“Teach the Erring Soul” 1669–1674denies them. The Arian and Socinian are charg’d to dispute against the Trinity: they
affirm to believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, according to Scripture, and the
Apostolic Creed; as for terms of Trinity, Triunity, Coessentiality, Tripersonality, and
the like, they reject them as Scholastic Notions, not to be found in Scripture, which
by a general Protestant Maxim is plain and perspicuous abundantly to explain its own
meaning in the properest words.... The Arminian lastly is condemn’d for setting up
free will against free grace; but that Imputation he disclaims in all his writings, and
grounds himself largly upon Scripture only.^72He agrees that the latitudinarian program of comprehending various sects and doc-
trines within the established church is possible “if they can agree in the right ad-
ministration of that wherin they Communicate, keeping their other Opinions to
themselves.” But he rejects their proposals enjoining obedience to the church in
“things indifferent,” reiterating the classic Puritan argument that “in Religion nothing
is indifferent,” and that nothing must be added to the word of God (CPW VIII,
422, 428). He insists instead on full and equal toleration of all Protestants either
within or alongside any establishment, allowing them “on all occasions to give
account of their Faith, either by Arguing, Preaching in their several Assemblies,
Publick writing, and the freedom of Printing” (426).
The second half of the treatise treats Roman Catholicism in terms generally
accordant with Milton’s long-standing views: Catholics fall outside the toleration
claimed for true religion grounded upon scripture; Catholics may be suppressed
when politically dangerous though not for specifically religious reasons; and Catho-
lic idolatry may be suppressed as palpably evil by the light of nature and therefore
within the magistrate’s domain.^73 The important difference here is Milton’s exten-
sive treatment of the dangers, political and religious, from Roman Catholicism,
which, with a crypto-Catholic king on the throne and a professedly Catholic king
in the offing, he sees as a growing peril. In Of Civil Power, addressed to a securely
Protestant magistracy, Milton did not formally object to Catholic worship in pri-
vate, demanding only that the “furniture” of idolatry – the mass, religious images
used in worship, priests – be removed from public places. Now he argues for re-
moving private idolatry also, citing scripture texts indicating God’s abhorrence of
it, though he does not urge invasive and general searches for idolatrous practice.^74
His specific target here is the king’s Declaration, which by allowing private Catho-
lic worship would legitimize the Catholic presence at court and in other high places.
Milton does not resurrect popish plots and bloody treasons, the scare tactics com-
mon in the “No Popery” literature.^75 Nor does he mention parliament’s punitive
Test Act. While he saw Catholics as a political danger and wanted them out of
places of power, he surely thought it abhorrent to God to require taking commun-
ion as a gesture of outward conformity. In Of Civil Power he had insisted that “the
outward performance... of religious and holy duties especialy by prophane and
licentious persons, is a dishonoring rather then a worshiping of God” (CPW VII,