“The Whole fulness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily”: The Materiality of Milton's God

Abstract

It is a theological commonplace both in John Milton's day and our own to acknowledge that is a Spirit. It is apparently self-evident that is therefore immaterial. However, recent intense scrutiny concerning provenance of De Doctrina Christiana, traditionally attributed to Milton, has brought to attention of critics a number of idiosyncratic theological arguments typical of Milton within treatise. One of these is materiality of God. Questions concerning treatise's provenance initiated by William B. Hunter in 1992, which have been refuted to satisfaction of virtually other Milton scholars, have resulted in energetic discussion of congruencies of theological material in treatise with that of canonical Miltonic works. (1) The most heretical contention that this systematic theology manifests is an unusual form of biblical hermeneutics concerning Godhead--namely, a refutation of Nicaean formulation of Trinity for which, writes Milton, the only authority I accepted was God's self-revelation (CPW6:118) in Scriptures. One crucial element of Milton's biblical hermeneutics in De Doarina and manifested in Paradise Lost is his presentation of theory of accommodation, which is theological tool used by Christian exegetes to explain difference between nature of and our images or conceptions of Him. Recent studies of Milton's accommodation of by Michael Lieb and Neil D. Graves have shown that placement of Milton within an orthodox Christian hermeneutic tradition, as posited by C. A. Patrides among others, is erroneous. In fact Milton displayed a far greater literal understanding of a theomorphic scriptural deity than virtually other biblical exegetes. These concerns over ontological composition and portrayal of lead naturally to question of divine materiality in Milton's philosophy and poetry. This issue has not been considered specifically and at length since John Reesing's article in 1957, (2) but critics have failed to realize that it is integral to our understanding of Milton's conception of a monistic hierarchy of being. Recent work by Miltonists such as Stephen M. Fallon and John Rogers have made clear that this ontological Weltanschauung derives from one substance that is matter, but question that has been nearly sidestepped by scholars concerns what is referred to by being. The question implicit in this statement is whether Milton's Himself is included in metaphysical category of all being and this I will argue necessitates a reevaluation of Milton's debt to early patristic theologians Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Origen. Most scholars have ignored this problem altogether, and even those who have been forced to confront Deity's ontological composition in course of their analysis of Milton's monistic metaphysics have refused to consider question at any length (3) or have presented thesis only tentatively. (4) The central problem is whether Milton's should be posited beyond apex of author's concept of a monistic hierarchy of composed of matter. I believe answer lies in consideration of three interrelated points: first, Milton's unusual understanding of theory of accommodation in chapter 2 of De Doctrina makes it clear that he believed to be theopathetic, and this strongly suggests that Milton may also have envisaged as theomorphic; second, in what appears a paradox, Milton's statement that God [...] is a SPIRIT (CPW 6:140) actually implies that is material; and, third, Milton argues repeatedly in De Doctrina, as well as in Artis Logicae, that terms predicated of in Bible have same physical and metaphysical meaning when used with reference to man, and this seemingly eccentric idea is explored in several key phrases in Milton's delineation of material monism in treatise. I Historically, idea of God's passible was far more defensible than concept of His possessing a material body. …