“Teach the Erring Soul” 1669–1674various issues and proposals. But his treatise makes no direct reference to the king’s
Declaration of Indulgence, nor to the constitutional issue posed by the use of royal
prerogative, nor to the Test Act, nor to the Commons Bill for ease to dissenters,
nor to the Parker–Marvell controversy and the references to himself. This is remi-
niscent of his strategy in Tenure, when he claimed to be considering the king’s trial
and execution abstractly, after the fact and without specific reference to it, though
he wrote much of the tract while those events were occurring. Here, Milton means
his discussion to deal specifically, but covertly, with these various proposals. Unlike
Marvell, who welcomed the provision for dissenters in the king’s Declaration of
Indulgence and ignored the Catholic problem, Milton opposes the terms of that
Declaration, treating Catholicism as a clear and present danger for political and
religious reasons. He also opposes parliament’s approach, offering his own analysis
of what should (and should not) be done with Catholics and dissenters.
He urges a far more inclusive toleration of dissenters than the Commons Bill
would have allowed, arguing as if from the position of a Protestant Englishman
unidentified with any party but drawing support from an (often strained) interpre-
tation of some of the Thirty-nine Articles and from moderate Anglican or latitudi-
narian voices.^69 As he did in Of Civil Power, he again purports to speak for all
Protestants in defining true religion as belief and worship founded on scripture, and
in rejecting implicit faith, defined as belief “though as the Church believes, against
or without express authority of Scripture.”^70 Also, as he did in Of Civil Power, he
adopts a polemic and aesthetic strategy of plainness and brevity, proposing to avoid
the “Labyrinth of Councels and Fathers” and cut through the thickets of contro-
versy, focusing on “what is plainer to Common apprehension.”^71 But he omits his
former arguments based on Christian liberty and the Spirit’s illumination as supe-
rior to the letter of scripture, to avoid being classed with sectarian “enthusiasts.” For
the same reason he does not mention the Quakers among the sects and opinions
deserving of toleration.
As in Of Civil Power, Milton defines heresy as religion that relies on extra-scrip-
tural sources of authority, restricting it thereby to Roman Catholicism. Any errors
the several Protestant sects hold are not heresies and do not involve matters essential
to salvation. In a neat rhetorical ploy he co-opts the Anglican argument about
accepting “things indifferent” and applies it to doctrinal differences most would
think far from indifferent, including several of his own heterodoxies – Arianism,
Arminianism, and Anabaptism. He does not impute any error to these, as he does to
some mainstream doctrines, and he makes a special point of defending Arians:
The Lutheran holds Consubstantiation; an error indeed, but not mortal. The Calvin-
ist is taxt with Predestination, and to make God the Author of sin; not with any
dishonourable thought of God, but it may be over zealously asserting his absolute
power, not without plea of Scripture. The Anabaptist is accus’d of Denying Infants
their right to Baptism; again they say, they deny nothing but what the Scripture