Gordon Fitch wrote:
>
> Milton would seem to be violating fundamental Christian theology
> if the sovereignty of the Son has to be _announced_ to the
> angels. The Son pre-exists all that is created, including
> the angels, according to John 1:3. One would think the angels
> would have been already informed of this rather fundamental
> fact. Maybe some of them were supposed to be a bit slow?
> Not Satan, though! So there's something of a problem there.
There are a rather large number of "fundamental Christian theologies," and one of the big debates in Milton criticism concerns just what his theology was. He held a number of heresies. (1) Mortalism: Both soul & body die until all rise again at the last call (2) Materialism: God did not create from nothing (ex nihilo) but out of himself. The Son was the first creation. Thousands of pages have been written on this (and I've read most of them). Some critics, arguing that Milton was really Trinitarian (I think they were wrong), have accused him of _almost_ being polytheistic at times but recovering as it were and maintaining a trinitarian position.
Many Milton critics gag when I (and not only I) say this -- but what I like about Milton is that there is really not all that much "religious feeling" in him. He tried to write a poem on "The Passion." It's really terrible, and unfinished. Good for him.
One line in PL, the Father speaking of the Son: "By merit more than birthright son of god." !!!!! As I construe it, that is the core of Milton's defense of regicide if you work out the implications of it.
Carrol