Calvin Versus the Calvinists? The Case of John Preston (1587-1628)

Abstract

It has long been popular when considering the relationship between Reformation and Post-Reformation theology, to emphasize doctrinal discontinuities to the extent that even John Calvin is pitted against the Calvinists. R.T. Kendall's influential thesis in this regard is still seen as authoritative by some, despite numerous critiques. This article presents a new critique of Kendall's thesis by focusing on John Preston, one of Kendall's case studies for the alleged defection of English Calvinism from Calvin. Kendall uses Preston as an example of how Calvinism's doctrine of limited atonement, in contrast to Calvin's doctrine of universal redemption, allegedly resulted in a compromising of Reformed teaching on faith and assurance. It is here demonstrated that, ironically, Preston actually held to a form of universal redemptionism, and hence Kendall's argument backfires. In an attempt to understand how such a misreading of history could have arisen, this article cautions against a 'zoom lens' approach that all too often trades in short quotations taken out of context. It goes on to explore, through the 'wide angle lens,' aspects of the broader historical context of Reformation and Post-Reformation theologians, taking Martin Bucer as a further example. It is argued that ecclesiology and sacramentology-factors that Kendall intentionally avoided-are crucial in fostering a more historically and theologically sensitive appraisal of the appropriation of Reformation theology in a postReformation world. *This article is an expanded version of a paper originally delivered at the 5th Annual Conference of the Society for Reformation Studies, Westminster College, Cambridge, 15 April 1998. The theme of this conference was the Reformation in England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales in continental perspective.