Notes to Chapter 1100 Paul Sellin, “John Milton’s Paradise Lost and De Doctrina Christiana on Predestination,”
Milton Studies 34 (1996), 45–60, points out that the treatise departs from Arminius in
some respects, but it certainly does not, as he claims, “tilt” toward supralapsarianism,
or differ substantially on this and other counts from the theodicy in Paradise Lost. He
has been answered in persuasive detail by Stephen Fallon, “Milton’s Arminianism and
the Authorship of De Doctrina Christiana,” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 41
(1999), 103–27; see also Lewalski, “Milton and De Doctrina Christiana,” 216–23. Sellin
has responded in “Futher Responses,” MQ 33 (1999), 38–51.
101 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, III, xxiii, 7, ed. John T. McNeill, trans.
F. L. Battles, 2 vols (Philadelphia, 1960), II, 955–6.
102 Hobbes, Leviathan, 186–93.
103 The Judgement of the Synode Holden at Dort, Concerning the Five Articles (London, 1619),
3–5, 24, 31–2, 37–40, 53–8.
104 The Remonstrants took their name from the five articles set forth in Remonstrances
published by Simon Episcopius and his followers in 1610, reprinted by Philip Schaff,
ed., A History of the Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols (London, 1877), III, 545–9. Cf.
Jacobus Arminius, Opera Theologica (Leyden, 1629), 390–1, 636–43, 952–7 and The
Writings of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols and W. R. Bagnall, 3 vols (London,
1825–75), I, 589–92; II, 392–7. See Stephen Fallon, “Milton’s Arminianism.”
105 In his Apology against a Pamphlet (1642) Milton claims (wrongly) that the Arminians
“deny originall sinne.” In the Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce (1643) he states that “the
Jesuits, and that sect among us which is nam’d of Arminius, are wont to charge us of
making God the author of sinne” (CPW I, 917; II, 293).
106 He could turn to Jacobus Arminius and Stephanus Curcellaeus, Examen Thesium D.
Francisci Gomari de praedestinatione. Accesserunt Stephani Curcellaei vindiciae (Amsterdam
?) 1645, or his countryman John Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed (London, 1651).
107 CM XIV, 64, 68: “Nihil itaque Deus decrevisse absolute censendus est, quod in potestate
libere agentium reliquit”; “non omnia absolute a summo Deo decerni.”
108 My translation. “Neque indignum quicquam affingitur Deo, si quos eventus, quas
conditiones in potestate hominis libera sitas esse Deus ipse voluit, eas ab arbitrio hominis
pendere affirmemus; quandoquidem addixit Deus iis conditionibus decreta ipse sua, ut
causas liberas ex ea libertate agere sineret, quam ipse iis indidit. Illud indignius Deo
esset, verbo ostendi, re adimi libertatem homini, quae necessitate quadam sophistica
immutabilitatis videlicet aut infallibilitatis non coactionis... non est mutabilis Deus, si
praecise nihil decernit quod per libertatem homini decretam aliter se habere potest”
(CM XIV, 72–6).
109 My translation. “Summatim sic se res habet, rationi summe consentanea. decrevit
Deus pro sua sapientia, angelos atque homines rationis, adeoque liberae voluntatis
compotes creare: praevidet simul quam illi in partem, sua integerrima libertate utentes,
suopte arbitrio essent inclinaturi. Quid ergo? nam hac Dei providentia sive praescientia
impositam esse iis necessitatem ullam dicemus? profecto non magis, quam si mortalium
quisquam hoc idem praevidisset. Quod enim quivis mortalium certo praevidit
eventurum, id non minus certo eveniet, quam quod Deus ipse praedixit... sic novit
Adamum sua sponte lapsurum; certo igitur lapsurus erat; non necessario” (CM XIV,
82–6).
110 Pages 180–1, 191–2. Milton explains the classic Calvinist text Romans 8:28–30 as
Notes to Chapter 12