# The Davenant Institute



## bookslover (Dec 28, 2018)

This looks interesting. Check it out:

www.davenantinstitute.org


----------



## bookslover (Dec 28, 2018)

Hmmm. The link doesn't want to work, for some reason. Can a mod please fix it?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 28, 2018)

They produce good scholarship. They can be somewhat arrogant on social media, though. They think everyone must agree with Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Once you get beyond that they aren't that bad.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 28, 2018)

Surely no one gets arrogant on social media? The name sort of tells what they are about. They have money apparently. They took over the Vermigili project didn't they?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 28, 2018)

NaphtaliPress said:


> hey took over the Vermigili project didn't they?



I think so. Which, to their credit, is a good thing. No one else was doing it. I'm not a fan, though. Just mention "worldview" on their page and watch everyone meltdown.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 28, 2018)

NaphtaliPress said:


> They took over the Vermigili project didn't they?



Yes, they did. They are currently republishing the Vermigli volumes as paperbacks.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 28, 2018)

bookslover said:


> This looks interesting. Check it out:
> 
> www.davenantinstitute.org



As Jacob says, they produce good scholarship, which is usually worth reading especially in their _Ad Fontes_ journal that often takes you back to the sources. They generally lean towards hypothetical universalism _a la_ John Davenant (hence their name), and Richard Hooker's view of worship/church government. They are currently doing a modern translation of _The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity_, and have recently published James Ussher's _Sermons on Ecclesiology_. Brad Littlejohn has published several works on Hooker, including this one, which I have just purchased. They are also "in the van" with regards to Classical Theism and natural law.

As I see it, on the plus side they offer a good corrective to overly simplistic views of the Reformed tradition by drawing attention to the views of the great John Davenant. (His views are not always to my liking as a strict particularist, but there is much to learn from Davenant.) On the negative side, while it is okay to recognise much good in Richard Hooker, they need to be more aware of dangers of adopting Hooker hook-line-and-sinker, especially with respect to Christian liberty and the regulative principle of worship. While we should avoid "all or nothing thinking", it is not doing Hooker any disservice to call for a more critical appraisal of his work and legacy.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 29, 2018)

Daniel hit the nail on the head. Their all about recovering 17th century Protestant scholasticism, but from an Anglican, not a Presbyterian/Reformed perspective.

Eat the meat. Spit out the bones.

They're closely associated with The Calvinist International.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 29, 2018)

I'd be afraid for folks choking on the bones.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 29, 2018)

Their work in _Ad Fontes_, especially the work of translating extracts from Reformed scholastics, is too good to ignore. Given that I regularly read Augustine (sorry @TylerRay ) and Thomas Aquinas, who often say things that should make any Reformed person cringe, I can cope with the oddities of the Davenant Institute. Besides, I would rather read something by people who honestly take a position with which I disagree rather than the likes of John Frame. Also, the interest in Davenant and Ussher is important for understanding the intellectual context in which the WCF was written.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 30, 2018)

Another thing that I have noticed, both from reading some of their modern translations of Richard Hooker (via my Kindle Unlimited account, I have read the first two instalments that they have published), and from reading a recent translation of Moses Amyraut's _Brief Treatise on Predestination_, as well as the partial translation of Amyraut's_ A Dissertation on the Economy of the Three Person in the Divine Works _in the most recent issue of _Ad Fontes_, is the importance of style and literary beauty.

Sadly, Hooker and Amyraut did not always employ their literary talents in the cause of doctrinal truth, but they knew how to make an argument look attractive to the reader. (Incidentally, W. G. T. Shedd knew something of Hooker's literary ability, just look up the outstanding quotes from Hooker in his _Dogmatic Theology_.) I really wish that the proponents of the Westminsterian regulative principle and strict particularism could write so well. Remember that it is harder to make an argument appeal to a reader already prejudiced against a position if the argument is presented in an ugly fashion. Thus, it would be nice if we had someone with Hooker's literary gifts to write modern equivalents of _English Popish Ceremonies_ and _The_ _Death of Death_.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 30, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> ...W. G. T. Shedd knew something of Hooker's literary ability...



Of course, this is a little off topic, but Shedd has also been noted for his literary style among Reformed dogmaticians.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 30, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Of course, this is a little off topic, but Shedd has also been noted for his literary style among Reformed dogmaticians.



Largely because his main job for most of his life was teaching Coleridge.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 30, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Augustine (sorry @TylerRay ) and Thomas Aquinas, who often say things that should make any Reformed person cringe


The best of men are men at best!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 30, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Of course, this is a little off topic, but Shedd has also been noted for his literary style among Reformed dogmaticians.



Yes, he was positively influenced by Romanticism in that regard having edited the works of Coleridge. And it is rare to hear me ever say anything positive about Romanticism. I read Shedd's _Dogmatic Theology_ earlier this year and was able to breeze through a couple of hundred pages at a time with great ease owing to his remarkable style of writing.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## bookslover (Dec 30, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Yes, he was positively influenced by Romanticism in that regard having edited the works of Coleridge. And it is rare to hear me ever say anything positive about Romanticism. I read Shedd's Dogmatic Theology earlier this year and was able to breeze through a couple of hundred pages at a time with great ease owing to his remarkable style of writing.



We're living in a time when theological and biblical scholars tend to be better writers than their forebears (D. A. Carson, J. I. Packer, Michael J. McClymond - and, yes, John Frame, among others).


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 30, 2018)

bookslover said:


> We're living in a time when theological and biblical scholars tend to be better writers than their forebears (D. A. Carson, J. I. Packer, Michael J. McClymond - and, yes, John Frame, among others).



Unfortunately they also tend to be inferior biblical and theological scholars. It's great to have both, but I'll take theological orthodoxy and precision over literary eloquence every day.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 30, 2018)

I don't mean any disrespect to D. A. Carson, whose preaching I have always enjoyed (in fact, he preached at my church a couple of years ago), but I have never found his written works particularly enjoyable. Maybe I just need to read more of them? I have not read that much of J. I. Packer, but what I have read has been good stuff. Indeed, I reread the introductory essay to _The Death of Death_ last night. As for John Frame, I prefer not to read sophists if I can avoid them. An American friend who worked as a pastoral intern at church gave me Dr Frame's _A History of Western Philosophy and Theology_. I should really read it, but I will not bother with his works on the _Doctrine of God_ or his _Systematic Theology_.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Dec 30, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> Unfortunately they also tend to be inferior biblical and theological scholars. It's great to have both, but I'll take theological orthodoxy and precision over literary eloquence every day.



It's like the difference between Louis Berkhof and Robert L. Reymond. They're both orthodox theologians, but only the latter was also a good writer.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 30, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Another thing that I have noticed, both from reading some of their modern translations of Richard Hooker (via my Kindle Unlimited account, I have read the first two instalments that they have published), and from reading a recent translation of Moses Amyraut's _Brief Treatise on Predestination_, as well as the partial translation of Amyraut's_ A Dissertation on the Economy of the Three Person in the Divine Works _in the most recent issue of _Ad Fontes_, is the importance of style and literary beauty.
> 
> Sadly, Hooker and Amyraut did not always employ their literary talents in the cause of doctrinal truth, but they knew how to make an argument look attractive to the reader. (Incidentally, W. G. T. Shedd knew something of Hooker's literary ability, just look up the outstanding quotes from Hooker in his _Dogmatic Theology_.) I really wish that the proponents of the Westminsterian regulative principle and strict particularism could write so well. Remember that it is harder to make an argument appeal to a reader already prejudiced against a position if the argument is presented in an ugly fashion. Thus, it would be nice if we had someone with Hooker's literary gifts to write modern equivalents of _English Popish Ceremonies_ and _The_ _Death of Death_.



I am glad you made this point, Daniel. If the modernizations do not transmit Hooker's astonishing gift for beauty of language, they may well leave people wondering why anyone ever paid attention to him. It is not that people like Burton, Hooker, and Walton live "by the beauty of their style" as though they were devoid of content, but that the attractiveness of their language makes their strong points memorable and draws a veil over some of their defects.

Among "our" writers there are frequently very clear statements of glorious realities, poetic conceptions, and eloquent expressions, but these often stand out against a rather unpolished background. In terms of literary grace, Matthew Henry probably has a better claim to greatness than any other of our well-known writers in English. The solid merits of his style, which allows extended exposition without weariness, are difficult to duplicate or parallel.

What you observe in W.G.T. Shedd is also noticeable in Patrick Fairbairn: because he spells out the totality of his thought without compressing conceptions, it is possible to read along quite smoothly and quickly. There's no need to stop to unfold an idea, because he does that for you. Of course, it's possible to have good style without flowing smoothly. But in cases of exposition a flowing style can be a tremendous help to the reader. Sadly, if our number of doctrinally solid writers is small, the number who can express that content clearly and without convolution is even smaller. Many genuinely useful writers are largely devoid of literary grace. No doubt there are many causes for this, but having to read so many abysmally-written books of information and not hearing metrical and quantitative poetry probably contribute substantially to this defect.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Username3000 (Dec 30, 2018)

This stuff is above my knowledge level, but I’d just like to ask: 

Is there any institute or site like this one that is thoroughly orthodox? It is very appealing, but I don’t want to get tangled in any error that I didn’t see.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 30, 2018)

py3ak said:


> I am glad you made this point, Daniel. If the modernizations do not transmit Hooker's astonishing gift for beauty of language, they may well leave people wondering why anyone ever paid attention to him.



From what I have read, the modernizations do transmit Richard Hooker's ability to write with such astonishing beauty. Some of the best quotes that I have ever read have come from the pen of Hooker, especially his thoughts on Christology that W. G. T. Shedd deploys to such great effect in his _Dogmatic Theology_.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 30, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> From what I have read, the modernizations do transmit Richard Hooker's ability to write with such astonishing beauty.



That's quite an accomplishment, then! So often "updating" language winds up stealing all the charm from a piece.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 30, 2018)

bookslover said:


> It's like the difference between Louis Berkhof and Robert L. Reymond. They're both orthodox theologians, but only the latter was also a good writer.



And yet I'd take Owen, as tortuous (and, perhaps, torturous) as his composition could be, over Reymond. I don't believe that rigor and eloquence are always mutually exclusive, but I do think that it's often the case. I would argue that the smoothness that characterizes many modern writers (even orthodox ones) occurs simply because they move on to the next point before they risk the inelegance of fully developing their prior one. Precise, rigorous theological discussion is not a genre that easily accommodates graceful prose.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 30, 2018)

py3ak said:


> I am glad you made this point, Daniel. If the modernizations do not transmit Hooker's astonishing gift for beauty of language, they may well leave people wondering why anyone ever paid attention to him. It is not that people like Burton, Hooker, and Walton live "by the beauty of their style" as though they were devoid of content, but that the attractiveness of their language makes their strong points memorable and draws a veil over some of their defects.
> 
> Among "our" writers there are frequently very clear statements of glorious realities, poetic conceptions, and eloquent expressions, but these often stand out against a rather unpolished background. In terms of literary grace, Matthew Henry probably has a better claim to greatness than any other of our well-known writers in English. The solid merits of his style, which allows extended exposition without weariness, are difficult to duplicate or parallel.
> 
> What you observe in W.G.T. Shedd is also noticeable in Patrick Fairbairn: because he spells out the totality of his thought without compressing conceptions, it is possible to read along quite smoothly and quickly. There's no need to stop to unfold an idea, because he does that for you. Of course, it's possible to have good style without flowing smoothly. But in cases of exposition a flowing style can be a tremendous help to the reader. Sadly, if our number of doctrinally solid writers is small, the number who can express that content clearly and without convolution is even smaller. Many genuinely useful writers are largely devoid of literary grace. No doubt there are many causes for this, but having to read so many abysmally-written books of information and not hearing metrical and quantitative poetry probably contribute substantially to this defect.



For those interested in Richard Hooker, by the way, the first 5 books of his _Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity_ were published in 2 volumes in the old Everyman's Library series from early in the 20th century. Amazon, no doubt, has copies. I don't know why they didn't publish the remaining 3 books of that work.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 30, 2018)

bookslover said:


> I don't know why they didn't publish the remaining 3 books of that work.



From what I recall reading, the latter three books were not written by Richard Hooker.


----------



## yeutter (Dec 31, 2018)

The Davenant Institute, the Church Society www.churchsociety.org , and Moore Theological College www.moore.edu.au are three of the most important institutions advancing reformed evangelicalism within Anglicanism in the world today.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 31, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> This stuff is above my knowledge level, but I’d just like to ask:
> 
> Is there any institute or site like this one that is thoroughly orthodox? It is very appealing, but I don’t want to get tangled in any error that I didn’t see.


Dr. Dilday's site, From Reformation to Reformation Ministries, is similar, and presents a classically Reformed (in the tradition of Westminster Presbyterianism) position.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

