concerning Preaching: W ritten for the
D irection of a Young Divine: and U seful A lso for the P eople, in
Order to Profitable H earing. London, 1678.
— . A Seasonable D efen se of Preaching and the Plain Way of It.
London, 1678.
— . Seasonable R eflections and D iscourses in Order to the Conviction.
& Cure of the Scoffing. & Infidelity of a D egenerate A g e .
London, 1676.
---. Scepsis Scientifica: or. Contest Ignorance, the Way to Science: in
A n Essay of the Vanity of D ogm atizing and Confident O pinion.
London, 1665.
---- The Vanity of Dogm atizing: or. C onfidence in Opinions.
M anifested in a D iscourse on the Shortness and Uncertainty of
Our K nowledge, and Its Causes: With Some R eflections on
Peripateticism : and an A pology for Philosophy. London, 1661.
Gother, John. G ood A dvice to the Pulpits. D eliver’d in a Few Cautions
for the K eeping U p the R eputation of T hose Chairs, and
Preserving the N ation in P ea ce. London, 1687.
— • Pulpit-Savings. or the Character of the Pulpit-Papist Exam ined.
London, 1688.
Granger, Thomas. The A pplication of Scripture: or. The M anner How
to U se the Word to M ost Edifying. London, 1616.
— . Syntagma logicum . . . for the U se of D ivines in the Practice of
Preaching. London, 1620.
Gray, Hanna H. "Renaissance Humanism: The Pursuit of Eloquence."
Journal of the History of Ideas 24 (1963): 497-514.
G reen, Lawrence D. "Aristotle’s R hetoric and the Renaissance Views
of the Emotions," in R enaissance R h etoric, ed. Peter Mack, 1-26.
New York: St. M artin’s, 1994.
— , ed. and trans. John R ainolds’s Oxford Lectures on A ristotle’s
"Rhetoric". Newark: University of Delaw are Press, 1986.
361
"Modes of Perception in the Mirror for M agistrates." H untington
Librafv Quarterly 44 (1981): 117-33.
Gregory, E.R "Three M uses and a Poet: A Perspective on M ilton’s Epic
Thought." M ilton Studies 10 (1977): 35-64.
G rose, Christopher. "The Lydian Airs of L ’A llegro and II P en seroso."
JGEP: Journal of English and Germ anic Philology 38 (1984):
183-99.
M ilton and the Sense of Tradition. New Haven: Y ale University
Press, 1988.
---. M ilton’s Epic Process: "Paradise Lost" and Its M iltonic
Background. New Haven: Y ale University Press, 1973.
---. "’U nw eapon’d Creature in the W ord’: A R evision of M ilton’s Letter
to a Friend." English Language N otes 21 (1983): 29-34.
Gyffard, G eorge. Sermons U pon the W hole Booke of the R evelation .
London, 1596.
H ales, John. The G olden R em ains of the Ever M em orable Mr. John
H ales of Eton C ollege &c. 1659. London, 1688.
— . Several Tracts by the Ever-M em orable Mr. John H ales of Eaton-
C ollege, &c. [London?], 1676.
— . The Way Towards the Finding of a D ecision of the Chiefe
Controversie Now D ebated Concerning Church G overnm ent.
London, 1641.
Hall, Basil. "The Early R ise and Gradual D ecline of Lutheranism in
England (1520-1600),." in R eform and Reform ation: England
and the Continent c. 1500 - c. 1750. Studies in Church History:
Subsidia, no. 2, 103-131. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1979.
H all, J.R. "Incitement to V iolence? English Divines on the Them e of
War." In Florilegium H istoriale: Essays Presented to W allace K.
Ferguson, eds. J.G. Rowe and W .H. Stockdale, 368-399.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971.
H all, Joseph. A D efen ce of the H um ble R em onstrance. London, 1641.
362
A Short Answer to the T edious V indication of Sm ectvmnuus.
London, 1641.
A n Hum ble Rem onstrance to the H igh Court of Parliament, by a
Dutifull Sonne of the Church. London, 1640.
— . Episcopacie by D ivine Right. A sserted by Jos. Hall. B. of E xon.
London, 1640.
— Works of the Right R everend Joseph H ail. P .P . Ed. Philip Wynter.
10 vols. Oxford, 1863. Repr. New York: AM S, 1969.
Hall, Thomas. A n A p ologie for the Ministry, and Its M aintenance:
W herein Is Set Forth the N ecessity. Dignity, and Efficacy of a
G ospel-M inistrv. London, 1660.
— . A Practical and Polem ical Commentary or. Exposition upon the
Third and Fourth Chapters of the Latter Epistle of Saint Paul to
Tim othy. London, 1658.
---. The Pulpit Guarded with X X Argum ents Proving the Unlawfulness.
Sinfulness and Danger of Suffering Private Persons to Take U pon
Them publike Preaching, and Expounding the Scripture without a
C all. 3rd edn. London, 1651.
---. V indiciae literarum. The Schools Guarded: or. The Excellency and
U sefu ln esse of H um ane Learning in Subordination to Divinity,
and Preparation to the Ministry: A s A lso R ules for the
Expounding of the Holy Scriptures: With a Synopsis of the M ost
M aterial! Tropes and Figures Contained in the Sacred Scriptures.
W hereunto Is A dded. An Exam ination of John W ebsters D elusive
Exam en of A cad em ies. London, 1655.
Haller, W illiam. Liberty and R eform ation in the Puritan R eform ation.
New York: Colum bia University Press, 1955.
— . The R ise of Puritanism. Or. The Way to the New Jerusalem A s Set
Forth in Pulpit and Press from Thomas Cartwright to John
Lilburne and John M ilton. 1570-1643. New York: Colum bia
University Press, 1938.
H am ilton, K.G. The Two Harm onies: Poetry and Prose in the
Seventeenth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.
363
H am mond, Henry. A Paraphrase and A nnotations U pon the New
T estam ent. 6th edn. London, 1689.
Hanford, James Holly. "The D ate of M ilton’s D e Doctrina Christiana."
Studies in Philology 17 (19201: 309-319.
Hardwick, Charles. A History of the A rticles of Religion: To Which Is
Added A Series of D ocum ents, from A .D . 1536 to A .D . 1615:
Together With Illustrations from Contemporary Sources.
London, 1888.
H are, Francis. The D ifficulties and D scouragem ents W hich A ttend the
Study of the Scriptures in the Way of Private Judgm ent. London,
1716.
Harnak, Adolph. History of D o gm a. Trans. N eil Buchanan. 7 vols.
New York: R ussell and R ussell, 1958.
H em m ingsen, N iels. 1555. The Preacher. Trans. John H orsfal. 1574.
Ed. R.C. A lston. Scolar Press facsim ile no. 325, M enston: Scolar
Press, 1972.
H epinus, Joannes. D e sacris concionibus formandis com pendiaria
form ula. In R euchlin, D e arte concionandi form ulae. London,
1570.
Herbert, G eorge. A Priest to the T em ple. Or. the Country Parson His
Character, and R ule of H oly L ife. London, 1652.
H erm ogenes. On Types of Style. Trans. Cecil W. W ooten. Chapel Hill
and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1987.
Herr, A lan Fager. The Elizabethan Sermon: A Survey and a
Bibliography. New York: Octagon, 1969.
H ieron, Samuel. W orks. London, 1635[?].
H ill, Christopher. G od’s Englishman: Oliver Cromwell and the English
R evolution. 1970. Repr. London: Pelican, 1972.
---. M ilton and the English R evolution. 1977. Repr. New York:
Viking, 1978.
364
Puritanism and Revolution: Studies in the English R evolution of
the Seventeenth Century. 1958. Repr. New York: Schocken,
1964.
H ill, John Spencer. "Poet-Priest: V ocational T ension in M ilton’s Early
Developm ent." M ilton Studies 8 (1975): 41-69.
H olland, H ezekiah. A n Exposition or. a Short but Full. Plaine. and
Perfect E pitom e of the M ost Choice Com m entaries U pon the
R evelation of Saint John. London, 1650.
Honeygosky, Stephen R. M ilton’s H ouse of God: The Invisible and
V isible Church. Columbia: University of M issouri Press, 1993.
H ooker, Richard. Of the Laws of E cclesiastical Polity. The Folger
Library Edition of the Works of Richard H ooker. Ed. W. Speed
Hill. 4 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 1977.
H orace. The Art of Poetry. Trans. D .A . Russell. In Classical Literary
Criticism, ed. D.A . Russel and M. W interbottom , 98-110. Oxford
and New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Hoskins, John. D irections for Speech and Style. Ed. Hoyt E. Hudson.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1935.
H ow ell, W.S. Eighteenth Century British Logic and R hetoric.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971.
— . Logic and Rhetoric in England. 1500-1700. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1956.
Hughes, Merritt Y. "Beyond Disobedience," in Approaches to "Paradise
L ost." ed. C.A. Patrides. 181-98. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press: 1968.
Hunter, W illiam B. "The D ouble Set of Tem ptations in Paradise
R egain ed ." M ilton Studies 14 (1980): 183-93.
— . "Milton Translates the Psalms." Philological Quarterly 40 (19611:
485-94.
— . "The Provenance of the Christian Doctrine: A ddenda from the
Bishop of Salisbury." SEL: Studies in English Literature. 1500-
1900 33 (1993): 191-207.
365
Hunter, W illiam B., Barbara Lewalski and John T. Shawcross. "The
Provenance of the Christian D octrin e." SEL: Studies in English
Literature. 1500-1900 32 (1992): 129-66.
Hunter, W [illiam] B., C.A. Patrides, and J.H. Adam son. Bright
Essence: Studies in M ilton’s T heology. Salt Lake City:
University of U tah Press, 1973.
Huntley, Frank Livingstone. Bishop Joseph H all and Protestant
M editation in Seventeenth-Centurv England: A Study, with the
Texts of "The Art of D ivine Meditation" (16061 and "Occasional
Meditations" (16331. Bingham pton, N.Y.: M edieval and
R enaissance Texts and Studies, 1981.
Bishop Joseph H all. 1574-1656: A Biographical and Critical Study.
Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1979.
Huntley, John F. "Images of P oet and Poetry in M ilton’s The R eason of
Church-Governm ent” in Lieb, M ichael and John T. Shawcross,
eds. A chievem ents of the Left Hand: Essays on the Prose Style of
John M ilton. 83-120. Amherst: University of M assachusetts
Press, 1974.
Hyperius, Andreas Gerardus. D e form andis concionibus sacris. seu de
interpretatione scripturarum populari. 1553. Marburg, 1562.
— . Of Framing of D ivine Sermons, or Popular Interpretation of the
Scriptures. Trans. John Ludham. [London?], 1577.
Ide, Richard S. "On the U ses of Elizabethan Drama: The R evaluation
of Epic in Paradise L ost." M ilton Studies 17 (1983): 121-140.
Ingram, W illiam and K athleen Swaim. A Concordance to M ilton’s
English Poetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
Iserloh, Erwin, Joseph G lazik and Hubert Jeden, eds. R eform ation and
Counter R eform ation. V ol. 5 of H istory of the Church [Trans, of
Reform ation. K atholische R eform und G egenreform ation. vol. 4
of Handbuch der K irchengeschichte. 2nd edn. (Freiburg, 1967)].
New York: Seabury Press, 1980.
Jacobus, Lee A. "Milton Metaphrast: Logic and R hetoric in Psalm I."
Milton Studies 23 (1987): 199-232.
366
James I. The Kings M ajesties Speech. A s It Was D elivered by him in the
Upper H ouse of the P a rlia m en t. . . the 19th day of March 1603.
London, 1604.
— . [Proclamation G iven at O telands, July 15, 1604]. London, 1604.
Jarry, L ’Abbe du. M andem ens et lettres pastorales de Mr Flechier.
eveque de N im es: avec son oraison funebre. Paris, 1712.
Jensen, D e Lamar. R enaissance Europe: A ge of Reform and
R evolution. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. H eath, 1981.
Johnson, Samuel. Sam uel Johnson. Ed. D onald G reene. The Oxford
Authors. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1984.
Jones, John. Bishop Hall. His Life and Times: or. M emoirs of the Life.
Writings, and Sufferings, of the Right Rev. Joseph Hall. P .P ..
Successively Bishop of Exeter and Norwich: with a V iew of the
Times in Which H e Lived: and an Appendix. Containing Som e of
His Unpublished Writings. His Funeral Sermon. &c. London,
1826.
Jones, Richard Foster. The Seventeenth Century. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1951.
Jordan, W.K. The D evelopm ent of R eligious T oleration in E ngland. 2
vols. 1936. Repr. G loucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1965.
Joseph, Miriam. Shakespeare’s U se of the Arts of L anguage. New
York: Colum bia University Press, 1947.
Keach, Benjamin. Troposchem atalogia: Tropes and Figures: or. A
Treatise of the M etaphors. A llegories, and Express Sim ilititudes.
&c. Contained in the Bible of the Old and New Testam ent. To
Which is Prefixed. Divers Argum ents to Prove the Divine
Authority of the H oly Scriptures .... Philologia. The Second
Part. W herein the Schem es, or Figures in Scriptures. Are
R educed under Their Proper H eads, with a Brief Explication of
E ach. London, 1682.
Kelly, Maurice. This G reat Argument: a Study of M ilton’s "De
Doctrina Christiana" as a G loss upon "Paradise Lost". 1941.
Repr. G loucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1962.
367
Kemp, Anthony. The Estrangem ent of the Past: A Study in the Origins
of M odern H istorical C onsciousness. New York and Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1991.
Kennedy, G eorge. Classical R hetoric and Its Christian and Secular
Tradition from A ncient to M odern T im es. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1980.
---. G reek R hetoric U nder Christian Em perors. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1983.
Kenyon, J.P. Stuart England. 2nd edn. The Pelican History of England,
no. 6. London: Penguin, 1985.
King, John N. English R eform ation Literature: The Tudor Origins of
the Protestant Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1982.
Kinloch, T.F. The Life and Works of Joseph Hall. 1574-1656. London:
Staples Press, 1951.
Kirkconnell, W atson. The C elestial Cycle: The Them e of "Paradise
Lost" in W orld Literature with Translations of the Major
A n alogu es. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1952.
Kishlansky, Mark A. The R ise of the N ew M odel Arm y. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1979.
Kleinhans, Robert G. " E cclesiastes sive de R atione C oncionandi." in
R.L. D eM olen, ed., Essays on the Works of Erasm us. 253-66.
New Haven: Y ale University Press, 1978.
Klemp, P.J. The Essential Milton: An A nnotated Bibliography of
Major M odern Studies. Boston: G.K. Hall, 1989.
Knowles. John. A M odest P lea for Private Mens Preaching, n.p., 1648.
Knowlson, James. Universal Language Schem es in England and
France: 1600-1800. Toronto: University of T oronto Press, 1975.
Kranidas, Thomas. The Fierce Equation: A Study of M ilton’s
D ecorum . Studies in English Literature, no. 10. The H ague,
London and Paris: M outon, 1965.
368
"Milton and the R hetoric of Zeal." Texas Studies in Literature and
Language 6 (1965): 423-32.
— . "Style and R ectitude in Seventeenth-Century Prose: Hall,
Smectymnuus and Milton." H untington Library Quarterly 46
(1983): 237-69.
La Chambre, Marin Cureau de. The Art H ow to Know M en. London,
1665.
Lamy, Bernard. L ’Art de parler. 1675. Am sterdam , 1699.
Lanham, Richard A. A H andlist of R hetorical Terms: A G uide for
Students of English Literature. Berkley, Los A ngeles and
London: University of California Press, 1968.
Lares, Jam eela. "Christian Knights and the Rhetoric of R eligious
Controversy, 1500-1800," in Rhetoric in the Vortex of Cultural
Studies: Proceedings of the Fifth B ienniel C onference. R hetoric
Society of A m erica, ed. Arthur W alzer, 131-38. M inneapolis:
Burgess, 1993.
Lauder, W illiam. A n Essay on M ilton’s U se and Im itation of the
M oderns, in His Paradise L ost. London, 1750.
Lawson, Thomas. D agon ’s Fall Before the Ark. Written Primarily, as a
Testim ony for the Lord. His . . . U sefu l and Necessary Knowledge.
Capacitating P eople for the Concerns of This Life. Secondarily,
as a Testim ony Against the Old Serpent. H is W isdom e . . . His
Arts. Inventions. C om edies, or Interludes. Tragedies. Lascivious
Poem s. Frivolous Fables. Spoiling Philosophy. Taught in
Christian Schools. 1659. London, 1703.
— . A M ite Into the Treasure. Being a Word to Artists. Especially to
H eptatechrists. the Professors of the Seven Liberal A rts.
London, 1680.
Le Clerc, Jean. Parrhasiana: or. Thoughts upon Several Subjects: as
Criticism. History. Morality, and P olitics. London, 1700.
Le Grand, A ntoine. Man W ithout Passion: or. The W ise Stoik. London,
1675.
369
Leigh, Edward. Critica sacra in Two Parts: The First Containing
Observations on A ll the R adices, or Primitive H ebrew Words of
the Old T e sta m en t. . . . The Second Philological and Theological
O bservations upon A ll the G reek Words of the New T estam ent.
4th edn. London, 1662.
Levy, Babette May. Preaching in the First H alf Century of New England
H istory. 1945. New York: R ussell & Russell, 1967.
Lewalski, Barbara K. D o n n e’s "Anniversaries" and the Poetry of Praise.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973.
---. "Milton on Learning and the Learned Ministry Controversy."
H untington Library Quarterly 24 (1961): 267-81.
"Milton: Political B eliefs and Polem ical M ethods, 1659-60." PMLA
74 (1959): 191-202.
---. M ilton’s Brief Epic: The G enre. M eaning, and Art of "Paradise
Regained". Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press, 1966.
— . "Paradise Lost" and the R hetoric of Literary Form s. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1985.
-—. Protestant Poetics and the Seventeenth-Century R eligious Lyric.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979.
. "Theme and Structure in Paradise R egain ed ." Studies in Philology
57 (1960): 186-220.
— . "Time and History in Paradise R egain ed ." In The Prison and the
Pinnacle. Papers to Com m em orate the Tercentenary of Paradise
Regained and Samson A gon istes. ed. Balachandra Rajan, 49-81.
Toronto and Buffalo, N.Y.: University of T oronto Press, 1973.
Lewis, C.S. English Literature in the Sixteenth Century Excluding
D ram a. Oxford History of English Literature, no. 3. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1954.
---. A Preface to "Paradise Lost". 1942. Repr. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1961.
Lewis, G eorge. A Life of Joseph H all. P .P .. Bishop of Exeter and
Norwich. London, 1886.
370
Lieb, M ichael. "Milton and the Organicist Polemic." M ilton Studies 4
(1972): 79-99.
— . Poetics of the Holy: A Reading of "Paradise Lost". Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1981.
Lieb, M ichael and John T. Shawcross, eds. A chievem ents of the Left
Hand: Essays on the Prose Style of John M ilton. Amherst:
University of M assachusetts Press, 1974.
Liljegren, Sten Bodvar. Studies in M ilton. Lund: Gleerup, 1918.
Lim ouze, Henry S. "Joseph H all and the Prose Style of John Milton."
M ilton Studies 15 (1971): 121-41.
Locke, John. The R easonableness of Christianity, as D elivered in the
Scriptures. London, 1695.
Loew enstein, David and James Grantham Turner, eds. Politics.
Poetics, and H erm eneutics in M ilton’s P rose. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1990.
London, Provincial A ssem bly of. Jus divinum m inisterii evangelici. Or.
The D ivine Right of the Gospel-M inistrv, London, 1654.
Longinus, Dionysius or. On the Sublim e. Trans. W. H am ilton Fyfe.
London: H einem ann, 1939.
Lukin, Henry. An Introduction to the H oly Scripture. Containing the
Several Tropes. Figures. Proprieties of Speech U sed Therein:
with Other Observations Necessary for the Right Understanding
T h ereof. London, 1669.
Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers W erke. 61 vols. Weimar: Hermann
Bohlau, 1883-1983.
— Luther’s W orks. Eds. Jaroslav Pelikan and H elm ut T. Lehmann. 55
vols. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1955.
Lyttelton, G eorge. D ialogues of the D e a d . 4th edn. London, 1765.
Mack, Peter. R enaissance Argument: V alla and A gricola in the
Traditions of R hetoric and D ia lectic. Leiden: Brill, 1993.
371
Major, John A. "Milton’s V iew of Rhetoric." Studies in Philology 64
(1967): 685-711.
M allette, Richard. "The Protestant Art of Preaching in Book One of
The Faerie O u een e." Spenser Studies 7 (1986): 3-25.
[M andeville, Bernard]. Free Thoughts on R eligion, the Church, and
N ational H appiness. London, 1720.
Marilla, E[smond] L. The Central Problem of "Paradise Lost". Essays
and Studies on English Language and Literature 15. Upsala,
Sweden:
A.-B. Lundequist, 1953.
M arprelate, Martin, pseud. The M arprelate Tracts 1588. 1589. Ed.
W illiam Pierce. London: Jam es Clarke, 1911.
Martin, Howard H. "Puritan Preachers on Preaching: N otes on
A m erican C olonial Rhetoric." Quarterly Journal of Speech 50
(1964): 285-92.
Martin, John, Samuel Petto and Frederick W oodall. The Preacher
Sent, or A Vindication of the Liberty of Public Preaching by Som e
Men N ot O rdained. London, 1658.
M artindale, Charles. John M ilton and the Transform ation of A ncient
E pic. Totowa, N.J.: Barnes & N oble, 1986.
Martz, Louis L. The Paradise Within: Studies in Vaughan. Traherne.
and M ilton. New Haven: Y ale University Press, 1964.
Marvell, Andrew. The R ehearsall Transpros’d: or. A nim adversions
U pon a Late Book. Intituled. A Preface Shewing What Grounds
There Are of Fears and Jealousie of Popery. London, 1672.
— . The R ehearsall Transpros’d: the Second Part. O ccasioned bv Two
L etters. London, 1673.
Masson, David. The Life of John Milton: Narrated in Connexion with
the Political. E cclesiastical, and Literary History of H is T im e.
London: 1859-80. 6 vols. and index, 1894. Repr. New York:
Peter Smith, 1946.
372
M cCabe, Richard A. Joseph Hall: A Study in Satire and M editation.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982.
M cGuire, Maryann Cale. M ilton’s Puritan M asque. Athens: University
of G eorgia Press, 1983.
M ede, Joseph. Clavis A pocalyptica ex innatis & insitis visionem
characteribus eruta & dem onstrata. Cambridge, 1649.
M eerhoff, K ees. "The Significance of Philip M elanchthon’s R hetoric in
the Renaissance," in Renaissance R hetoric, ed. Peter Mack, 46-
62. New York: St. M artin’s, 1994.
M elanchthon, Philip. C onfessio fidei exhibita invictiss. Imp. Carol v.
Caesari Aug. in Comiciis A u gu stae. W ittenberg, 1530.
— . Enarratio Epist. secundae ad T im otheum . in Corpus
R eform atorum . ed. Charles G ottlieb Bretschneider, XV:1381-96.
1848. Repr. New York and London: Johnson, 1963.
---• H om iletische Schriften. [D e officiis concionatoris (15291.
O uom odo concionator novitius concionem suam informare
debeat 11531. 15361. D e m odo et arte concionandi (ca. 1537-39),
D e ratione (artel concionandi 115521.] Philipp M elanchthons
Schriften zur Praktischen T heologie. Supplem enta
M elanchthoniana. V ol. II. Ed. Paul Drews and Ferdinand Cohrs,
1929. Repr. Frankfurt: Minerva, 1968.
---. Loci Communes. 1543. Trans. J.A.O. Preus. St. Louis, Mo.:
Concordia, 1992.
— . R atio Brevis sacrarum concionum tractandarum . . . congesta. In
Johann R euchlin, Liber congestorum de arte praedicandi.
London, 1570.
— . D e officiis concionibus. In Johann Reuchlin. Liber congestorum de
arte praedicandi. London, 1570.
Miller, Leo. "Milton’s Clash with Chappell: A Suggested
Reconstruction." M ilton Quarterly 14 (1980): 77-87.
M iller, Perry. The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century.
1939. Repr. Boston: B eacon Press, 1961.
373
M ilovanovic-Barham, Celica. "Three Levels of Style in A ugustine of
H ippo and Gregory of Nazianzus." R hetorica 11 (1993): 1-25.
M ilton, John. C om plete Poem s and Major Prose. Ed. Merritt Y.
Hughes. Indianapolis: Odyssey Press, 1957.
— The Com plete Prose Works of John M ilton, ed. D on M. W olfe. 8
vols. New Haven: Y ale University Press, 1953-82.
— . The Works of John M ilton. Ed. Frank A llen Patterson. 18 vols.
New York: Colum bia University Press, 1931-38.
Miner, Earl. "Milton’s Laws D ivine and Human," in The Restoration
M ode from M ilton to D rvden. 198-287. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 1973.
Minnis, A.J. M edieval Theory of A uthorship. 2nd edn. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988.
M itchell, W illiam Fraser. English Pulpit Oratory from Andrewes to
Tillotson: A Study of Its Literary A sp ects. London: Society for
Prom oting Christian Knowledge, 1932.
A M odest Confutation of a Slanderous and Scurillous Libell. Entitled.
Anim adversions U pon the Rem onstrants D efen se Against
Sm ectym nuus. London, 1642.
M onfasani, John. G eorge of Trebizond: A Biography and a Study of
His R hetoric and L ogic. Leiden: Brill, 1976.
— . "Humanism and Rhetoric," in Albert Rabil, Jr., ed., Renaissance
Humanism: Foundations. Form and Legacy. 3 vols.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988.
M oorman, John R.H . A History of the Church in England. London:
Adam and Charles Black, 1953.
Morgan, John. Godly Learning: Puritan A ttitudes Towards R eason.
Learning, and Education. 1560-1640. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1986.
M ossom , Robert. Sion’s Prospect in Its First View. Presented in a
Summary of D ivine Truths. London, 1651.
374
M ueller, Martin. " Paradise Lost and the Iliad." Comparative Literature
Studies 6 (1969): 292-316.
Murphy, James J. R enaissance Eloquence: Studies in the Theory and
Practice of R enaissance R h etoric. Berkeley, Los A ngeles and
London: University of California Press, 1983.
---• Renaissance Rhetoric: A Short-Title Catalogue of Works on
R hetorical Theory from the Beginning of Printing to A .D . 1700.
New York and London: Garland, 1981.
Murrin, M ichael. The A llegorical E pic. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1980.
M ustazza, Leonard. "Language as W eapon in M ilton’s Paradise
R egain ed ." M ilton Studies 18 (1983): 195-216.
Nadeau, Ray. "Oratorical Formulas in Seventeenth-Century England."
Quarterly Journal of Speech 38 (1952): 149-54.
Napier, John. A Plaine D iscoverie of the W hole R evelation of Saint
John. L o n d o n ,1594.
N iesel, W ilhelm , ed. Bekenntnisschriften und K irchenordnungen nach
G ottes Wort reform ierten K irche. Zollikon-Ziirich:
Evangelischer Verlag, 1938.
Northrup, D ouglas A. "The D ouble Structure of Paradise L ost." M ilton
Studies 12 (1979): 75-90.
Norwood, Cornelius. D ivine Eloquence: Or. an Essay U pon the Tropes
and Figures Contained in the H oly Scriptures: and R educed
U nder the Proper T itles of Rhetorick. A lso Several Texts of
Scriptures. Which Fall in with the Figures. Are Briefly
Interpreted: Especially Those That Seem to Favor the Papist of
the Socinian. London, 1694.
N ouvelle biographie generate depuis les temps les plus recules jusqu’a
nos jours. Ed. H oeffer. 46 vols. Paris, 1854-1886.
Officium C oncionatoris. Cambridge, 1676.
375
O ’K eefe, Timothy J. M ilton and the Pauline Tradition: A Study of
Them e and Sym bolism . W ashington, D.C.: University Press of
Am erica, 1982.
O ’Malley, John W. Praise and Blam e in Renaissance Rom e: Rhetoric.
D octrine, and Reform in the Sacred Orators of the Papal Court,
c. 1450-1521. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press,
1979.
Ong, W alter. Ramus. M ethod and the Decay of D ialogue: From the Art
of D iscourse to the Art of R ea so n . 1958. Repr. 1974: Octagon
Books.
Orth, Wygand. A n Oration, as Touching the Life and D eath of the
Fam ous and Worthy Man D. Andrewe Hvperius. Penned and
Pronounced in a Solem ne A ssem blie of A ll the States of the Citie
of Marpurge. by Wvganuds O rthius. Trans. John Ludham.
[London?], 1577.
Owen, John. Of the D ivine Original!. Authority. Self-Evidencing Light,
and Power of the Scriptures. Oxford, 1659.
The R eason of Faith, or An Answer unto That Enquiry. W herefore
We B elieve the Scripture To Be the Word of God. With the
Causes and Nature of That Faith W herewith We D o So. W herein
the Grounds W hereon the Holy Scripture Is B elieved To Be the
Word of God with Faith Divine and Supernatural. Are D eclared
and V indicated. London, 1677.
Owst, G erald R. Preaching in M edieval England: A n Introduction to
Sermon Manuscripts of the Period c. 1350-1450. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1926.
Packer, John W. The Transform ation of Anglicanism . 1643-1660. with
Special R eference to Henry H am m ond. Manchester:
M anchester University Press, 1969.
Parker, Richard. A n Essay on the U sefulness of Oriental Learning.
London, 1739.
Parker, W illiam Riley. Milton: A Biography. 2 vols. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1968.
376
M ilton’s Contemporary Reputation: A n Essay. Together with "A
Tentative List of Printed A llusions to M ilton. 1641-1674." and
Facsimile Reproductions of Five Contemporary Pamphlets
W Ritten in Answer to M ilton. Columbus: Ohio State University
Press, 1940.
Patrick, Simon. A Continuation of the Friendly D ebate [Betwixt
N eighbors], London, 1669.
— . A D iscourse of Profiting by Sermons, and of Going to Hear. Where
M en Think They Can Profit M ost. London, 1683.
— . A Friendly D ebate B etw een a Conformist and a N on-C onform ist.
London, 1684.
— . A Friendly D ebate Betwixt N eighbors. London, 1668.
Search the Scriptures. A Treatise Showing that A ll Christians
Ought to R ead the Holy Books: with D irections to Them T herein.
L o n d o n ,1685.
Patrides, C.A. M ilton and the Christian Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1966.
Patterson, A nnabel M. H erm ogenes and the Renaissance: Seven Ideas
of Style. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970.
— . " Paradise R egain ed : A Last Chance at True Romance." M ilton
Studies 17 (1983): 187-208.
Peile, John. Christ’s C olleg e. University of Cambridge College
H istories. London: F.E. R obinson, 1900.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. Reform ation of Church and D ogm a (1300-1700).
Vol. 4 of The Christian Tradition: A History of the D evelopm ent
of D octrin e. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
Perkins, W illiam. The A rte of Prophecving. 1607. In W orks. 11:643-73.
London and Cambridge, 1612-13.
377
A Com m entarie or Exposition upon the Five First Chapters of the
Epistle to the G alatians . . . Now Published for the B enefite of the
Church, and Continued with a Supplem ent upon the Sixth
Chapter, by R odolphe Cudworth. Bachelor of D ivinitie. 1604,
1612, In W orks. 11:153-432. London and Cambridge, 1612-13.
---. A D iscourse of C on science. 1596. In W orks. 1:515-54. London and
Cambridge, 1612-13.
— . The W hole Treatise of the Cases of Conscience. Concerning Man
Simply Considered in H im selfe. W ithout R elation to A n oth er.
1604-1606. In Works, 11:1-152. London and Cambridge, 1612-13.
— . W orks. 3 vols. London, 1612 [vols. I and II] and Cambridge, 1613
[vol III].
Phillips, John. Speculum Crape-Gownerum: or. A Looking-glass for
the Young A cadem icks. Now Fovl’d. With R eflections on Som e
of the Late H igh-Flown Sermons. To Which Is A dded, an Essay
Towards a Sermon of the N ew est F ashion. London, 1682.
-—. Speculum Crape-Gownorum. the Second Part. Or. A Continuation
of Observations and R eflections U pon the Late Sermons of Some
That Would Be Thought G oliah ’s for the Church of E ngland.
London, 1682.
Pollard, A.W . & G.R. Redgrave. A Short-Title Catalogue of Books
Printed in England. Scotland and Ireland and English Books
Printed Abroad. 1475-1640. 2nd edn. Rev. W.A. Jackson, F.S.
Ferguson, and Katharine F. Pantzer. 3 vols. London:
Bibliographical Society, 1986-1991.
P oole, Matthew. Annotations U pon the Holy Bible. W herein the
Sacred Text Is Inserted and Various Readings A nnex’d. Together
with the Parallel Scriptures. The M ore Difficult Terms in Each
V erse Explained. Seem ing Contradictions R econciled.
Q uestions and Doubts R esolved. And the W hole Text O pened.
4th edn. 2 vols. London, 1700.
Plett, H einrich F. R hetorik der A ffekte: Englische W irkungsasthetik
im Zeitalter der R enaissance. Studien zur englischen Philologie,
n.s. 18. Tubingen: M. Niem eyer, 1975.
378
Preston, John. Riches of Mercy to M en in Misery, or Certain Excellent
Treatises Concerning the Dignity and Duty of G od ’s Children.
London, 1658.
Prideaux, John. Sacred Eloquence: Or. the Art of Rhetorick. As It Is
Lavd Down in Scripture. London, 1659.
Pufendorf, Samuel. The W hole Duty of Man According to the Law of
N ature. London, 1691.
Quintilian. Institutio Qratoria. Trans. H .E. Butler. 4 vols. Cambridge,
Mass.: Loeb Classical Library, 1920.
Radzinowicz, Mary Ann. M ilton’s Epics and the Book of Psalm s.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.
— . "Psalms and the R epresentation of D eath in Paradise L ost.” M ilton
Studies 23 (1987): 133-44.
Rainolds, John. John R ainolds’s Oxford Lectures on A ristotle’s
R hetoric. Ed. Lawrence D. G reen. Newark: University of
Delaware Press, 1986.
Rajan, Balachandra. "Jerusalem and Athens: The Tem ptation of
Learning in ’Paradise R egained,”' in T h’Upright H eart and Pure:
Essays in on John M ilton Com m em orating the Tercentenary of
the Publication of Paradise L ost, ed. A m adeus P. Fiore, 61-74.
Pittsburgh: D usquesne University Press, 1967.
---. " Paradise L ost: The U ncertain Epic." M ilton Studies 17 (1983):
105-119.
Ramus, Peter. The Logike of the M oste Excellent Philosopher P.
Ramus Martyr. Trans. Roland M acllm aine. 1574.
Rapin, R ene. A Comparison B etw een the Eloquence of D em osthenes
and C icero. Oxford, 1672.
— . Reflexions sur l’usage de l’eloquence de ce tem ps. Paris, 1671.
Reyner, Edward. R ules for the G overnm ent of the Tongue: Together
with D irections in Six Particular Cases . . . 3. R eprehension of
Faults in Others. 4. Christian Com m unication (Urbanity and
E loquence!. 5. Consolation of the Afflicted, etc. London, 1656.
379
— . A Treatise of the N ecessity of H um ane Learning for a G ospel-
Preacher. London, 1663.
The R ecantation and Hum ble Subm ission of Two A ncient Prelates, of
the Kingdom e of Scotland . . As A lso, the Act of the Said
A ssem blie. Condem ning Episcopacy and Other A buses Which
Are Contrary to the Word of G od . [London?], 1641.
R echtien, John G. "The Ram ist Style of John Udall: A udience and
Pictorial Logic in Puritan Sermon and Controversy." Oral
Tradition 2 ( 1987>: 188-213.
R eflections U pon Two Scurrilous Libels. Called Speculum Crape-
Gownorum . London, 1682.
Reuchlin, Johann. D e arte concionandi form ulae, ut breves, ita doctae
& p ia e . London, 1570.
Reventlow , H enning Graf. The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of
the M odern W orld. Trans. John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1985.
Richardson, C. English Preachers and Preaching 1640-1670. A Secular
Study. London, 1928.
Riggs, W illiam G. The Christian Poet in "Paradise Lost". Berkeley, Los
A ngeles and London: University of California Press, 1972.
Robert of Basevorn. The Form of Preaching. Trans. L eopold Krul. In
Three M edieval Rhetorical A rts, ed. Jam es J. Murphy, 111-215.
Berkeley, Los A ngeles and London: University of California
Press, 1971.
R ose. Hugh, ed. New G eneral Biographical Dictionary. 12 vols.
[London?], 1848.
R osenberg, D.M . "Parody of Style in M ilton’s Polemics." M ilton
Studies 2 (1970): 113-18.
R osenblatt, Jason P. "Milton’s Chief Rabbi." M ilton Studies 24 (1988):
43-71.
380
Salmon, Vivian. The Study of Language in Seventeenth-Centurv
England. Am sterdam Studies in the History of Linguistics, no.
17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1979.
Samuel, Irene. "Milton on Learning and Wisdom." PMLA 64 (1949):
708-23.
---. "Milton on the Province of Rhetoric." M ilton Studies 10 (1977):
176-93.
—-. " Paradise L ost." in Critical A pproaches to Six Major English Works:
"Beowulf" through "Paradise L ost." eds. R.M . Lumiansky and
H erschel Banke, 209-53. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1968.
— . "’Paradise L ost’ as Mimesis," in Approaches to "Paradise L ost." ed.
C.A. Patrides, 15-29. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1968.
Sasek, Lawrence A. "Milton’s Criticism of G reek Literature in Paradise
R egained.” in Essays in H onor of Esmond Linworth M arilla. eds.
Thomas A ustin Kirby and W illiam John Olive, 158-65. Baton
Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1970.
Schultz, Howard. M ilton and Forbidden K now ledge. New York:
M odern Language A ssociation, 1955.
Schwartz, Regina M. "Citation, Authority, and D e Doctrina
Christiana." in Politics. Poetics, and H erm eneutics in M ilton’s
Prose, eds. David Loew enstein and James Grantham Turner, 227-
240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
---. "From Shadowy Types to Shadowy Types: The Unendings of
Paradise L ost.” M ilton Studies 24 (19881: 123-39.
• Rem em bering and Repeating: Biblical Creation in "Paradise Lost".
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Scott, Izora. Controversies Over the Im itation of Cicero in the
R enaissance. 1910. Repr. Davis, Calif.: Herm agoras, 1991.
Sensabaugh, G.F. "Milton on Learning." Studies in Philology 43 (1946):
258-72.
381
Seyn, Eugene de. Dictionnaire des ecrivains b eiges. 2 vols. Bruges:
Excelsior, 1930-31.
Sharpe, Kevin. The Personal Rule of Charles 1. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1992.
Shaw, Samuel. Words Made Visible: or. Grammar and Rhetorick
A ccom m odated to the Lives and M anners of Men. R epresented
in a Country School for the Entertainm ent and Edification of the
Spectators. London, 1679.
Shawcross, John T. "The Poet in the Poem: John M ilton’s Presence in
Paradise L ost." CEA Critic 48-49 (1986): 32-55.
---• With Mortal V oice: The Creation of "Paradise Lost". Lexington:
University of Kentucky Press, 1982.
Sherlock, W illiam. A D iscourse Concerning the Knowledge of Jesus
Christ. London, 1678.
Sherry, Beverly. "Speech in Paradise L ost." M ilton Studies 8 (19751:
247-66.
Sherry, Richard. A Treatise of the Figures of Grammar and R hetoric.
London, 1555.
---. A Treatise of Schem es and T ropes. London, 1550.
Shuger, D ebora K. Habits of Thought in the English R enaissance:
R eligion. Politics and the D om inant Culture. Berkeley, Los
A ngeles and Oxford: University of California Press, 1990.
---. Sacred Rhetoric: The Christian Grand Style in the English
R enaissance. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988.
Sidney, Philip. "The D efen se of Poesy," in Sir Philip Sidney: A Critical
Edition of the Major W orks, ed. Katherine D uncan-Jones, 212-
250. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Silver, Victoria. "Liberal Theology and Sir Thomas Brow ne’s ’Soft and
F lexible’ Discourse." English Literary R enaissance 20 (1990): 69-
105.
382
"Sensible and Plausible Elocutio": R hetoric and the Shape of
K nowledge in Bacon. Browne and H ob b es. Ph.D. D issertation,
University of California at Los A ngeles, 1984.
---. The Grammar of Revelation: Prophecy. Contingency, and Milton's
Ironic D ecorum , [notes on forthcom ing text]
Simpson, Alan. Puritanism in Old and New E ngland. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1955.
Simpson, J.A. and E.S.C. W einer, eds. The Oxford English D ictionary.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
Sims, James H. The Bible in M ilton’s E pics. G ainesville: University of
Florida Press, 1962.
Sims, James H. and Leland Ryken, eds. M ilton and Scriptural
Tradition: The Bible into Poetry. Columbia: University of
M issouri Press, 1984.
Slights, Camille W ells. The Casuistical Tradition in Shakespeare.
D onne. Herbert, and M ilton. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1981.
Skerpan, Elizabeth. The R hetoric of Politics in the English Revolution.
1642-1660. Columbus: University of M issouri Press, 1992.
Sloane, Thomas O. D onne. M ilton and the End of H um anistic
R hetoric. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985.
— . "A R enaissance Controversialist on Rhetoric: Thom as W right’s
Passions of the M inde in G en erali." Speech M onographs 36
(1969): 38-54.
Smectymnuus, pseud. A V indication of the Answer to the Hum ble
R em onstrance. [London], 1641.
— . An Answer to a Book Entitled. A n Hum ble R em onstrance.
[London], 1641.
Smith, Hilary Dansey. Preaching in the Spanish G olden Age: A Study
of Som e Preachers of the R eign of Philip III. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1978.
383
Smith, John. The Mvsterie of Rhetorique U nvail’d. W herein 130 the
Tropes and Figures are Severally D erived from the G reek into
English. Together with Lively D efinitions and Variety of Latin.
English. Scriptnral Examples. Pertinent to Each of Them Apart.
Conducing Very Much to the Right Understanding of the Sense of
the Letter of the Scripture, (the Want W hereof O ccasions Many
Dangerous Errors This D avl Em inently D elightful and Profitable
for Young Scholars, and Others of A ll sorts. Enabling Them to
Discern and Imitate the Elegancy in Any Author They Read. &c.
London, 1657.
Smyth, Charles. The Art of Preaching: A Practice Survey of Preaching
in the Church of England. 747-1939. London: Society of
Prom oting Christian Knowledge, 1940.
Sonnino, Lee A. A H andbook to Sixteenth-Century R hetoric. London:
R outledge and K. Paul, 1968.
Spenser, Edmund. The Poetical Works of Edmund Spenser. Eds. J.C.
Smith and E. de Selincourt. 1912. Repr. London: Oxford
University Press, 1948.
Stanhope, G eorge. The Perfection of Scripture Stated, and Its
Sufficiency Argued: in a Sermon Preached at the Publick
Com m encem ent at Cambridge. Sunday. July iv. 1697. London,
1697.
Stavely, Keith W. The Politics of M ilton’s Prose Style. New Haven:
Y ale University Press, 1975.
Steadman, John M. The H ill and the Labyrinth: D iscourse and
Certitude in M ilton and H is Near C ontem poraries. Berkeley, Los
A ngeles, and London: University of California Press, 1984.
— . The Lamb and the Elephant: The Ideal Im itation and the Context
of R enaissance A llegory. San Marino, Calif.: Huntington
Library, 1974.
— . "Man’s First D isobedience: The Causal Structure of the Fall."
Journal of the History of Ideas 22 (1960): 180-97.
Stein, A rnold. H eroic Knowledge: A n Interpretation of Paradise
R egained and Samson A gon istes. M inneapolis: University of
M innesota Press, 1957.
384
Sterne, Lawrence and H arold H. K ollm eier. A Concordance to the
English Prose of John M ilton. Bingham pton, N.Y.: M edieval and
R enaissance Texts & Studies, 1985.
Stevens, Paul. "Milton and the Icastic Imagination." M ilton Studies 20
(1984): 43-73.
Stollm an, Samuel S. "Milton’s Rabbinical R eadings and Fletcher."
M ilton Studies 4 119721: 195-215.
Strong, James. The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the B ib le.
Nashville: Thomas N elson, 1984.
Stroup, Thomas B. R eligious R ite and Ceremony in M ilton’s Poetry.
Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1968.
Struever, Nancy. "The Conversable World: Eighteenth-Century
Transformations of the R elation of R hetoric and Truth," in Brian
Vickers and Nancy Struever, Rhetoric and the Pursuit of Truth:
Language Change in the Seventeenth and E ighteenth Centuries.
77-119. Los Angeles: W illiam Andrews Clark M em orial Library,
1985.
Stubbs, Henry. Cam panella Revived, or An Enquiry into the History of
the Royal Society. W hether the Virtuosi There D o N ot Pursue the
Projects of Cam panella for the R educing of England Unto
Popery. London, 1670.
Studley, Marian H. "Milton and His Paraphrases of the Psalms."
Philological Quarterly 4 (1925): 364-72.
Sutcliff, Matthew. D e recta studii theologici ratione liber unus. eidem
etiam adjuntus est brevis de concionum ad populum form ulis. &
sacrae Scripturae varia pro auditorum captus tractatione.
lib ellus. London, 1602.
— . A Treatise of Ecclesiastical D iscip lin e. London, 1590.
Swanson, D onald and John Mulryan. "The Son’s Presumed Contem pot
for Learning in Paradise R egain ed : A Biblical and Patristic
Resolution." M ilton Studies 28 (1992): 243-61.
385
Tacitus. D ialogue on O rators. Trans. M. W interbottom . In Classical
Literary Criticism, ed. D.A . Russel and M. W interbottom, 111-42.
Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Tasso, Torquato. G erusalem m e liberata. Ed. Anna Maria Carini.
B iblioteca de classici italiani. Milan: Feltrinelli, 1961.
Taylor, Jeremy. A Discourse of the D ivine Institution. Necessity.
Sacredness, and Separation of the Office M inisterial. 1661. In
Eniatos. A Course of Sermons for A ll the Sundays of the Y ear.
London, 1673.
— . R ules and A dvices to the Clergy of Down and Conner, for the Their
Deportm ent in Their Personal and Publick C apacities. 2nd edn.
L o n d o n ,1663.
Taylor, John. A n Apology for Private Preaching. [London], 1642.
— . The Brownists’ C onventicle. [London], 1641.
---. An H onest Answer to the Late Published A pologie for Private
Preaching, by T..T. [London, 1642].
— . A Swarme of Sectaries and Schism atiques. London, 1641.
Teskey, Gordon. "Milton’s Choice of Subject in the Context of
R enaissance Critical Theory." ELH 53 (1986): 53-72.
Tourney, Leonard D. Joseph H a ll. Twayne’s English Authors Series
250. Boston: Twayne, 1979.
Traherne, Thomas. Christian E thics. London, 1675.
Trapp, John. A Commentary or Exposition U pon A ll the Epistles and
the R evelation of John the D ivin e. London, 1647.
— . T heologia theologiae. the True Treasure, or A Treasury of Holy
Truths Touching G ods Word, and G od the W ord. London, 1641.
Trapp, Joseph. Of Preaching. Hearing, and Practising the Word of G od .
London, 1730.
386
Tromly, Frederic B. "’According to Sounde R eligion ’: The Elizabethan
Controversy over the Funeral Serm on.” Journal of M edieval and
Renaissance Studies 13 (1983): 293-312.
[Tubbe, Henry]. M editations Divine and M orall. London, 1659.
[Turner, Francis]. Anim adversions on a Late Pam phlet. London, 1676.
— . Turner, Francis. Anim adversions on a Late Pam phlet Entituled
The Naked Truth. London, 1676.
Via, John A. "Milton’s A ntiprelatical Tracts: The Poet Speaks in
Prose." M ilton Studies 5 (1973): 87-128.
Vickers, Brian. In D efen ce of R hetoric. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1988.
— . "Rhetorical and A nti-rhetorical Tropes: On Writing the History of
E locu tio." Comparative Criticism 3 (1981): 105-132.
---. "The Royal Society and English Prose Style: A Reassessment," in
Brian Vickers and Nancy Struever, R hetoric and the Pursuit of
Truth: Language Change in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth
Centuries. 3-76. Los A ngeles: W illiam Andrews Clark M emorial
Library, 1985.
Villavicentio, Laurence. D e recte form ando studio theologico llbri
quatuor ac de Formandis sacris concionibus libri tres. 1564.
Cologne, 1575.
-— . Tabulae com pendiosae in evangelia et epistolas quae D om inicis
festisque diebus populo in ecclesia proponi solen t. Louvain,
1563.
Vorlat, Emma. Progress in English Grammar. 4 vols. Louvain:
Catholic University of Louvain, 1964.
Vossius, Gerardus Joannes. R hetorices contractae sive partitionum
oratorium libri V. Ex decreto illustr. ac pot. H olandiae. &
W estfrisiae D D . ordinum in usum scholarum eiusdem provinciae
excussi. 1606. Oxford, 1672.
387
Walker, W illiam. D e argumentorum inventione libri duo, quorum prior
agit de inventione logica. alter de inventione rhetorica. in
studiosae juventutis tarn scholasticae quam academ icae usum
conscripti. London, 1672.
— . Troposchem atalogiae rhetoricae libri duo, quorum prior agit de
tropis. alter de figuris rhetoricis. questionibus & responsionibus
concinnati. London, 1672.
Walker, W illiam. "Typology and Paradise L ost. Books XI and XII."
M ilton Studies 25 (1990): 245-64.
Walzer, M ichael. The R evolution of the Saints: A Study in the Origins
of Radical P olitics. Cambridge, M assachusetts: Harvard
University Press, 1965.
Ward, Richard. Two Very U seful and Com pendious T heological
Treatises: The First Shewing the Nature of Wit. W isdom and
Folly. The Second D escribing the Nature. U se and A buse of the
Tongue and Speech. Whereby Principally W isdom and Folly Are
Expressed. London, 1673.
Ward, Scott. "A Possible A llusion to Cicero in Book 11 of Paradise
L ost." M ilton Quarterly 26 (1992): 83-85.
Ward, Seth. An A pology for the M ysteries of the G ospel. Being a
Sermon Preached at W hite-H all. Feb. 16. 1 6 7 2 /3 . London, 1673.
Sermon Against the A nti-scripturalists. London, 1675.
W ebber, Joan Malory. The Eloquent "I": Style and Self in Seventeenth-
Centurv P rose. M adison, M ilwaukee and London: University of
W isconsin Press, 1968.
---. M ilton and His Epic Tradition. Seattle and London: University of
W ashington Press, 1979.
W eiss, James M ichael. " Ecclesiastes and Erasmus: The Mirror and the
Image." Archiv fur R eform ationsgeschicte 65 (1974): 86.
W erenfels, Samuel. A D iscourse of Logomachvs. or Controversvs
A bout Words. So Common Am ong Learned Men. To W hich Is
Added. A D issertation Concerning M eteors of Stile, or False
Sublimity. London, 1711.
388
Werman, Golda. "Midrash in Paradise L ost: Capitula Rabbi E lieser."
M ilton Studies 18 (1983): 145-71.
"Milton’s U se of Rabbinic Material." M ilton Studies 21 (1985): 35-
47.
Whately, W illiam. The New Birth: or. a Treatise of R egen eration.
1618. London, 1635.
W histon, W illiam. A New Theory of the Earth . . . With an Introductory
D iscourse Concerning the G enuine Nature. Stile, and Extent of
the M osaik History of the C reation. London, 1696.
W hite, H elen C., Ruth C. W allerstein, Ricardo Quintana, and A.B.
Chambers, eds. Seventeenth-Centurv Verse and Prose.
V olum e One: 1600-1660. 2nd edn. New York: M acmillan, 1971.
Whitgift, John. The Works of John W hitgift. Ed. JohnA yre. 3 vols.
The Parker Society Publications, nos. 46-48. Cambridge, 1851-
53.
Whiting, G eorge W esley. M ilton’s Literary M ilieu. New York: R ussell
& Russell, 1964.
— -. M ilton and This Pendant W orld. Austin: University of Texas Press,
1958.
Wilkins. John. The Discovery of a World in the M oon e. Oxford, 1638.
— . E cclesiastes, or. a D iscourse Concerning the Gift of Preaching A s It
Fals under the R ules of A rt. London, 1646.
— Essay Toward a R eal Character, and a Philosophical Language.
London, 1668.
---. Mercury: or The Secret and Swift M essenger. London, 1641.
---. Of the Principles and D uties of Natural R eligion . London, 1683.
W ilson, Thomas. The Arte of R hetorike. for the U se of All Sutche as
A re Studious of E loquence. Sette Foorthe in Englishe by Thomas
W ilson. 1553. And Now Newly Set Foorthe Again, with a Prologue
to the R eader. 1553. London, 1580.
389
W ilson, Thomas [divine]. A Christian Dictionary. O pening the
Signification of the Chiefe Words D ispersed Generally Through
the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testam ent. Tending to
Increase Christian K now ledge. London, 1622.
— . Theological Rules, to G uide U s in the Understanding and Practice
of Holy Scriptures. Two Centuries: Drawne Partly Out of
Scriptures Them selves: Partly Out of E cclesiastical Writers Old
and N ew . London, 1615.
Wing, Donald, ed. Short-Title Catalog of Books Printed in England.
Scotland. Ireland. W ales, and British Am erican and of English
Books Printed in Other Countries, 1641-1700. 2nd edn. 3 vols.
New York: M odern Language A ssociation, 1972-1988.
W olleb, Jean. The Abridgem ent of Christian Divinitie: So Exactly and
M ethodically Com piled. That It Leads Us, A s It W ere, bv the
Hand to the R eading of the H oly Scriptures. Ordering of
Com m on-Places. Understanding of Controversies. P e e r in g of
Some Cases of Conscience. London, 1650.
— . Com pendium theologiae Christianae. accurata m ethodo sic
adornatus. ut sit add S.S. Scripturas legendas. ad locos communes
digirendos m anuductio. Cambridge, 1642.
W oodhouse, A.S.P. "Notes on M ilton’s Early Development." University
of Toronto Quarterly 13 (1943-44): 66-101.
— . The Poet and H is Faith: R eligion and Poetry in England from
Spenser to E liot and A u d en . Chicago and London: University of
Chicago Press, 1965.
Workman, G iles. Private-M en No Pulpit-Men: or. A M odest
Examination of Lav-m en’s Preaching. London, 1646.
Wright, Abraham. Five Sermons in Five Several Styles, or W aies of
Preaching. London, 1656.

Linked assets