About Christian Teaching (Milton)

Five memoirs of Milton's contemporaries are known, on the basis of which one can reconstruct the circumstances of the creation of “De Doctrina Christiana” ^[1] . At the beginning of 1652, Milton was completely blind ^[2] . According to John Aubrey , whose “Minutes of the Life of Mr John Milton” were supposedly written in 1681, Milton had an excellent memory and excellent ability to organize the material, which allowed him to overcome the inconvenience of his blindness. Aubrey’s notes describe the poet’s daily routine as follows: Awakening at 4:30 am, after which the secretary came to him and read the Hebrew Bible , after which Milton gave himself some time to think. He began work at 7 am and dictated until lunchtime, for which he was often joined by various educated people who were looking for the societies of a great man ^[3] . As the young people involved in the recording at the time when Milton decided to start dictation, so there were quite a few visitors at Milton’s home, but the unfinished works were not widely spread. Even the manuscript of “The Lost Paradise ” had a very limited circulation among Milton's admirers, so it is not surprising that few people knew about the work on the work that could lead to accusations of heresy and blasphemy ^[4] .

According to the general opinion, the treatise was written between 1655 and 1658 ^[5] , thus the question arises how this rather complicated text could have been written. The researchers note that in this case he was helped by a good memory, numerous assistants and previously made theological extracts (“Index Theologicus” or “Commonplace Book”, subsequently lost). Miltonologists also indicate that the poems “Lost Paradise” and “ Returned Paradise ” written in the same period are no less complex ^{[6] [7]} . In the memoirs, “Doctrina” is mentioned under various names: as “a Body of Divinity” by Cyriac Skinner, “a Tractate” and “System of Divinity” by milton's nephew and as “Idea Theologiae” by and Aubrey. Probably, his final title, referring to the Aurelius Augustine , the text received after the death of the author ^[8] .

The treatise begins with an introduction, in which Milton talks about the reasons that led him to think to undertake this study. He reports that, having achieved a sufficient level of Hebrew proficiency as a result of reading the Old and New Testaments in the original language, he continued to study Christian theology along numerous theological treatises, none of which satisfied him. Finally, relying only on the Bible, he composed his own exposition of the Christian faith, which fully corresponded to his view, so that he would always have it at hand ( Latin ad manum mihi esset ). Not trying to express his own thoughts, he tried to make the most of the biblical quotes - as a result of them in “Doctrina” more than 700 ^{[9] [10]} . From the text of the introduction, we can conclude that Milton considered the treatise as his "best and richest asset" ^[11] lat. melius aut pretiosius nihil habeo and was going to share it with the whole world - the condition for this was to be the strengthening of the “reformed religion and the absence of danger from the papists ”. Considering that the Puritans considered the bishop William Lod and the church under King Charles I as a whole, as Catholic , this allows dating the origin of the “Teachings” plan to the mid-1640s. Milton could also see the Catholic danger of the Counter-Reformation and the Thirty Years War , which was considered in England as a religious conflict ^[12] .

The reasons for which the work was not published during the life of the author were probably of a political nature. The Act of Blasphemy, adopted in May 1648 at the initiative of Presbyterian parliamentarians, defined the categories of heresies for which imprisonment or the death penalty were imposed. The latter included the denial of the Trinity , the atonement and resurrection of Christ, the doubt about the authority of the Holy Scriptures. By imprisonment , such doctrines as , Arminianism , mortalism , antinomianism , denial of sacraments , the baptism of children and the Sabbath ^{[13] were} punished. A significant number of them shared by John Milton and, according to the calculations of American religious scholar , he could be convicted on five charges that involved the death penalty, and eight on life imprisonment ^[14] . Despite this, Milton considered the period after the overthrow of the monarchy as a time of freedom. The Stuart restoration in 1660 marked the end of hopes for a better society and increased religious persecution ^[15] .

In November 1823, Robert Lemon, Senior Guardian of His Majesty’s Archives, discovered the manuscript De Doctrina Christiana in the closet of the old archive on Whitehall . Lemon identified John Milton as the author of the text — IOANNES MILTONVS was the name of the title page, as well as IM initials after the introduction — and announced his discovery in mid-January of the following year, and on 29 March the manuscript was discussed at a meeting of the House of Commons . In 1825, the treatise was published in an English translation by Bishop Charles Sumner and was accompanied by historical information. Milton’s authorship at that moment was recognized by all, with the exception of the , who refused to see Milton in the author of the Unitarian work. Gradually, however, the objections were withdrawn and Doctrina entered the official canon of Milton's works ^[16] . After the discovery, the manuscript changed its place several times, and since December 1996 it has been in the in ^[17] .

Based on the envelope and package containing several names, found together with the manuscript, the name of one of Milton's two secretaries who wrote under his dictation was established: the first part of the manuscript was written by the hand of , a relative (possibly nephew) of another well-known other secretary and Milton's apprentice, . The package, in turn, was intended for Sir Joseph Williamson who, probably in 1677, and placed the manuscript in the archive. The search for scholars from the late 19th and early 20th centuries made it possible to establish some stages of the fate of the manuscript before handing it over to Williamson. It turned out that in 1674, Skinner sent the manuscript through the Dutch sailor Simon Heere ( Symon Heere ) to the representative of the famous publishing dynasty, Daniil Elsevir . The one, in turn, who decided to find out the opinion of the famous Repairman theologian . Much later, in 1711, Limborch, in a letter to the German bibliophile , explained that, seeing the explicit Arian orientation of this work of Milton, he advised against publishing it ^[18] . If the identity of the secretary, whose hand was written the first 196 pages of the manuscript - Daniel Skinner was established fairly quickly, about who wrote the pages 197-735 the first assumption appeared only in 1923. According to J. Hanford ( Hanford, James H. ), it was Jeremy Picard, whose hand wrote several legal documents of Milton and made notes in his family Bible ^[17] . Apparently, Picard worked on the manuscript in 1658-1660. Almost nothing is known about his fate, except that he was apparently a patient in Bedlam in 1700 ^[19] . It is believed that Picard began rewriting the manuscript, and Skinner brought it to the end ^[20] . The pages of the manuscript “De Doctrina Christiana” are combined in three volumes and numbered by D. Skinner. The numbering contains errors: the sequence of numbers from 626 to 635 is repeated, and in modern publications pages from the second range are designated as 626b-636b ; page 308 is a final copy of page 308a ^[21] . Pages written by Picard’s hand contain edits and notes by Skinner, as well as other unidentified scribes ^[22] . Most of the manuscript is a “ palimpsest ”, in which it is difficult to distinguish a layer of reliable text ^[23] . By the fullest estimates, the manuscript underwent four large editions after Picard, not counting the minor revisions of seven unidentified scribes ^[24] .

Influence and borrowing

Considering Milton's ideas in the context of the mainstream Protestant theology of the 17th century is a rather complicated task due to the extremely heterogeneous nature of the Reformation Theology. In addition to the currents that emerged at the early stage of the Reformation , Lutheranism , Calvinism, and Zwinglianism , later radical teachings of the Anabaptists , Calistinas , Unitarians, and others were added. Theological traditions were also modified in individual countries, including in England. All these teachings fought not only with Catholicism , but also with each other. Gnesioleuterans accused the Philip Melanchthon of hidden Calvinism in part of the doctrine of the Eucharist and hidden Catholicism in soteriology . The signing of the Formula of Concord stabilized Lutheran orthodoxy in 1577. A similar document was not adopted in Calvinism, and 39 articles of the Anglican religion are based on it only partially ^[25] .

According to a widespread belief, Milton’s developed in his early years, but a detailed examination does not confirm this theory. He grew up in a Puritan family of parishioners of the Lodian church on Hammersmith Street, and some scholars discover Puritan motifs in his early play Komos (1634). However, there are few obvious indications of the existence of a certain theological position in Milton’s early texts. In a 1629], he expressed his happiness in praying to the “threefold unity” of God and appealed to His three persons in the pamphlet “ ” (1641). A hint of religious sympathy can be considered Milton's letter to one of the members of the Huguenot 1 of August 1, 1657, who was in opposition to orthodox Calvinism. Calvinistic dogmas about the divine inspiration of the Hebrew version of the Old Testament with a letter accuracy, and direct were enunciated in the polemics with the academics ^[26] .

Researchers made various assumptions about who influenced the creation of the "Teaching". As a rule, the names of Servetus ^[27] , Jacob Böhme and are called, but there are not many solid grounds for such statements. Another first publisher of the Doctrine, Charles Sumner, drew attention to the similarity of the structure of the treatise with Compendium Theologiae Christianae (1626) by Basel theologian . Volleb's book was very popular as one of the best textbooks on systematic theology. By 1660, it stood 8 editions and was translated into several European languages. Although “Compendium” is not explicitly mentioned by Milton, the series of expressions in both treatises are very similar. In addition, according to the memoirs of his nephew Edward Phillips, the books of Volleb and William Ames ( Medulla Theologica , 1623) were used in classes in ancient and modern languages ​​in 1640–1646 ^{[28] [29] [30]} . Ames’s influence is also noticeable in Milton’s divorce ^[31] . Both of these authors followed the dialectical method of the Frenchman Pierre de la Ramet , who denied the scholastic method. The peculiar theology of Rama, set forth in his “Comments to the Christian religion in four books” (“Commentarium de religione Christiana libri quatuor”, 1577), concerned not so much the nature of God as the art of “living well” ( lat. Doctrina bene vivendi ). In contrast to the general attitudes of the Reformation Theology, Rame reduced the citation of the Bible at the expense of the philosophical works of Aristotle and the poetry of Virgil ^[32] . More significant was the influence of the Rama methodology, the complex of systematic presentation developed by him ( ) using spatial visualization, the construction of diagrams and tables. An important aspect of the Rame method was the use of dichotomy , which was manifested, in particular, in the two-part structure of the works of his followers ^[33] . However, as M. Kelly notes, the influence of Ames and Valleb was limited only to the structure of the book, and not its content ^[6] . In addition to these two theologians, the Doctrine cites the works of Andreas Musculus , , , Francis Gomar , , , , , Joshua Placaeus and Episcopus . Only four are named by name in the text (Ames, Musculus, Pareus and Cameron) ^[5] .

Milton's acquaintance with anti-Trinitarianism was probably held in August 1650, when he was instructed to check for compliance with the legislation of the Sociánian Rakovsky catechism (unlike the opinion of Parliament, his conclusion was positive) ^[34] . The appearance of anti-Trinitarianism in England is associated with the name of the Italian Bernardino Ochino, who preached in London in 1547-1553. By the end of the 16th century, commitment to this teaching began to be punished by the death penalty. In the middle of the XVII century, this issue was discussed in the so-called. “ ”, with some of whose representatives Milton was familiar ^[35] .

There is also a tendency to view the development of Milton's ideas in the context of materialistic teachings. The French scholar calls the system created by Milton "Christian materialism" (1928) ^[36] . According to Sora, Milton’s entire philosophical system is derived from Kabbalah , with the exception of his materialism; Milton's materialism is derived from the teachings of Robert Fludd , with the exception of his mortalism , which he shared with contemporary English mortalists ^[37] . According to the Soviet literary critic A. A. Chameyev , Milton’s book “mixed materialistic and religious-idealistic, humanistic and Puritan views” ^[38] .

Regarding the Holy Spirit, the Anglican Church accepted the doctrine of the filioque of its dual descent. Without accepting it, Milton in the “Teaching” argued that the Spirit consists of a substance ( lat. Substantia ), but does not have its essence ( lat. Essentia). Pointing to the fact that it is impossible to conclude from Holy Scripture whether the Holy Spirit was spawned or created, Milton considers the usual theological terms about “emanation” and “emanation” to be inappropriate. Milton's views on this issue are close to the Macedonian , as well as the theology of Volleb ^[39] .

Trinitarian Question

The promulgation of the undoubtedly heretical “Teaching” raised the question of the extent to which Milton’s other works, especially the “ Lost Paradise ”, which was considered to be unconditionally orthodox, revealed its heterodoxia . The fact that the final copy of the manuscript of the Doctrine was made by Picard between 1658 and 1660 gave reason to believe that the treatise could be the theological basis of a poem published in 1667. A detailed justification for this thesis was presented in 1941 by Maurice Kelley ( Maurice Kelley , This Great Argument: A Study of Milton's De Doctrina Christiana as a Gloss upon Paradise Lost ). Denying this assertion, William B. Hunter points out that those places in “Lost Paradise” that Kelly paid attention to the heretical, were not considered as such before the “Teaching” ^[40] . From this, Hunter concluded that Milton could not have been the author of this treatise. The researcher did not offer his own solution to the problem of authorship, although, in his opinion, this could be the religious radical of the older generation John Goodwin (d. 1665) ^[41] . Nevertheless, numerous examples of the fact that the first readers of “Paradise” found a poem heretical and, moreover, Arian , are given by American literary critic . Among those who drew attention to the fact that God the Son in the poem is shown standing below God the Father were Daniel Defoe , John Toland , . In 1698, priest accused Milton of not knowing the Trinity of his angels. The first publisher of The Teachings, Charles Sumner, ranked among those who, not knowing about this treatise, considered Milton to be an Arianin of his biographers , , and others ^[42] .

As a result, according to American literary scholar J. P. Ramrich ( John P. Rumrich ), the question should be put as follows: how did it happen that despite the fact that so many contemporaries considered Milton a heretic, most of our contemporaries consider “ Lost Paradise ” appropriate orthodoxy? ^[43] In analyzing this problem, Ramritch views Milton’s views in the context of the “ Unitarian Dispute ” of the late 17th century, when an attempt was made to revise the place of antitrinitarianism in Protestant theology. As Milton himself wrote in the pamphlet " " (1673) ^[44] :

The Arians and Socinians began a dispute against the Trinity : they declare their faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit according to the Holy Scriptures and the Apostolic faith ; as regards the terms of the Trinity, trinity, consistency, three persons and the like, they deny them as scholastic concepts that are absent from the Scriptures, which, according to the basic Protestant maxim, are clear and simple and whose meaning can be explained in the clearest words necessary and appropriate; the mystery is, in fact, in their sophistical subtleties, and in Scripture is a clear doctrine.

Original Text (Eng.)

The Gang, according to the Scripture, and the Apostolic Creed; It is not necessary to find out what it’s like, but it’s not necessary to find it out. it is a matter of Scripture a plain Doctrin.

Considering that Milton criticized the "scholastic sophistry" in his other pamphlets, it can be assumed that Milton stands on the side of antitrinitarians (however, W. Hunter makes the opposite conclusion from the same quotation). It should be borne in mind that the Tolerance Act of 1689, bestowing rights on Catholics , did not do the same for antitrinitarians, and as early as 1697, an 18-year-old was executed for denying the Trinity dogma ^[44] in Glasgow . The main doctrinal difference between Arianism and orthodoxy, which accepts the Nicene Creed in 325, is the denial of the fact that Christ is the “born and not created” Son of God. According to W. Hunter, there is no such denial in Milton's theology, but there is subordinationism , that is, recognition of the Son as subordinate to the father. Although this doctrine of subordination was rejected by the First Nicene Council , the very word “subordinationism” did not bear such a burden of negative connotations as the word “Arianism” received over the centuries and was almost forgotten by the 17th century ^[45] . According to M. Bauman, the image of the Son in “Lost Paradise” fully corresponds to how it is stated in the 5th chapter of the “Teaching”, where the Son is treated as limited in space, not eternal, but occurring in time from the eternal and omnipresent Father. It is affirmed that the divine nature and authority of the Son is not inherent in him, but comes from the Father, who gave them as much as he desired. Although this view is close to the teachings of Arius and Sotsin , a significant difference is Milton's recognition of the Son of the Father. However, this is not affirmed in the sense of the Nicene Creed, but to the extent that the Father is the fundamental principle of all beings. This is consistent with the ratio of Father and Son shown in Paradise. Thus, the Son is not shown to be omniscient: he does not know about the Father’s plan for humanity until he argues with him and offers himself a sacrifice. The changeable nature of the Son and his subordination to the will of the Father are repeatedly shown ^[46] . According to the literary critic , in “Paradise,” the Father and the Son “are not identical about as a terrier and a camel” ^[47] .

Soteriology

If Milton's trinitarian views were frankly heretical, matching his Californian soteriology is a more complex issue. Disagreements in Protestant soteriology, the doctrine of salvation , arose from contradictions in the Holy Scriptures. On the one hand, the commentator of the Epistles of Paul the Apostle Ambrosiaaster interpreting 1 Cor. 1: 4-9 pointed out that “it is so established by God that a believer in Christ will be saved without difficulty — only by faith will he receive absolution” ^[48] . On the other hand, in jac. 2:24 it says, "Do you see that a person is justified by works, and not by faith alone?" Martin Luther resolved this contradiction by questioning the authenticity of James' letters and adding the word "only" to Rome. 3:28 (“For we acknowledge that a man is justified by faith, regardless of the work of the law”). Milton formulates his position on this issue in the second book of teachings (II.1, “On the works of God”): “no deeds can be good only by faith; but faith is an essential form of good works, it determines the form of being, and through it things are what they are ” ^[49] . Concerning the atonement, Milton adhered to the “forensic substitution” theory widely held among Protestants, in which God the Father acted as a severe judge and Jesus as the advocate of fallen humanity. At the same time, the sufferings of Jesus, designed to satisfy the requirements of the punishing Father, in various Protestant denominations applied either to all Christians or to the chosen righteous, or, like those of socianians , had not an effective, but an indicative meaning. This issue is addressed in Milton's treatise in Chapter I.16, On the Ministry of Atonement ^[50] .

Initially, the doctrine of grace arose in a dispute between the theologians of the 4th century, Bishop Augustine of Hippo, and the British monk Pelagius about free will . According to Pelagia, man has the ability and freedom to decide in favor of good. Sin is manifested only in individual volitional acts, and if a person chooses evil, he sins. But nothing prevents him from choosing good and thus avoiding sin. Pelagius rejects the notion that sin is the inclination of man or his nature. As a result, Pelagius also rejects the idea of original sin . The role of grace, according to Pelagius, was to support man in his quest for good ^[51] . On the contrary, Augustine believed that man himself can do nothing for his salvation, his will is incapable of doing good, and therefore salvation can only be the result of the act of God. The basis of salvation is grace, and not the free will of man ^[52] . Later questions were raised about whether it is possible to resist the effects of grace, and whether prejudice to evil is possible. Their contemporary John Cassian , who recognized the original sin but did not deny free will, also held a compromise position ^[53] .

In Protestant theology on this issue, various positions were taken by Jean Calvin , who took the point of view of Augustine in its tougher version, and Jacob Arminius , inclined to the opinion of Cassian. In Calvinism, salvation is the unconditional purpose of the elect, who cannot resist the condescension of grace upon them, whereas the sinners are equally surely predetermined by the absence of salvation. The Arminians, on the other hand, considered salvation conditional, the result of an individual choice to accept or not accept grace. discussed at the Dordrecht Synod of 1619. The synod considered and rejected the Arminian , thereby taking the side of the Calvinists. At the same time, however, the Arminian doctrine of salvation was adopted by the Lodian church in England (to which, as was said, Milton's family belonged) ^{[54] [53]} . Considering this question in the Doctrine, Milton rejects the possibility that all human actions are controlled by God, since “no law of necessity must be allowed except in logic or, in other words, what the voice of reason says” (I.3, “On Divine Decrees” ). Milton further explains that divine omniscience does not preclude human free will , since one does not affect the other. On the issue of predestination for evil, Milton took a position different from both Calvinists and Arminians. In his opinion (see also sidebar), it can be attributed not only to divine will but, to a greater degree, to refusal to repent according to one’s own choice. Similarly, John Goodwin and Miguel Servetus believed ^[55] .

The opinion that Milton's later theology should be called Arminian was expressed in the 18th century by the famous lexicographer Samuel Johnson . Subsequent researchers primarily agreed with him. Joseph McDill ( Joseph M. McDill , “Milton and the pattern of Calvinism”) expressed the opposite opinion in 1938, according to which “there can be no doubt that“ Paradise Lost ”fully corresponds to five points of Calvinism ” ^[56] . The importance of this problem was explained in 1997 by English researcher Paul Sellin ( Paul R. Sellin , "John Milton's Paradise Lost and De Doctrina Christiana on Predestination"), according to which the attitude to the doctrine of predestination can be regarded as a "decisive limit" in elucidation of the “compatibility” of “Teachings” and “Lost Paradise”, that is, in the issue of authorship of the treatise. According to Sellin, such a boundary can indeed be drawn, but his conclusions about the degree of its principle were not fully accepted ^[57] .

The treatise is divided into an introduction and two books, “On the knowledge of God” and “On the service of God.” The introduction outlines the purpose of writing the Doctrine and describes the spiritual evolution that preceded it. This path began even in his youth, when the author studied “brief systems of theologians”, then “more extensive volumes of divinity”, where “conflicting arguments in debates about certain sections of the faith” drew his attention. At this stage, Milton formulated for himself some set of basic principles ( lat. Loci communes ), theses to which he will further describe. Turning to “lengthy” teachings, Milton found that his views were in conflict with the views of the teachers of the Church. As a result, he decided to base his teaching not on secondary sources, but only on the Bible ^[58] . According to the observation of W. Hunter, “The Doctrine” was written using both approaches, and contains both an expanded Bible quotation from Volleb and Ames , as well as independent arguments about the nature of God and its properties ^[31] . As a basis for his reasoning, Milton points out in his introduction the Bible , which he further quotes in abundantly in his treatise. This was not characteristic of the Ramists , nor for the majority of theologians known to Milton, and he points out this difference ^[59] . Milton designates his own efforts to interpret the Holy Scripture as the result of careful reflection on the basis of the perception of divine revelation ( lat.id fide non aliunde quam divinitus accepta ). Without imposing his own authority, since no one should blindly accept the opinions of others, Milton says that you should wait until Bible awareness convinces the reader and arouses faith in him ^[60] . Analyzing the “overflow” of the text with biblical quotations, and the reader’s violence caused by this technique, Milton researchers note that the author is “here and not here” - he is “here” to the extent that the quotation language is his own ^[61] .

In this regard, it is essential to establish Milton's relationship with the biblical text, which was not simple. It is known that he considered the text of the Bible damaged, and did not prefer any particular translation or variant of it. Milton's only surviving “family Bible” with its notes is the “authorized” Bible of King James. ” ^[62] Milton also used the English-language Geneva Bible . From Latin translations, Milton used the Vulgate of Hieronymus of Stridon and a more modern version of the Protestants of and ^[63] . More Charles Sumner pointed out that Milton used it is this transfer. In England the Bible and Junius Tremelliya printed since 1580 but, according to the typos, Milton used the Geneva and daniem 1630 ^[64] . The American expert on the works of Milton conducted a study of the method of citing the Bible "scholars", and found that it was far from the literal. In addition to numerous instances of word order changes, Milton replaced the names of their own, which Junius and Tremellius led to Hebrew pronunciation, the more common versions of the King James Version of the Bible ^[65] , and spelling substitutions in quotations are also notable. The 17th century changes of qu to c (for example, loquutus → locutus ) were not made throughout the text of the manuscript, but the replacement of quum → cum is only in the first 15 chapters of the first book, which may indicate Milton’s participation in the initial editing of the text. The general nature of the textual variations suggests that the secretaries practically did not know Latin, and the later ones verified the text of the quotes with the original of Junius and Tremellium ^[66] . There is also a version that Milton used Brian Walton of London Polyglot , but there is no evidence that this multi-volume publication was at his disposal ^[62] .

The discovery and publication of Milton’s “Teachings” aroused considerable public resonance in England ^[67] . One of the first in August of the same year young Thomas Macaulay responded to the exit of the book, whose opinion was rather negative. in his opinion, this “book will not increase Milton’s fame”, although it is written in excellent Latin . Macaulay does not share the "heretical teachings" of the author, however, in his opinion, Milton could be suspected of Arianism already on the basis of "The Lost Paradise ." In general, the question of what views are presented in this book does not matter much, since it is destined to be oblivion ^[68] . Nevertheless, immediately after the book was published, it caused shock, since Milton had not previously considered the possibility of heretical views seriously. There were such suspicions, and Bishop wrote that some suggested Milton's Arian sympathies, but many places in his writings refute this. Many of the poet's biographies published by that time unanimously considered his religious views to be orthodox , and his poetic epic was called "the second most important after the Bible." Milton’s anti-Trinitarianism was all the more surprising because Lost Paradise was considered an exemplary Trinitarian work even by Unitarians ^[69] .

Milton's work did not have any influence on the religious disputes of the seventeenth century, nor later, since by the time of its discovery it had completely lost its relevance ^[24] . However, the unexpected publication of the Doctrine provoked numerous responses in the English secular and religious press. In his review, the popular magazine of orthodox Calvinist drew attention to the extreme hereticalness of Milton’s views, above all that he “believed in the Son as no more than one of the magnificent creations,” the mortality of the soul. Assuming the possibility that some of Milton’s ideas would be used by the Baptists , the reviewer warned them not to use them as an ally “ arianin, a materialist , a supporter of polygamy , a and, in fact, an instigator to practically every one of the mistakes that afflicted God's Church ” ^[70] . In 1826, a series of six articles by the famous critic of Unitarianism and Arianism, the theologian was published in the same journal. In the first article of the cycle, Pye-Smith pointed out that Milton’s teachings about Christ, as the lower God, correspond to the teachings of the Arians of the 4th and 5th centuries and their later followers in England. He further criticized Milton’s tendency to literally interpret the Bible’s indications of the anthropomorphic properties of God, but generally supported the notion that the laws of Moses were no longer valid. The critic did not agree with Milton’s statement about the abolition of the institution of marriage ^[71] . The Baptist edition of Baptist Magazine did indeed speak positively of the Teaching, stating that Milton was an anti- ^[72] . Unitarian publications predominantly greeted the publication of the Doctrine with enthusiasm, seeing Milton as a valuable ally, despite fairly substantial doctrinal differences ^[73] . The publications of the official Anglican Church gave a wide range of assessments — noting the great poet’s religious errors, critics, as a rule, considered them quite excusable ^[74] . Finally, the secular publications mostly considered the discovery and publication of the “Teaching” an event rather unimportant, valuable, perhaps, as additional opportunities for understanding the hidden meaning of “Lost Paradise” ^[75] .

More than a century and a half after the doubts expressed by the Bishop Thomas Burgess (“The Doctrina Christiana”: Three Discourses Delivered in the Years 1826, 1827, and 1828 ”, 1829) the question of authorship of the Teaching was not raised. In the most important work of M. Kelly ( This Great Argument , 1941), the treatise was written in the context of ideas expressed in other works of Milton, after which there was a tradition to consider the “Doctrine” as a theological “ gloss ” to the “Lost Paradise”. A new breath in the discussion on authorship was introduced by William Hunter, who in 1991 pointed out three new arguments: the inconsistency of the “Teaching” with Milton's other works, the state of the manuscript and external circumstances, first of all the dubious authenticity of Daniel Skinner's information ^[76] . These assumptions provoked a rather lively discussion on the pages of the journals , Milton Studies and Milton Quarterly. Although Hunter’s argument was largely rejected, it contributed to rethinking the theological ideas of Milton’s poems ^{[77] [78] [79]} . A comprehensive analysis of the manuscript, text, style, and theological ideas of the Doctrine was carried out in 2007 (Campbell et al., 2007).

The 1825 English translation of Charles Sumner was not perfect, and his inaccuracies reinforced the impression of Milton's unorthodox views. In his translation, Sumner used phrases from Milton's English works, which contributed to the perception of the treatise as authentic ^[80] . The translation for the publication of Milton's prose by was slightly corrected. Further corrections were made to the Colombian Edition (1933). For the Yale publication in 1973, a new translation was made by Oxford literary critic . His translation, possessing greater literary merits, is also not entirely accurate ^[81] . The last translation so far was released in 2012. J. Hale and J. Cullington not only prepared a new translation, but also for the first time published the full Latin text of the treatise ^[82] .