Milton, Subordinationism, and the Two-Stage Logos -- By: Michael E. Bauman

Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 48:1 (Spring 1986)
Article: Milton, Subordinationism, and the Two-Stage Logos
Author: Michael E. Bauman


Milton, Subordinationism, and the Two-Stage Logos

Michael E. Bauman

In recent years, those who maintain John Milton’s orthodoxy with regard to the Godhead have connected his beliefs with certain ante-Nicene church fathers and labeled him an orthodox subordinationist who also advocates the two-stage Logos theory. This interpretation of Milton originated with William B. Hunter, Jr., who, in 1959, challenged the generally accepted view that Milton was an Arian.1 Hunter’s theory gained wide and quick acceptance among Milton scholars of every rank and seems today the consensus position.2 Because I have set forth at length elsewhere the positive case for Milton’s Arianism,3 the present article will focus instead on the fact

that the subordinationist/two-stage Logos movement within Milton criticism is based on a number of unfortunate theological misconceptions and, therefore, must be discarded.

I. Subordinationism

By rendering subordination an essentially orthodox concept, Hunter has overlooked the fact that, whether one delineates the term from the perspective of either systematic theology or historical theology, subordinationism is sufficiently broad to encompass both orthodox and heretical formulations. As a result, subordinationism is a largely useless term when applied to Milton. To label Milton a subordinationist tells us little or nothing about his view of the Trinity.

First, with regard to systematic theology, subordinationism is a concept both potentially orthodox and heretical. The difference lies in what is being subordinated and in the extent of the subordination. If a theologian posits a subordination of order or of function and not of essence or nature, he is orthodox. His view is one of economic and not emphatic subordinationism. The emphatic is a subordination of essence and not merely of external function. This position is heretical because it posits a Godhead not only unequal in office but also unequal in nature.4 In the orthodox, or economic, Trinity, however, the Son occupies a secondary position not metaphysically, but only voluntarily in the opera ad extra.5 Such subordination is theologically acceptable because this position “does not imply inferiority…. Neither does it imply posteriority…. The subordination intended, is only that which concerns the mode of subsistence and operation.”6

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()