The Historical Critique of Heresiology in the Seventeenth Century and the Origins of John Milton’s Arianism

This chapter situates John Milton’s “antitrinitarianism” within its historical context—that of the Protestant critique of heresiology. For this reason, we problematize the concept of heresy, for its use begs the very question that seventeenth-century theologians were asking: What should we believe? Such inquiry arises in the context of humanistic scholarship and the growing sense of historical consciousness. Erasmus’ rejection of the Johannine Comma and Valla’s exposure of the Donation of Constantine are perhaps the two most famous examples, and this chapter examines in detail the work of Milton’s contemporary, Gerardus Vossius, who was the first to show that what we now call the Pseudo-Athanasian creed was spurious. His scholarship is significant for it justifies our methodological framing by demonstrating that theological questions, such as belief in the Trinity, were still live issues in the seventeenth century. Protestant scholars continued to ask themselves what needed to be reformed. Milton’s Arianism derives from this concern. He was unable to justify the doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture, his only authority, and so Milton developed the most original formulation of the Reformed doctrine of election in the seventeenth century, asserting three centuries before Karl Barth a clear doctrine of Christ’s eternal election in the divine will. Milton’s arguments derive from Scripture, and we show in the final section of the chapter the ultimate implications of the Protestant position: no one knows the truth. Milton argues for a form of Protestant ecumenism and doctrinal relativism because reformers cannot establish—and the state should not impose—the content of faith.