Historian Ernest Gordon Rupp said of Thomas Monck’s Cure for the Cankering Error of the New Eutychians (1673), “No high churchman, no orthodox Anglican, not Daniel Waterland himself produced an abler defence of catholic doctrine.”[1] Monck’s Cure was a biblical and theological polemic against the rising tide of anti-Trinitarianism in England and the emergence of heretical Christology within his own denomination. Rupp’s assessment is striking since Monck was a General Baptist pastor and farmer who likely had no university training.[2] Nevertheless, in Cure Monck marshalled the language of the ecumenical creeds as well as the writings of the early church fathers and Reformed Orthodox theologians to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, particularly the person of Christ.
When Thomas Monck published Cure, anti-Trinitarianism was spreading among English Protestants. Two English anti-Trinitarians, Paul Best (c. 1590–1657) and John Biddle (1615–1662), had published works opposing the Trinity. Furthermore, the Socinian Racovian Catechism was making inroads in England. Historian Paul Lim has called this tumultuous theological time period a “crisis of the Trinity in early modern England.”[3] English Baptists were not unscathed by this crisis. By the 1670s, the Particular Baptist Thomas Collier (c. 1615–c. 1691) had embraced heterodox Christology. Likewise, the English General Baptist Matthew Caffyn (1628–1714) also imbibed heterodox notions regarding the person of Christ, though he would never publicly acknowledge his heterodox views.
What were English Protestants, including English Baptists, to do during this time of theological crisis? How were they to respond to the proliferation of heterodox doctrine, not only within the broader English context but even within their own circles? Thomas Monck and the Midlands General Baptists chose to draw on the resources of creedal orthodoxy to defend the doctrine of the Trinity. I have demonstrated elsewhere that Monck and the Midlands General Baptists in An Orthodox Creed (1679) drew heavily from the early church fathers and ecumenical creeds, using creedal language and formulae, to defend the doctrine of the Trinity.[4] Monck had taken the same approach in Cure, and An Orthodox Creed seems to have followed his example.[5] Yet very little attention has been given to Monck’s use of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century sources in Cure to defend the Trinity. Monck’s use of Reformed Orthodox writers such as John Calvin (1509–1564), William Perkins (1558–1602), Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562), and Giorlamo Zanchi (1516–1590), who appear throughout his polemic, demonstrates that he drew from both ancient and modern sources for his defense of the Trinity.
In what follows, I will primarily explore Monck’s use of several of these figures. Some fit well within the category of Reformed Orthodox theologians.[6] However, several theologians may stretch the category some. Nonetheless, the goal is to demonstrate that Monck appealed to Reformed Orthodox writers to defend the doctrine of the Trinity and to demonstrate that his Trinitarian theology existed in continuity with the Protestant tradition.
Use of Reformed Orthodox Writers
When I first read Cure over ten years ago, I was amazed by Monck’s theological precision.[7] I could not quite make sense of how a farmer and pastor with no formal training could so nimbly navigate the nuances of Trinitarian orthodoxy.[8] What I have discovered through reading Cure many times and carefully comparing the work with the works he cites is that Monck is heavily dependent on his sources. In some cases, he cites them extensively. A few examples below will suffice. The primary point I want to make, however, is that Monck and the Midlands General Baptists saw themselves in continuity with the Christian tradition, including sixteenth and seventeenth-century Reformed Orthodox writers. Therefore, when defending the doctrine of the Trinity, they appealed not only to early church theologians but also to recent theologians (many of whom were Calvinists) to make their case.
John Norton
No theologian gets more space in Cure than John Norton (1606–1663). Monck draws freely from Norton’s Orthodox Evangelist (1654)in his first two chapters. Norton’s Orthodox Evangelist was published in London only nineteen years before the publication of Monck’s Cure. Francis J. Bremer referred to Norton’s workas “a critical exposition of puritan faith and theology which strongly asserted the inefficacy of man’s work in the process of salvation while maintaining that the pietistic love that results from God’s election of the saints was expressed within their lives.”[9] Yet Monck drew not from Norton’s writing on election but from his work on the divine essence and the Trinity, which served as a sort of foundation for what Monck would say regarding the person and work of Christ in the remainder of Cure. In other words, Monck drew very heavily from Norton’s Orthodox Evangelist for his affirmation and defense of the divine essence as well as the Trinity and then proceeded to apply these orthodox teachings to the Christological heterodoxy of his day.
William Perkins
Whereas Monck’s citations of Norton take up the most space in Cure, William Perkins (1558–1602) is cited more frequently. Perkins is well known for his defense of Calvinist soteriology, which Jacob Arminius wrote directly against. But that did not keep Monck from referencing “Mr. Perkins” four times to defend the doctrine of the Trinity. All four citations appear to be drawn from Perkins’s An Exposition of the Symbole or Creed of the Apostles (1595), a nearly 500-page treatment of the Apostle’s Creed. Monck primarily quotes Perkins to show the practical application of orthodox Trinitarian theology, particularly orthodox Christology. In fact, Monck spends nearly seventy pages showing the practical application of Christ’s full deity and full humanity.
One practical application of the humanity of Christ, in Monck’s estimation, is His defeat of sin as a man and His subsequent exaltation in the Ascension. Monck explains, “Christ’s Ascension is an Exaltation, or a receiving up of his Humanity to sit in the highest Heavens, till the glorious day of his Appearance in Judgment, Heb. 1. 3.”[10] Through the Ascension, Christ, truly God and truly man, has defeated “the Flesh, Sin, Satan, and Death itself.” He has, in His Ascension, freed the captives (Eph. 4:8, 12). Therefore, Christians are to no longer fear these things since “Christ hath taken away their sting, 1 Cor. 15. 55. and hath pinioned their hands behind them as Captives and set us Free, if we will come unto him when he calls us by his Gospel.”[11] Part of what makes the gospel such good news is that Christ has become one of us—He is the Second Adam (Romans 5)—and He has defeated sin and death as the God-man. To make this point, Monck draws upon the writings of Perkins.
John Goodwin, Girolamo Zanchi, and Peter Martyr Vermigli
Monck appeals to John Goodwin (c. 1594–1665), Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562), and Girolamo Zanchi (1516–1590) in his chapter on the divine essence.[12] Monck affirms and defends the doctrine of divine simplicity in response to anti-Trinitarians. To do so, he appeals to Goodwin’s Redemption Redeemed (1651): “This most intire and compleat actuality of the Divine Nature and being is (I presume, saith Mr. John Goodwyn in his Book entituled Redepemtion Redeemed, pag. 48) generally subscribed by all Reformed Divines.” He then goes on to cite Zanchi and Vermigli as representative examples of such Reformed divines. Monck writes, “God (saith Zanchy) is a most pure, and most simple act, and no wayes capable, or in any possibility, of being any thing more or less than what he is.”[13] He almost immediately follows the citation from Zanchi with a much longer citation from Vermigli on divine simplicity:
It is affirmed (saith Peter Martyr) as with one mouth, of all that are godly, that God is not changed; in as much as this would be a certain sign as well of imperfection, as inconstancy, in him. The reason why God is not changed, nor capable of any change whatsoever, is, because he is a most pure, absolute and compleat act, i. e. he is for the present whatsoever it is possible in any respect for him to be: So that, notwithstanding his omnipotency it self, he hath no power to make the least alteration or change in himself, either in nature, will, or action.[14]
In summary, Monck is trying to defend the doctrine of divine simplicity. He appeals to Goodwin’s claim that the doctrine of divine simplicity is affirmed by most all Reformed divines. Zanchi and Vermigli then serve as representative examples of such Reformed divines. In other words, Monck claims he is in accord with the Reformed Orthodox tradition on the doctrine of divine simplicity.
Yet one might ask, “Why did Monck select these figures?” The answer is partly that he did not select them. Instead, Monck seems to have drawn them from Goodwin’s Redemption Redeemed, specifically from his discussion of the relationship between divine simplicity and immutability. It is Goodwin who appeals to Zanchi and Vermigli.[15] Monck, having read and cited Goodwin, goes on to use Goodwin’s citations of Zanchi and Vermigli.
Conclusion
In Cure, Thomas Monck marshalled the language of the creeds, early church theologians, and Reformed Orthodox writers to defend the doctrine of the Trinity. He appealed to these figures to demonstrate that his Trinitarian theology was in continuity with the Christian tradition, ancient and modern. Biblical fidelity was of primary importance to Monck. But continuity with the Reformed Orthodox tradition on the doctrine of the Trinity mattered as well. However, one must not lose sight of the fact that Monck’s theological assault on anti-Trinitarianism was the result of his belief that these doctrines were foundational “and necessary to our Salvation”—a point the Reformed Orthodox understood well.[16] Therefore, the “intended end” of Cure was “Gods Glory, and the Salvation of poor Souls.”[17]
[1] Ernest Gordon Rupp, Religion in England 1688–1791 (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1986), 135–36. Rupp also referred to Cure as Thomas Monck’s “apologia.” I will refer to the work as Cure hereafter.
[2] For more biographical information on Monck, see Jesse F. Owens, “Thomas Monck (fl. 1644–1685): A Farmer Theologian,” in Arminian Baptists: A Biographical History of Free Will Baptists (Nashville: Randall House Academic, 2023), 83–94.
[3] Paul C. H. Lim, Mystery Unveiled: The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
[4] Jesse Owens, “Matthew Caffyn, Thomas Monck, and English General Baptist Creedalism,” Criswell Theological Review, 18, no. 1 (2020): 39–55. R. Lucas Stamps briefly explores this subject as well; see R. “Baptists, Classic Christology, and the Christian Tradition,” in Baptists and the Christian Tradition: Towards an Evangelical Baptist Catholicity, ed. Matthew Y. Emerson, Christopher W. Morgan, and R. Lucas Stamps (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2020), 81–107.
[5] This point is easily demonstrated by the fact that An Orthodox Creed states as much in the preface when it mentions Thomas Monck and Cure directly. See W. Madison Grace, “Transcriber’s Preface to An Orthodox Creed: Unabridged 17th Century General Baptist Confession,” Southwestern Journal of Theology (March 2006): 136. For material in the preface of An Orthodox Creed,I have chosen to cite from Grace’s reprint of the confession here and below since the preface to the original publication of An Orthodox Creed is without pagination.
[6] By “Reformed Orthodox,” I am broadly following Richard A. Muller’s definition of Reformed Orthodoxy as the theological content of the Reformed tradition as it is set forth in the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dordt, the Westminster Standards, etc. I might quibble with Muller’s approach here, particularly as it relates to whether Jacob Arminius was a Reformed theologian. For the purposes of this paper, however, I broadly follow his framing of Reformed Orthodoxy. See Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. to ca.1725, 2nd ed., 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003).
[7] Fellow Helwys Society Forum contributor Phillip Morgan has written a very helpful piece on Monck’s Cure, his background as a farmer and pastor, and his excellent theological contribution. See Phillip Morgan, “Thomas Monck: A Cure for the Cankering Error of the New Eutychians” Helwys Society Forum (June 29, 2014), accessed January 20, 2024, https://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/thomas-monck-a-cure-for-the-cankering-error-of-the-new-eutychians/.
[8] For example, consider Monck’s discussion of the meaning of “I AM” at the very beginning of the work: “I am he that have an everlasting being, unchangeable, subsisting of it self, not depending from others, infinite, most simple, the Author and Cause of the being of all things: not a borrowed, changeable, finite, dependent, and compound being, &c. as all Creatures have.” See Monck, Thomas Monck, A Cure for the Cankering Error of the New Eutychians (London: Printed for the Author, 1673), 25. Historical conventions of grammar, spelling, etc. of this source are retained throughout this essay.
[9] Francis J. Bremer, “Norton, John (1606–1663),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), accessed September 10, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/20348.
[10] Monck, Cure, 190.
[11] Monck, Cure, 191.
[12] This grouping of theologians is a rather odd one for a variety of reasons, the least of which is that the Vermigli and Zanchi died in the sixteenth century and Goodwin the seventeenth. Vermigli and Zanchi were both prolific Italian-born theologians who served in a variety of capacities in Europe during the European reformations. Zanchi was directly influenced by Vermigli as he sat under Vermigli’s teaching. Vermigli is probably best known for his various works on the Eucharistic debates of the mid-sixteenth century. John Goodwin, on the other hand, was a somewhat controversial Arminian English Puritan who denied individual election and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer, though his Trinitarian theology was sound. So, it is rather intriguing to see them together in a single paragraph in Monck’s work.
[13] Monck, Cure, 35.
[14] Monck, Cure, 35–36.
[15] John Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed (1651), 48.
[16] Monck, Cure, [3]
[17] Monck, Cure, [6].
Recent Comments