Was Bishop John Davenant a Puritan? What is a puritan?

[yeutter]

In another forum I saw a reference to Bishop John Davenant, calling him a 17th Century English Puritan. Maybe I am just operating in an Anglican bubble, but from what I have read of Bishop Davenant I do not consider him a puritan.

I responded by saying that it was true that Bishop Davenant was a delegate to the Synod of Dort. And Bishop Davenant aso signed the Canons of Dort. When he came back to England, he wrote in a way that leads me to conclude he believed in a kind of hypothetical universalism. Some have suggested that he was to Lutheran to be a good Anglican and way too Reformed to be a good Lutheran. In many ways Bishop Davenant was a proto-Amyrauldian. I also said that in some respects Davenant was a good scholar.

They responded by saying that there were some Arminians who were counted among the Puritans. John Goodwin is an example they offered.
A further response was that Amyraldianism has to do with the decrees. Davenant affirmed only a universal satisfaction with limited application the elect. This was common among the Reformed and was permitted by Dort, the very standard of what it means to be “Reformed.” They suggested that he was essentially a Reformed Anglican, and that Davenant’s views are fairly similar to Reformers like Bullinger, Ursinus, Zanchi, and even some at Westminster—none of whom held to Amyraldianism. They agreed that Davenant may be wrong at points, but suggested that is a different question as to whether Davenant's views are Reformed, and whether or not it is proper to characterize him as a puritan.

I have two questions.

1. Are the views expressed by Bishop Davenant on universal satisfaction Reformed?

2. How should 17th Century English Puritanism be defined? When I think of puritans and puritanism I think of English Protestants of the late 16th, and early 17th centuries who regarded the Reformation of the Church of England under Elizabeth as incomplete and sought to apply the regulative principle to worship, and purify the reformed doctrine taught in the Church.

John Owen’s disagreements with John Davenant

Since, not only the complete finishing of this Treatise under my hand, which is now about 5 Months ago, but also the Printing of some Part of it, the Two Dissertations of Dr Davenant, of the Death …

reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com

John Davenant: A Jewel of the Reformed Churches or a Tarnished Stone?

Rev. Mark Shand* [Source: Protestant Reformed Theological Journal , April/November 1998] Introduction — “Introduction”...

commongracedebate.blogspot.com

 

[ZackF]

I was not aware any bishops were Puritans.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I don't see how a bishop of the Church of England could be called a puritan, since one of the key points of puritanism is opposition to episcopacy.
However, I wouldn't have a problem calling Davenant Reformed. And if one reads his statements on lawful worship, he sounds much more Reformed than modern Anglicans.
Now, just because he's Reformed doesn't mean I agree with everything he wrote on hypothetical universalism, or that I think his positions are just as valid as, say, those of the Westminster Confession on matters like the efficacy of baptism, the decree of election, and church government.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I was not aware any bishops were Puritans.

Edward Reynolds was a puritan; and a Westminster Divine (added later on the death of someone I think). But at the restoration he conformed rather than get ejected. His nonconforming friends made excuses for him; had a big family to support, etc.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Some have suggested that he was to Lutheran to be a good Anglican and way too Reformed to be a good Lutheran.

He was definitely NOT a Lutheran. He considered their Christology heterodox.

 

[Charles Johnson]

One can read here what he had to say about worship and the regulative principle.

 

[davejonescue]

Having done some limited research regarding the definition of a Puritan, you are really not going to find a strict consensus. This is because "Puritanism" was not only a theological movement, but also a socio-political movement. For the most confined definitions, I think it spans from around 1550-1660 English ministers who sought to remove what they considered artifacts of Rome within the national church. But hardly anybody stays with that definition. It is often times pushed up to the beginning of the 18th century to include the Non-Conformists. It can also be pushed further to include the American Puritans who fled England because of persecution. Now days, much in part to people like Beeke and Hamilton; ministers of the Dutch Further Reformation, and the Scottish Covenanters have become known as Dutch & Scottish Puritans respectfully. I am of the belief that if we could find much of the Huguenots theological writings, and have them translated; they would be known as the "French Puritans." There really is no general consensus. There are Bishops labeled as Puritans for no other reason than they were Puritan sympathizers. There are people like Thomas Boston, and Jonathan Edwards who get bunched in the camp because they are regarded as of the "same spirit." Many of these people rubbed shoulders, preached each others funeral sermons, did book forwards all intermingling between Puritans, Non-Conformists, etc. In my personal efforts, I utilized the writings closest to that era, like Brooks "Lives of the Puritans," and Calamy's "Non-Conformist Memorial." But this is my limited research. I am sure there are much more knowlageable people in this forum on the issue.

But for a working definition, I find this paper helpful, that is, that a strict definition seems like it is never going to happen.
-- Toward a Definition of ‘Puritan’ and ‘Puritanism’: A Study in Puritan Historiography , B. Cosby

We also have to remember that there were people like John Goodwin, who were Puritans but Arminian. And people like the Fifth Monarchy Men who were Puritans, but believed England was the New Jerusalem. I also believe many of the Seperatists would be Puritan in reformed orthodoxy, but differ on trying to save national church. Like I said though, I havent dug too deep in the history of this stuff; thats a whole degree in itself.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Having done some limited research regarding the definition of a Puritan, you are really not going to find a strict consensus. This is because "Puritanism" was not only a theological movement, but also a socio-political movement. For the most confined definitions, I think it spans from around 1550-1660 English ministers who sought to remove what they considered artifacts of Rome within the national church. But hardly anybody stays with that definition. It is often times pushed up to the beginning of the 18th century to include the Non-Conformists. It can also be pushed further to include the American Puritans who fled England because of persecution. Now days, much in part to people like Beeke and Hamilton; ministers of the Dutch Further Reformation, and the Scottish Covenanters have become known as Dutch & Scottish Puritans respectfully. I am of the belief that if we could find much of the Huguenots theological writings, and have them translated; they would be known as the "French Puritans." There really is no general consensus. There are Bishops labeled as Puritans for no other reason than they were Puritan sympathizers. There are people like Thomas Boston, and Jonathan Edwards who get bunched in the camp because they are regarded as of the "same spirit." Many of these people rubbed shoulders, preached each others funeral sermons, did book forwards all intermingling between Puritans, Non-Conformists, etc. In my personal efforts, I utilized the writings closest to that era, like Brooks "Lives of the Puritans," and Calamy's "Non-Conformist Memorial." But this is my limited research. I am sure there are much more knowlageable people in this forum on the issue.

But for a working definition, I find this paper helpful, that is, that a strict definition seems like it is never going to happen.
-- Toward a Definition of ‘Puritan’ and ‘Puritanism’: A Study in Puritan Historiography , B. Cosby

We also have to remember that there were people like John Goodwin, who were Puritans but Arminian. And people like the Fifth Monarchy Men who were Puritans, but believed England was the New Jerusalem. I also believe many of the Seperatists would be Puritan in reformed orthodoxy, but differ on trying to save national church. Like I said though, I havent dug too deep in the history of this stuff; thats a whole degree in itself.

I think your analysis is very good. People back then probably generally knew if they were more or less sympathetic to a certain mood.

It's sort of like the folks here. I'm not saying we're all the same, but I have a lot more sympathy with Reformed Baptists or even a John MacArthur than I do some of the progressive elements of the PCA. I even had one PCA person say that we're closer to an Anglican Church with a female minister than we are to Reformed Baptists. I think his progressive mood is similar to the "high-minded" who were irked by Puritans, while the Puritans could certainly get after one another for certain theological differences but also detect a definite current of agreement.

 

[ReformedChristian]

I would say no, he falls under the Reformed Scholastics as noted by Richard Muller.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I recommend reading Michael Lynch's outstanding monograph, John Davenant's Hypothetical Universalism for a proper understanding of Davenant's theology within the broader context of Reformed orthodoxy.

 

[yeutter]

I recommend reading Michael Lynch's outstanding monograph, John Davenant's Hypothetical Universalism for a proper understanding of Davenant's theology within the broader context of Reformed orthodoxy.

Thank you. I was completely unaware of this book,

 

[alexanderjames]

Thank you. I was completely unaware of this book,

The downside is that it'll cost you as it comes from Oxford University Press.