6 thoughts on “An English delagate to Dort on extreme forms of calvinism”
garver
Well, as I understand it, Hales was not among the “delegates” to Dort chosen and commissioned by James I – though he ended up as an English “observer” at Dort. The official English delegation was Hall, Carleton, Davenant, and Ward.
Hales left for Dort intending to defend moderate Calvinism, but returned as an Arminian having, in his own words, “bade good night to John Calvin” – though “extreme and rigid tenet” he refers to here is, I believe, double predestination which, in the hands of Beza and Perkins, he saw as taking a novel shape and form.
Hales himself was an interesting fellow and is often seen as important for the rise of Anglican Latitudinarianism. His views on schism, heresy, the visible church, sacraments, and so forth, make him difficult to categorize, except perhaps as having strong rationalist tendencies.
And that’s not to discount the witness of Hales at all. His notes on the proceedings at Dort are a valuable resource.
Hales saw how hard the English delegation had to fight against guys like Gomarus in order to keep Dort from lapsing into embracing extreme views. As it was, Dort ended up excluding Augustinian views the English delegation would like to have allowed for out of deference to the Fathers, even if they themselves did not hold to such views.
On the other matter you mention, can you explain how you believe Dort excluded other views Davenant would have liked included? I dont know enough about all so yet, so I am interested in your comments.
Most of the English delegation held to the view that all baptized infants receive remission of original sin in baptism and that, for those infants, this is their regeneration, adoption, and justification. But since infants are incapable of the exercise and actualization of faith in particular acts, these are not univocal with regeneration, adoption, and justification as experienced by adults and so may not be be finally saving in light of later actual sin, particularly unbelief. On this view they were in the minority (with only a few on the Continent on their side, eg, Alsted), but the final result of Dort was, they maintained, consistent with their views.
On perseverance, the English delegation themselves held to the views eventually espoused by Dort in its rejection of errors, but they did not want Dort to reject as “error” views that would exclude Augustine, Prosper, other Fathers, and the Lutherans from orthodoxy. All of these – though absolute predestinarians – held that adult individuals could, in some sense, enter a state of justification and regeneration, and nonetheless later fall away from salvation and perish through sin and unbelief.
Part of the hesitancy on the part of the English delegation was due to their respect for the Fathers and their own commitment to “one God, two testaments, three creeds, four councils, five centuries” as providing the proper context for doing theology (even Perkins, in his The Reformed Catholicke espoused such a view in theory, as did a number of Continental Reformed, such as du Moulin).
The other part of their hesitancy was their commitment to Protestant ecumenism. Under James I there was a significant push, including leaders among the English, Scots, French, German, and Hungarian Reformed, to try to repair the break with the Lutherans and to draw Protestantism back into a united front over against Rome – even as Protestantism was further fracturing over Arminianism and other nascent movements. (See, eg, Davenant’s An Exhortation to the Restoring of Brotherly Communion betwixt the Protestant Churches, London 1641)
The English delegation, again while not disagreeing with the theology of Dort, urged that the Synod not reject as an error the belief that temporary faith differed from true faith only in duration. As they saw it, rejecting this error in effect excluded a number of the Fathers and the Lutherans.
And none of this should be taken to suggest that the English delegation was in any wise friendly towards Arminianism. But the primary difference they saw between Arminianism and Augustinianism lay in the primacy of grace, so that true faith and perseverance always retain the character of unconditional gift that remains prior to the response of the creature.
Dort is a lot more complicated affair on all sides than often acknowledged.
Well, as I understand it, Hales was not among the “delegates” to Dort chosen and commissioned by James I – though he ended up as an English “observer” at Dort. The official English delegation was Hall, Carleton, Davenant, and Ward.
Hales left for Dort intending to defend moderate Calvinism, but returned as an Arminian having, in his own words, “bade good night to John Calvin” – though “extreme and rigid tenet” he refers to here is, I believe, double predestination which, in the hands of Beza and Perkins, he saw as taking a novel shape and form.
Hales himself was an interesting fellow and is often seen as important for the rise of Anglican Latitudinarianism. His views on schism, heresy, the visible church, sacraments, and so forth, make him difficult to categorize, except perhaps as having strong rationalist tendencies.
Thanks for the info, I will modify the header.
David
And that’s not to discount the witness of Hales at all. His notes on the proceedings at Dort are a valuable resource.
Hales saw how hard the English delegation had to fight against guys like Gomarus in order to keep Dort from lapsing into embracing extreme views. As it was, Dort ended up excluding Augustinian views the English delegation would like to have allowed for out of deference to the Fathers, even if they themselves did not hold to such views.
Hey there,
Thanks for the information.
I posted this comment at Theology Online:
Hey Josh, It turns out Hales became an Arminian. That’s a shame as the value of this information will be downgraded in the minds of some perhaps. I was fully aware that in all probability he was biased against Beza and Perkins, but the historical information is what I am interested int. He was able to spot this supralapsarian shift and wrote his letter expecting his reader to see the point too. Notice Hales is not arguing the point, just stating it rather simply. That tells me that he expected his reader to concur. The Reformed community were seeing differences and were spotting shifting trends. So the question is, if Hales saw it, did anyone else? The letters where Marty got this from contain lots of information on Martinus and the arguments and issues wrapped around him in Martinus’ response to Gomarus. That alone is worth reading. There is very little information on the discussion and issues hammered out at Dort in English. Hales will be important for this information alone. And btw, if the only version of Calvinism available was Perkins or Beza, I think I would exit it too. Thanks for all the heads-up info from the various sources.
On the other matter you mention, can you explain how you believe Dort excluded other views Davenant would have liked included? I dont know enough about all so yet, so I am interested in your comments.
And thanks Mark for the links to the blogs.
Thanks
David
Most of the English delegation held to the view that all baptized infants receive remission of original sin in baptism and that, for those infants, this is their regeneration, adoption, and justification. But since infants are incapable of the exercise and actualization of faith in particular acts, these are not univocal with regeneration, adoption, and justification as experienced by adults and so may not be be finally saving in light of later actual sin, particularly unbelief. On this view they were in the minority (with only a few on the Continent on their side, eg, Alsted), but the final result of Dort was, they maintained, consistent with their views.
On perseverance, the English delegation themselves held to the views eventually espoused by Dort in its rejection of errors, but they did not want Dort to reject as “error” views that would exclude Augustine, Prosper, other Fathers, and the Lutherans from orthodoxy. All of these – though absolute predestinarians – held that adult individuals could, in some sense, enter a state of justification and regeneration, and nonetheless later fall away from salvation and perish through sin and unbelief.
Part of the hesitancy on the part of the English delegation was due to their respect for the Fathers and their own commitment to “one God, two testaments, three creeds, four councils, five centuries” as providing the proper context for doing theology (even Perkins, in his The Reformed Catholicke espoused such a view in theory, as did a number of Continental Reformed, such as du Moulin).
The other part of their hesitancy was their commitment to Protestant ecumenism. Under James I there was a significant push, including leaders among the English, Scots, French, German, and Hungarian Reformed, to try to repair the break with the Lutherans and to draw Protestantism back into a united front over against Rome – even as Protestantism was further fracturing over Arminianism and other nascent movements. (See, eg, Davenant’s An Exhortation to the Restoring of Brotherly Communion betwixt the Protestant Churches, London 1641)
The English delegation, again while not disagreeing with the theology of Dort, urged that the Synod not reject as an error the belief that temporary faith differed from true faith only in duration. As they saw it, rejecting this error in effect excluded a number of the Fathers and the Lutherans.
And none of this should be taken to suggest that the English delegation was in any wise friendly towards Arminianism. But the primary difference they saw between Arminianism and Augustinianism lay in the primacy of grace, so that true faith and perseverance always retain the character of unconditional gift that remains prior to the response of the creature.
Dort is a lot more complicated affair on all sides than often acknowledged.
I demand that Garver begin publishing immediately.
The world is in need of such a hero to rise up. I am not opposed to employing the threat of imprecations a la Farel.