Milton and the Trinity

Author(s): Maurice Kelley

Source: Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 4 (Aug., 1970), pp. 315-320
Published by: University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3817002
Accessed: 23-01-2016 17:00 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Huntington Library
Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.191.17.38 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 17:00:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Milton and the Trinity*
By MAURICE KELLEY

SOME TEN YEARShave elapsed since William B. Hunter, Jr., challenged

the generally accepted belief that Milton was an Arian: "we may posi-
tively assert,"Mr. Hunter wrote in 1959, "that Milton was not an Arian,"
"even though modern judges are unanimous in branding him one."'1
And since that year, this anti-Arian thesis has drawn either assent or dis-
approval from no less than ten different Miltonists in fourteen articles
or books.2This controversy I propose to examine because until we deter-
mine the soundness of this anti-Arian view, we cannot speak with cer-
tainty of Milton's religious beliefs during the third and last period of his
life.
The anti-Arian controversy contains two main centers of contention.
The first center is more semantic than theologic because it concerns the
proper use of two words, "Arian"and "Arianism."These terms, the anti-
Arians contend, should not be applied to Milton and his religious beliefs:
"it is clear," writes J. H. Adamson, "that Milton is no Arian and that the
term Arianism cannot accurately be applied to his doctrine of the God-
head."3And in the same burden, C. A. Patrides insists "that the applica-
tion of the term 'Arian' to Milton distorts his views and confounds the
important differences between 'subordinationism' and the Arian mythol-
ogy. '4 This anti-Arian contention would be sound were we to limit our-

selves to the Oxford English Dictionary, for there "Arian" is defined as

"an adherent of the doctrines of Arius," and "Arianism" as the "Arian
*This paper was read on December 28, 1968, to the English 6 Group ("Period of Milton")
at the annual MLA meeting in New York.
lWilliam B. Hunter, Jr., "Milton's Arianism Reconsidered," HTR, LII (1959), 9-35, quot-
ing from pp. 34 and io.
2For instance, J. H. Adamson, "Milton's Arianism," HTR, LIII (1960), 269-276; Roland
M. Frye, God, Man, and Satan (Princeton, 1960), pp. 75-76; Ruth Kivette, "Milton on the
Trinity" (unpubl. diss., Columbia, 1960), pp. 82-92; Maurice Kelley, "Milton's Arianism
Again Considered," HTR, LIV (1961), 195-205; "Milton and Arian," Seventeenth-Century
News, XXIII (1965), 2-3; Marjorie Nicolson, John Milton: A Reader's Guide to His Poetry
(New York, 1963), p. 229; William B. Hunter, Jr., "Some Problems in John Milton's Theo-
logical Vocabulary," HTR, LVII (1964), 353-365; John A. Clair, "A Note on Milton's 'Arian-
ism,'" Essays and Studies in Language and Literature (Pittsburgh, 1964), pp. 44-48; C. A.
Patrides, "Milton and Arianism," JHI, XXV (1964), 423-429; "The Godhead in Paradise
Lost: Dogma or Drama?," JEGP, LXIV (1965), 29-34; Milton and the Christian Tradition
(Oxford, 1966), pp. 15-25; Barbara K. Lewalski, Milton's Brief Epic (Providence, 1966), pp.
138-148; Stella P. Revard, "The Dramatic Function of the Son in Paradise Lost: A Com-
mentary on Milton's 'Trinitarianism,' " JEGP, LXVI (1967), 45-58.
3HTR, LIII (1960), 273.
4JH1, XXV (1964), 429.

315

? 1970 by The Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery.

This content downloaded from 130.191.17.38 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 17:00:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY
doctrine or heresy."The OED, however, fails to record that the two words
may also denote any rejection of orthodox Trinitarianism. In the generic
usage, the two terms imply no identity of doctrine with Arius, and are
consequently synonymous with "anti-Trinitarian" and "anti-Trinitarian-
ism."5 Thus Milton may be quite correctly called an Arian if he holds an
anti-Trinitarian view of God; and it is in this sense that scholars have
been calling Milton an Arian since the publication of the De Doctrina in
1825. This generic meaning the anti-Arians either disregard or reject,
and their rejection has definite disadvantages.First, it impugns Milton's
own generic use, where in Of True Religion he observes that "we suffer
the Idolatrous books of Papists .. . to be sold &-read," and then asks, "why
not much rather of Anabaptists, Arians, Arminians, &-Socinians?"6Sec-
ond, the rejection invites the charge of linguistic naivete by dismissing
four centuries of usage (in Latin and Polish as well as English) as irrele-
vant and "in evident need of revision."7 And finally, if the anti-Arians
are to be consistent in this rejection of all but etymological and original
meanings, they should amend their use of other theological terms. For in-
stance, Mr. Patrides should not use "psychopannychism"as a generic
term for both "thnetopsychism" (death of the soul) and "psychosomno-
lence" (sleep of the soul) because etymologically '4psychopannychism"
denotes Calvin's opposing doctrine, that of the "watchful and sentient
'wake' of the soul."8And similarly, the term "Trinitarian" should not be
used to denote those holding orthodox views of the Godhead because
originally Roman Catholic theologians applied it to Poles and Transyl-
vanians accused of tritheism.9 Since, then, "Arian" and "Arianism" have
generic as well as specific meanings, since these generic meanings are vali-
dated by long and continuous usage, and since their rejection is not con-
sistent with anti-Arian practice regarding other theological terms, I find
no solid basis for the anti-Arian objection to the application of "Arian"
and "Arianism" to Milton and his doctrine of God. The two words
mnerelydenote that Milton rejected the orthodox dogma of the Trinity.
If this first center of contention is peripheral and involves merely a
matter of nomenclature, the second center of our controversy is central
and theological, for it concerns the precise doctrine of God present in
Milton's De Doctrina. All but unanimously, Miltonists have held that
5HTR, LIV (1961), 198-aoo; Seventeenth-CenturyNews, XXIII (1965), 2-3.
6The Works of John Milton, ed. Frank A. Patterson (New York, 1931-38), VI, 178, as also
p. i69. Parenthetical references in the text are to this edition.
7JHI, XXV (1964), 429.
8Cf. Milton and the Christian Tradition, p. 265, and George H. Williams, The Radical
Reformation (Philadelphia, 1962), pp. 582-583.
9Cf. JEGP, LXIV (1965), 29, 30; LXVI (1967), 46, and The Two Treatises of Servetus on the
Trinity, trans. Earl Morse Wilbur, Harvard Theological Studies, XVI (Cambridge, Mass.,
1932), pp. 54-55, n. 9.

316

This content downloaded from 130.191.17.38 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 17:00:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MILTON AND THE TRINITY
the treatise denies the eternity of the Son and is consequently heretical.
The anti-Arians, however, maintain that the De Doctrina sets forth a two-
stage conception of the Logos in which the Son is eternal: in the first
stage, as the Logos, he existed from eternity, unbegotten, in the thought
of God; in the second stage, he became the begotten Son when God
externalized his thought into an intelligible world. This two-stage con-
ception, the anti-Arians further maintain, was held by a highly respect-
able group of pre-Nicene, subordinationist church fathers; and since
their subordinationism was never formally condemned, Milton's view of
God, which follows theirs, cannot be considered heretical.10
Under close scrutiny, however, these anti-Arian contentions fail. First,
the two-stage concept of the Logos is not orthodox: "a series of theolo-
gians rejects the whole conception.... In the fourth century all but pro-
fessed heretics seem to have repudiated the whole theory. The semi-
Arians attack it.... The doctrine is anathematised in the eighth anathe-
ma of the Council of Sirmium.... A succession of orthodox theologians
repeats the condemnation. ""1Second, Milton's De Doctrina does not set
forth a two-stage concept of an eternal Logos. Asserting that the treatise
does, the anti-Arians offer passagesfrom two chapters of Book I. The first
passageappearsin Chapter iii; it concerns God's decrees, and in Sumner's
translation reads:
The EFFICIENCY OF GOD is either INTERNAL or EXTERNAL. The INTERNAL EFFI-
CIENCYof God is that which is independentof all extraneousagency.Suchare
his decrees.... The DECREES OF GOD are GENERAL or SPECIAL. GOD'S GENERAL
DECREE is that WHEREBY HE HAS DECREEDFROM ALL ETERNITY ... WHATEVER
HE HIMSELF WILLED, OR WAS ABOUT TO DO.... Of his SPECIAL DECREES the first
and most importantis that whichregardshis SON.12

The second passage appears in Chapter v; it concerns the execution of

God's decrees, and reads:
Hitherto I have consideredthe INTERNAL EFFICIENCY of God, as manifestedin
his decrees.His EXTERNAL EFFICIENCY, or the executionof his decrees,whereby
he carries into effect . . . whatever decrees he has purposed within himself,
may be comprisedunder the heads of GENERATION, CREATION, and the Gov-
ERNMENT OF THE UNIVERSE. First,GENERATION, wherebyGod, in pursuanceof
his decree,hasbegottenhis only Son. (XIV, 179)

These passages,the anti-Arians assert, describe "two very different activi-

ties of the Father: the begetting of the Son in Chapter iii is a 'special
IOHTR, LII (1959), 9-35.
11G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London, 1952), pp. 127-128.
12 Works, XIV, 63, 89.

317

This content downloaded from 130.191.17.38 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 17:00:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY
internal efficiency,'whereas that in v is an 'external efficiency.'" Milton,
therefore, "is following . . the 'two stage' instead of the more traditional
'one stage' " concept of the Logos.13 The first passage,however, says noth-
ing about the "begetting of the Son"; it says only that God decreed him:
"of his SPECIAL DECREES," runs Chapter iii, "the first and most important
is that whichiregards the SON."Not until the second passage,from Chap-
ter v, does Milton take up the "begetting of the Son." Rather than ad-
vancing a two-stageconcept of an eternal Logos, the passagesproffered by
the anti-Arians do the very opposite; they prepare for Milton's subse-
quent Arian argument against the eternity of the Son. The Son, Milton
argues, "was begotten of the Father in consequence of his decree"; "the
decree itself must have been anterior to the execution of the decree";
therefore, Milton concludes, the Son wvasbegotten not from eternity but
"within the limits of time."'14
Thus, the two-stage concept is neither orthodox nor present in the
De Doctrina; and we may consequently dismiss the anti-Arian illusion of
Milton's later orthodoxy and revert to what Mr. Patrides has called the
"innocent days" before 1959, "when any deviation from Trinitarianism
was cheerfully equated with Arianism."'- If we do so, we return to a Mil-
ton who holds a consistent, anti-Trinitarian view of God during all the
last period of his life. In the De Doctrina (i658-i66o) he holds that the
Son is neither coessential nor coeternal with the Father,'0 and Ruth
Kivette shows the persistence of this anti-Trinitarianism in Milton's Artis
Logice (1672) and Of True Religion (1673).17 In this context, Paradise
Lost (1667) should be assumed as also anti-Trinitarian; and parallels
between Milton's systematic theology, his epic, and his textbook oni
logic affirm this assumption.ls The anti-Arians, however, contend other-
73HTR, LII (1959), 33-34.
14Works, XIV, 189. The De Doctrina, furthermore, fails to support the anti-Arian insist-
ence that Milton derives his views of the Godhead from the subordinationist Greek fathers
through Cudworth and More (HTR, LII [1959], 15-35; LIII [1960], 273-276;; JEGP, LXIV
[1965], 29; JHI, XXV [1964], 428). In the chapters of the treatise devoted to the Father, Soin.
and Spirit (ii, v, vi), Milton mentions by name only Hilary, Cyprian, and Ambrose, and these
references derive, as Milton acknowledges, from Erasmus (Works, XIV, 260, 264, 266). The
"caliospatres nonnullos" referred to in XIV, 260, may be identified from Erasmus as Cyprian
and Chrysostom. The names of Cudworth and More, if the Columbia Index is to be trusted,
do not appear in Milton's works. For further criticism of the anti-Arian contention that
Milton accepted the two-stage concept, see Kivette, "Milton on the Trinity," pp. 89-92, and
Lewalski, Milton's Brief Epic, p. 391.
'5JEGP, LXIV (1965), 29.
l6For evidence that the doctrinal content and organization of the lost fourteen chapters of
the i658-6o draft are those found in the Skinner copy in the MS today, see the introduction
to the forthcoming edition of Milton's systematic theology in Complete Prose Works of John
Milton being issued by the Yale University Press.
17"Milton and the Trinity," pp. 12-17.
"sFor parallels with Paradise Lost, see HTR, LIV (1961), 201-204; with Artis Logicaf, cf.
Works, XIV, 200, 202, 312 with XI, 315, 58, 111-113.

318

This content downloaded from 130.191.17.38 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 17:00:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MILTON AND THE TRINITY
wise. The De Doctrina, argues Mr. Patrides, holds that the Father and
Son are not equal, whereas "by contrast we have in Paradise Lost [III,
305-306] the Father's assertion that the Son is 'Thron'd in highest bliss /
Equal to God.''s Thirty years ago, however, A. S. P. Woodhouse20
pointed out that in this quotation from the epic, the crucial word is
"thron'd," and that the passage is not a statement of the Son's "natural
equality with the Father," but rather "of an equality in glory bestowed
upon the Son by the Father"-a gift which "can be bestowed only upon
one by nature inferior." Mr. Patrides further errs in failing to note that
Paradise Lost and the De Doctrina both state that the Father and Son
are not equal. In VIII, 406-407, the Father declares "for none I know /
Second to me or like, equal much less." These lines are paralleled in the
De Doctrina by "alium preterea neminem, nedum parem" (XIV, 50),
which Sumner renders "besides whom there was none other, much less
any equal." Here, however, the anti-Arians answer that the speaker in
Paradise Lost is not the Father but "God addressingAdam in the unity of
the Godhead.'"2'In so contending they beg the question. They assume
what they have yet to prove-Milton's orthodoxy in Paradise Lost.
This error of Milton's Trinitarian orthodoxy dies hard. We have now
had the De Doctrina with its unequivocal declaration of Arianism for 143
years; yet, as this anti-Arian controversy witnesses, some Miltonists still
maintain the orthodoxy of the De Doctrina and hear in Paradise Lost, to
quote a recent article, "the subtle, yet still lovely, music of Milton's
Trinity."22 Such persistence reminds one of Servetus' enemies, who, he
complains, "have teeth of iron, so that if they bite hold of but a single
passage of scripture they are content. But I would," continues Servetus,
"that they might as diligently observe other passagesof scripture."23In a
like vein, I would that the anti-Arians would diligently observe all of
Milton's works and their context, and that they would cease linking Mil-
ton's views of God with the terms "Trinitarian" and "Trinity" in such
deceptive phrases as "Milton's trinitarian thought,"24"a Trinity of three
essences but one substance,"25or Milton's "Trinity of love."26Milton dis-
liked the doctrine of the Trinity: he considered it unscriptural (XV,
262), hastily adopted on the authority of almost a single, dubious text
(XIV, 402), and supported by strange and absurd hypotheses that have no
19Milton and the Christian Tradition, p. 22.
20MLR, XXXIV (1939), 595.
21JEGP, LXIV (1965), 34.
22JEGP, LXVI (1967), 51-
23The Two Treatises, p. 68.
24HTR, LIII (1960), 276.
25HTR, LVII (1964), 356; Patrides, Milton and the Christian Tradition, p. 17.
26JEGP, LXVI (1967), 58.

319

This content downloaded from 130.191.17.38 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 17:00:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY
foundation in holy writ (XIV, 378). Milton would not appreciate the false
aura of orthodoxy with which these anti-Arian phrases invest his views,
for his views, a comparison with Earl Morse Wilbur's A History of Uni-
tarianism will show, are not Trinitarian at all. Rather, they constitute a
classic example of Renaissance anti-Trinitarianism.21

27Some characteristics of Renaissance Arianism present in Milton are his independent and
apparently singular view of the Godhead, his profession of dependence on Scripture alone,
his reliance on Erasmian exegesis, and his concomitant plea for tolerance.

320

This content downloaded from 130.191.17.38 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 17:00:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 II

-N-MM~~ i.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
...
.. ~~..~.~~~ ~
....
. ^ . .: :. .'. ;

~ -
MM4,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
R'.gi fig.~1
.. .........
....I I |

: : X : 0
Xi': :ND:0 vd

_ X

See pp 316319

I. REPRODUCTION OF FIRST PAGE OF MANUSCRIPT OF MILTON S De Doctrina

Christiana,
FROM FIRST EDITION (1I825) .MATERIAL ILLUSTRATED ON THIS AND THE FOLLOWING
PAGES IS IN THE COLLECTIONS OF THE HUNTINGTON LIBRARY

This content downloaded from 130.191.17.38 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 17:00:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions