Notes to Chapter 1Columbia edition (CM XIV–XVII, trans. Charles Sumner), or as my own. Citations of
the treatise in Latin are from the Columbia edition.
89 My translation. Cf. CM XIV, 4. Eleven entries in the surviving Commonplace Book
(CPW I, 477, 484, 416, 449, 501, 504, 365, 402, 407, 444) seem to refer to a lost
“Theological Index” that contained at least 42 pages and probably many more. These
references pertain to issues treated in the existing Commonplace Book: Church,
Church Goods, Councils, Idolatry, Pope, and Religion not to be Forced; ten of them are in
Milton’s hand and seem to have been entered c. 1640–3 or a little later; the eleventh,
from 1651–2, is in Edward Phillips’s hand (CPW VI, 16–17). The topics suggested
by the shorter systems of theologians would have been entered in this or another lost
index.
90 See CPW VI, 19–22, and Kelley, “Milton’s Debt to Wolleb’s Compendium Theologiae
Christianae,” PMLA 50 (1935), 156–65. Both John Wolleb (Wollebius), Compendium
Theologiae Christianae (Amsterdam, 1633), trans. The Abridgment of Christian Divinitie
(London, 1650), and William Ames (Amesius), Medulla S. S. Theologiae (Amsterdam,
1627), trans. The Marrow of Sacred Divinity (London, 1638, 1642), were very popular
with Puritans. The conclusion of Campbell, et al., “Provenance,” that in places Milton’s
treatise seems to be a palimpsest of texts conforms to the story Milton’s Epistle tells
about the work’s evolution.
91 “Ex Deo Regeneratur. Patre nimirum: nemo enim gignit, nisi pater” (CM XV, 366).
92 My translation. “Haec si omnibus palam facio, si fraterno quod Deum testor atque
amico erga omnes mortales animo, haec, quibus melius aut pretiosius nihil habeo, quam
possum latissime libentissimeque impertio, tametsi multa in lucem protulisse videbor”
(CM XIV, 8). Campbell, et al., “Provenance,” 110, conclude that the manuscript is
unfinished and therefore that its doctrinal positions cannot be taken as final; but the
Epistle, which they recognize as Miltonic, offers the tract as Milton’s carefully consid-
ered and admittedly heterodox theological manifesto. Had Milton seen a way to pub-
lish during his lifetime he would have had a fair copy made of the whole and would
have tidied up a few misplaced references.
93 For example: “Up to now I have examined God from the point of view of his nature:
now we must learn more about him by investigating his efficiency”; or, “We have been
discussing GENERAL PROVIDENCE. SPECIAL PROVIDENCE is concerned par-
ticularly with angels and men.” CPW VI, 153, 343. See also, for example, the begin-
nings of chapters 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 26, 28, 29, 31, 33 in Book 1, and
chapters 7 and 11 in Book 2.
94 CPW VI, 120. Compare the passage about the creation of poetry in Reason of Church-
governement (CPW I, 820–1), and see chapter 5, p. 152.
95 Page 121. Cf Areopagitica, CPW II, 561–6, and chapter 6, pp. 195–7.
96 Pages 123–4; cf. Of Civil Power, CPW VII, 246–7.
97 Page 128. In Of Civil Power Milton defines evangelic religion as “faith and charitie, or
beleef and practise.” Cf. Wollebius, Abridgment, 1, 11.
98 Some comments prepare for later arguments: even the omnipotent God cannot do
anything that implies a contradiction. And while God’s omniscience necessarily in-
volves foreknowledge of men’s acts before they are born, men remain “free in their
actions” (145–6, 150).
99 Pages 251–6, 297, 312.
Notes to Chapter 12