DAVENANT, John (1572-1641)

Davenant’s forebears were minor Essex gentry, seated at Sible Hedingham since the thirteenth century, though his father, a younger son, made his fortune as a London merchant. Born in Watling Street, reputedly two months prematurely, Davenant grew up in a cultured environment, his elder brother Edward becoming a notable linguist and mathematician.22 T. Fuller, Worthies of Eng. ii. 359; Fuller, Church Hist. vi. 192; Cassan, 115; J. Aubrey, Brief Lives ed. A. Clark, i. 199. His father, who was assessed for subsidy at £60 in 1589, could afford to send four of his sons to Cambridge, including Davenant himself. Admitted to Queens’ College in 1587, Davenant was a precocious student who rapidly attracted attention within the university.23 Vis. London (Harl. Soc. cix and cx), 156; Al. Cant.; Fuller, Worthies, ii. 359. However, he was banned from taking up a fellowship at the college by his father, who believed that such places should be reserved for scholars from less affluent backgrounds. Accordingly, it was not until 1597, after his father’s death, that he became a fellow, on the same day as his future brother-in-law, Robert Townson^* (later bishop of Salisbury).24 Fuller, Church Hist. vi. 192-3; Searle, 407. Ordained around the same time, Davenant held just a handful of minor college offices during the next few years. However, his growing reputation as a theologian brought him the patronage of the university’s chancellor, Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury who, in 1608, recommended him for election to the Lady Margaret chair in divinity. On this occasion the university preferred to re-elect the existing professor, Thomas Playfere, but when the latter died in February 1609 Davenant was chosen to succeed him, despite his relative youth and inexperience.25 CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 450, 489; Searle, 409.

An acclaimed theologian, 1609-19

Given the prestigious nature of this post, Salisbury no doubt expected the new Lady Margaret professor to align himself with the Church of England’s establishment, and Davenant did not disappoint. Theologically he was a convinced, albeit moderate Calvinist, who embraced with enthusiasm the fundamental doctrine of predestination. Deeply hostile to the Church of Rome, which he regarded as idolatrous, he was also suspicious of Lutheranism, largely because its sacramental teachings seemed to retain elements of Catholicism. Nevertheless, his views extended beyond narrow sectarianism, as he favoured the eventual union of all the Protestant churches. He even conceded that the Catholic Church might include some of God’s chosen people. Importantly for his future career, he also regarded disputes over ecclesiastical polity and liturgical practice as being of little consequence, and therefore had no difficulty in conforming to the patterns laid down by the Church of England.26 N. Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 39; A. Milton, Catholic and Reformed, 106, 128-9, 187, 385, 393, 466.

Davenant’s promotion at Cambridge helped to secure him a Europe-wide reputation. Even the Catholic apologist, Cardinal Bellarmine, is said to have thought highly of him. His skill in presiding over academic debates, such as the one staged in March 1613 for Prince Charles (Stuart^*, later prince of Wales) and the Elector Palatine, was particularly admired: ‘such an arbiter … he was, … in all comitial disputations, … [that] whosoever did well, yet constantly he had the greatest acclamation’.27 Fuller, Life, 173; J. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, i. 26. In the following year Davenant became president of Queens’, after his allies in the college outmanoeuvred a rival candidate, George Montaigne^* (later archbishop of York), racing to London to secure the support of the royal favourite, Robert Carr^*, earl of Somerset. It is unclear how much Davenant knew in advance about this stratagem, but he proved a good choice, his personal standing and careful stewardship attracting so many students to the college that a new accommodation block had to be constructed. In keeping with his father’s principles, he is said to have prevented one of his kinsmen, John Gore, from becoming a fellow because his background was too wealthy. However, he could display favouritism, and his own nephew, Edward Davenant, secured a fellowship at Queens’ in 1615.28 Searle, 405-6; Fuller, Worthies, 359-60; Al. Cant.

Davenant’s professorial duties rendered him too busy to take on the vice chancellorship, but in December 1616 he and the master of St John’s College attended James I to receive the king’s latest instructions for regulating student life at Cambridge.29 V. Morgan, Hist. of Univ. of Camb. ii. 90; J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, iii. 229. By 1618 James had appointed Davenant a royal chaplain, and in that same year he selected him as one of the English delegates to the Synod of Dort, which was called to settle the disputes in the United Provinces between orthodox Calvinists and Arminians. At this juncture Davenant probably had little experience of Arminianism, though as the head of a Cambridge college he had helped in the previous year to condemn a sermon which expressed such views.30 Fuller, Church Hist. v. 461; Tyacke, 42-3, 92. With his university colleague Samuel Ward, he visited the king in October 1618 for a final briefing, and then took ship for the Low Countries. Because of the strength of Anglo-Dutch relations, the English delegation was accorded especial respect at Dort, and Davenant’s contribution towards the better management of debates and votes was much admired.31 Fuller, Church Hist. v. 463-5; HMC Downshire, vi. 547; Fuller, Life, 192. Nevertheless, when discussion turned to the finer points of predestination in early 1619, he and Ward caused a split in the English camp, strongly supporting a German compromise proposal which offered an olive branch to Lutheranism by interpreting Christ’s redemptive sacrifice as broadly as possible. According to this argument of ‘hypothetical universalism’, Christ’s death made salvation available to everyone by cancelling out original sin, even if in practice mankind’s continuing depravity meant that only a narrower band of the elect benefited, as affirmed by orthodox Calvinists. Davenant, temporarily persuaded that this position was more consistent with Anglican teachings, refused to fall into line with his more conventional colleagues. Accordingly the issue was referred back to England, where the king proved sympathetic to his stance, though the Synod did not ultimately concur.32 Tyacke, 96-8; Milton, 420.

Bishop of Salisbury, 1620-4

In July 1620 Davenant preached at the consecration of his brother-in-law, Robert Townson, as bishop of Salisbury. Just ten months later, Townson died suddenly, leaving 13 children. Davenant rushed down to London from Cambridge to comfort his sister, reporting to Ward on 18 May 1621 that the current royal favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, had promised to intercede with James on behalf of Townson’s offspring. By now, news had already broken of a proposal for Davenant to succeed his brother-in-law at Salisbury.33 ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 59; Bodl. Tanner 73, f. 27; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 256. Although this outcome initially seemed unlikely, on 27 May Davenant himself confirmed to Ward with mixed feelings that the king had agreed: ‘I never desired any of those eminent places in the Church, which I thought always required men of more active spirits and greater endowments than I find to be in myself. Yet the providence of God … now calls me to those places’.34 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 254; Bodl. Tanner 73, f. 31; This unexpected turn of events prompted much speculation about James’s actual intentions. It was generally assumed that Davenant would now act as surrogate father to his nephews and nieces, and the king was even said to have instructed him not to marry. When it emerged that he planned to keep his existing Cambridge positions in the short term, it was rumoured that his episcopal revenues would be diverted to support the Townsons, though Davenant himself insisted that the intention was rather to offset the financial burden of episcopal first fruits and taxes. The bishop’s own nephew, the antiquarian Thomas Fuller, later asserted that Davenant was being rewarded for his services at Dort, and that Townson’s premature death had merely hastened his elevation. If so, it may be doubted whether Davenant entirely welcomed his change of fortune. As he commented to Ward on 31 May: ‘my body may be tossed up and down to other places, but Cambridge will always have my heart’.35 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 379; ‘Camden Diary’, 71; Bodl. Tanner 73, f. 25; Fuller, Church Hist. v. 475, 502.

In October 1621, Davenant was appointed a commissioner to consider the status of the archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbot^*, following the latter’s accidental manslaughter of a gamekeeper. This matter remained unresolved when Davenant was consecrated on Sunday 18 Nov., so the ceremony was performed by George Montaigne, John Thornborough^*, Nicholas Felton^*, George Carleton^*, and John Howson^*, bishops of London, Worcester, Ely, Chichester and Oxford (later of Durham) respectively.36 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 407; Cassan, 114. Following the service Davenant was obliged to pay homage to the king, who was then at Newmarket, Suffolk. However, refusing to travel on the Sabbath, he delayed his journey until the next day. James commended him for this decision.37 Fuller, Worthies, ii. 360.

The second sitting of the 1621 Parliament got underway while Davenant was still at court, and he therefore missed the opening three days. However, he attended every day but two thereafter, and attracted four nominations. Named to consider a bill about cloth exports, he also replaced Townson on two legislative committees originally appointed prior to the summer recess, which were concerned with silk dyeing and abuses by informers. As a member of the last of these committees, Davenant was further nominated to confer with the Commons about informers.38 LJ, iii. 75b, 105b, 174b, 177b, 184a. During the debate of 1 Dec. on the monopolies bill, he voiced fears that the university press at Cambridge would be penalized by a clause relating to printing.39 LD 1621, pp. 102-3.

Despite his initial reservations about becoming a bishop, Davenant responded seriously to his new role, settling at Salisbury Palace, and espousing the concept of ‘primitive episcopacy’ - in other words, leading by example as a preacher and pastor.40 Fincham, 11, 310. He conducted his first visitation in 1622, in the process offering a telling insight into his churchmanship. Like Townson before him, he adopted as his model the recent anti-Calvinist articles by John Overall^*, bishop of Norwich, but modified them to reduce the emphasis on ceremonial observance. He also, presumably with more reluctance, added a question to enforce observance of the king’s new directions to preachers, which banned the discussion of predestination and related issues in parish pulpits.41 Vis. Articles and Injunctions of the Early Stuart Church ed. K. Fincham, i. pp. xx-xxi, 174. Davenant was replaced by his friend Ward as Lady Margaret professor in February 1622, and finally resigned as president of Queens’ in the following April, though he retained an active interest in the college. In 1626 he donated £100 to the library, and he doubtless influenced the election of his nephew, Robert Townson, as a fellow a year earlier.42 Birch, ii. 296; J. Twigg, Hist. of Queens’ Coll. Camb. 105; Al. Cant.

Davenant is not known to have exercised any electoral patronage when the 1624 Parliament was summoned, or indeed on any subsequent occasion.43 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 451. He attended both of the prorogation meetings in February, and was present in the Lords almost continuously until May, during which month he missed 11 sittings. During this session he attracted 12 appointments, the first of which was surprisingly to the select committee for reviewing the country’s military preparedness. Named to the committee for the bill for continuance or repeal of expiring statutes, he was also nominated to attend a conference about this measure. As a Wiltshire resident, he is likely to have taken an interest in the estate bill relating to William Seymour^*, 2nd earl of Hertford. His remaining eight legislative committees mostly concerned legal matters, such as monopolies, magistrates’ powers and the duration of Michaelmas term.44 LJ, iii. 237b, 267b, 296a, 302a, 384a-b, 400b; PA, HL/PO/CO/2/3, f. 28.

Meeting the Arminian threat, 1625-9

Following the accession of Charles I in March 1625, a new Parliament was summoned. Davenant attended the prorogation meeting on 17 May, and was present for all but three days of the Westminster sitting. On 28 June he was appointed to preach one of the sermons at the Lords’ fast day observance on 2 July, the text of which does not survive. Perhaps in part because of the time required for this task, he attracted only a single committee nomination, for the bill concerned with licences of alienations. When the Parliament resumed at Oxford, he was excused on the grounds of illness, and missed the whole of that sitting, appointing John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York) as his proxy.45 Procs. 1625, pp. 40, 67, 95, 125, 590.

During the autumn, much of the court descended on Salisbury, while the king was visiting nearby Wilton House. Davenant agreed to provide lodgings for his friend Bishop Williams, the lord keeper, but baulked at the idea of hosting a prominent Catholic, the French ambassador, De Blainville.46 Bodl. Tanner 72, ff. 52, 55; Searle, 418. However, by this time Davenant was as much concerned about Arminianism as he was about Catholicism. For several years his friend Ward had spearheaded efforts in Cambridge to counteract Arminian ideas, but the arguments were now becoming personal. A new controversial work, Appello Caesarem, published in early 1625 by Richard Montagu^* (later bishop of Norwich), openly attacked the English delegates to Dort, accusing them of endorsing dogma which was contrary to Anglican teaching. Ward used his position as Lady Margaret professor to refute this charge, and in October 1625 Davenant thanked him for his ‘vindicating of those that were at the Synod of Dort from the rash and false imputation laid on us by Mr Montagu’. The bishop had evidently read Appello Caesarem himself, for he picked up on a claim in the book that John Overall had questioned some aspects of the doctrine of predestination. Insisting that Montagu had misunderstood Overall’s argument, Davenant lamented the fact that he did not have ‘a more modest conceit of himself, and a less base opinion of all others who jump not with him in his mongrel opinions’.47 Tyacke, 46-7; R. Montagu, Appello Caesarem (1625), 70, 107; Bodl. Tanner 72, f. 55. Two months later he was still chewing over these issues, and predicted to Ward that Appello Caesarem would cause Montagu ‘much trouble, whensoever a Parliament shall be called’.48 Bodl. Tanner 72, f. 68.

The 1626 Parliament did indeed bring a prolonged attack on Montagu, but in the Commons rather than the Lords, so that Davenant had no opportunity to express his views in the upper House. He did, however, help to brief John Preston, a former colleague at Queens’, who spoke against Montagu at the York House Conference in mid February.49 Tyacke, 171; Searle, 405. Davenant attended more than four-fifths of this Parliament, most of his absences occurring during May, when he was formally excused three times.50 Procs. 1626, i. 488, 494, 501. His eight bill committee appointments covered a wide range of issues, including scandalous clergy and citations out of ecclesiastical courts, maintenance of almshouses, the composition of juries in assize trials, and the estates of a Berkshire landowner.51 Ibid. 53, 99, 119, 267, 313. After the Commons brought impeachment charges against Buckingham, Davenant was one of the six bishops who defended Sir Dudley Digges^‡ on 15 May against the accusation that he had made treasonable statements. His only other speech, nine days later, was a brief comment on the nature of the oath sworn by crown lawyers.52 Ibid. 477, 483, 547. Named to the select committee to examine witnesses in the trial for treason of John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol, Davenant subsequently took depositions from Digges, Endymion Porter^‡ and Philip Burlamachi.53 Ibid. 540, 597, 630.

Following the dissolution, Davenant dismissed the Parliament as ‘troublesome and fruitless’. Although consulted on the text of the royal proclamation of 14 June, which banned further debate of contentious religious topics, he was unhappy with this development, suspecting correctly that Montagu’s allies would interpret the new rules to their own advantage.54 J. Davies, Caroline Captivity of the Church, 111-12; Fuller, Life, 167. In point of fact, Davenant had already developed a personal strategy for circumventing such a clampdown. For at least three years, Ward had been encouraging him to publish the lectures he delivered while still Lady Margaret professor, with their learned expositions of orthodox Calvinism. Davenant was initially reluctant, doubting his abilities as a writer, and concerned that his failing eyesight would make it impossible for him to revise the lectures properly. However, in the face of Montagu’s attacks, he finally consented, and in September 1625 he informed Ward that a clerk had now transcribed his commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians, so that it could be prepared for publication.55 Bodl. Tanner 72, f. 52; 73, f. 273. Another two years passed before the book finally appeared, ostensibly an uncontroversial discussion of a core biblical text. The choice of subject was telling, though. As Davenant explained in his Latin preface, the church at Colossae had originally been instructed with pure doctrines, but problems arose when ministers of Satan began introducing philosophical subtleties and questioning whether Christ alone guaranteed salvation; St Paul’s epistle, written in response to these troubles, urged the Colossians to persevere with the original teachings, and reject the claims of these false teachers that people could improve their chances of being saved by their own godly actions. As a covert critique of Arminianism, Davenant’s message was discreet but potent, implying that the actions of Montagu and his friends were directly contrary to scripture. Although no objections were raised to the book’s publication, when Ward tried to present a copy to the king, he was stopped by the anti-Calvinist bishop of Winchester, Richard Neile^* (later archbishop of York).56 Fuller, Life, 168, 171-2. Davenant’s intervention had been noted, but he was not now in a position to engage more actively in religious controversy. His eyesight was continuing to deteriorate, and during the latter months of 1627 he was deprived of access to his library, having moved out of Salisbury to avoid the plague. Nevertheless, in his private correspondence with Ward, he remained resolute in his Calvinist convictions, in November reiterating at length that while good works were undoubtedly pleasing to God, they were no guarantee of salvation.57 Ibid. 166; Bodl., Tanner 72, ff. 202, 205, 213, 215r-v.

When Parliament met again in 1628, Davenant was as usual a regular face in the Lords in the early stages of the session, but he was missing from late May until the prorogation, presumably because of illness. As a result, he achieved an attendance record of only 59 per cent. His prolonged absence was all the more significant because he held the proxies of Bishop Carleton of Chichester, and John Hanmer^*, bishop of St Asaph.58 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 25. Named to the committee for privileges, Davenant was also appointed to confer with the Commons about the proposed joint petition to the king for a general fast. Both Houses held their own fast days, and Davenant was selected to preach before the Lords when they assembled in Westminster Abbey on 5 April. To give him time to prepare, he was excused attendance in the interim. Taking as his text Jeremiah 3:22, ‘Behold, we come unto thee, for thou art the Lord our God’, he delivered a fairly conventional address on the need for repentance and renewal in the entire country, avoiding any direct reference to Arminianism, but attacking the Catholic Church for claiming that people could themselves earn eternal life. Mindful of his audience, he also proposed that if the clergy failed to give the necessary lead, it was up to the nobility and commonalty, in other words Parliament, to do so. The sermon was well-received, and on 7 Apr. the Lords ordered its publication.59 Ibid. 73, 78, 95, 157; J. Davenant, One of the Sermons Preached at Westminster the Fifth of April … Before the … Lords of the High Court of Parliament (1628), esp. pp. 15, 25-30.

Davenant spoke only once in the Lords during this session, agreeing on 6 May that if a peer swore on his honour in court, this was equivalent to testifying under oath, because God was invoked either way.60 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 384. He attracted eight nominations to bill committees, their subjects including trade, episcopal leases, and the restitution in blood of Carew Ralegh^‡. The last of these measures affected him indirectly because it touched on a dispute between Ralegh and the earl of Bristol over Sherborne Castle, Dorset, formerly a property of the bishops of Salisbury. A rival bill promoted by Bristol was simultaneously considered in the Commons, and on 31 May the Lower House was informed that Davenant had consented to its provisions.61 Ibid. 88, 371, 389; CD 1628, iv. 36.

Richard Montagu’s consecration as bishop of Chichester in August 1628 was a bitter blow to Davenant, indicating as it did the crown’s support for Arminianism over Calvinism. In the following November, he wrote to Ward, questioning ‘why that should now be esteemed puritan doctrine, which those [men] held who have done our Church the greatest service in beating down puritanism, or why men should be restrained from teaching that doctrine hereafter, which hitherto has been generally and publicly maintained’. He drew some comfort from reports that Appello Caesarem might yet be banned as unduly controversial, but other English Arminian authors were now emerging, such as Thomas Jackson, the publication of whose recent Treatise of Divine Essence and Attributes he had unsuccessfully opposed. A month later the king reissued the Thirty-Nine Articles with a new declaration which banned debate of disputed theological points, yet could be read as endorsing Arminian views on the workings of God’s grace. Davenant was still preparing some of his old Calvinist lectures for publication, but it was increasingly difficult to see how they could go to press.62 Bodl., Tanner 72, f. 298r-v; Davies, 113; Tyacke, 50.

When Parliament resumed in January 1629, Davenant once again attended assiduously, missing just four days. This time he was both named to the committee for privileges and added to its subcommittee. He was also appointed to attend the king when the petition for a general fast was presented to him. Little business was conducted in the Lords during this session, and he attracted just one other nomination, to a select committee to consider a private dispute concerning the Coningsby family.63 LJ, iv. 6a, 14a, 18a, 37b. Understandably, Davenant took a close interest in the Commons’ attempts to bind the Church of England firmly to Calvinist doctrines, but recognized the futility of these debates. Instead, as he explained to Ward on 27 Feb., he pinned his hopes on Convocation, which was also in session:

I am still confident that if either the doctrine of election upon prescience of persevering faith, or if the total or final falling away of men truly adopted, justified and sanctified should come to be handled in the Convocation House, none would so much disparage their own reputation, as to maintain that either of them was ever since Queen Elizabeth’s time received or reputed for the common doctrine of our Church.64 Bodl., Tanner 72, f. 310.

However, there was no realistic chance of such discussions taking place. Appello Caesarem had indeed been suppressed on the eve of this parliamentary session, but the objective was to discourage further attacks on Montagu, rather than to condemn his ideas.65 Tyacke, 161.

A decade of quiet dissidence, 1630-9

By 1629 Davenant had completed work on another defence of predestination, the Dissertatio de Morte Christi, but predictably it fell foul of the government ban on public discussion of such issues, and was not finally published until 1650.66 Bodl., Tanner 72, f. 298v; Fuller, Life, 220-1. He continued to chew over the key contested doctrines privately in his correspondence with Ward, but in March 1630 his frustration at being muzzled finally boiled over, and he used a sermon at court to reiterate very publicly his views on predestination and election. The inevitable backlash followed, and a few days later he was brought before the Privy Council and accused by the anti-Calvinist archbishop of York, Samuel Harsnett^*, of defying the king’s 1628 declaration. Davenant denied the charge, on the grounds that the doctrines he had outlined were enshrined in the Thirty-Nine Articles, and therefore not controversial. However, while no further action was taken against him, he was obliged to promise Charles that he would steer clear of these topics in future.67 Bodl., Tanner 71, ff. 5, 26, 37, 41-2; Fuller, Church Hist. vi. 74-5.

Recognizing that he had gone too far this time, Davenant reverted to attacking Catholics instead, in his Praelectiones de Duobus in Theologia Controversis Capitibus of 1631, which was dedicated to the king, and his Determinationes Quaestionum quarundam Theologicarum of 1634, both of which recycled his old Cambridge notes.68 Fuller, Life, 354, 357, 374, 383-4, 388-9. Nevertheless, he continued to be viewed with suspicion in official circles as a potentially dissident figure, with some justification. In the spring of 1633, the puritan Henry Sherfield^‡ was censured in Star Chamber for an act of iconoclasm in Salisbury, and ordered to make a public submission to Davenant, his local bishop. Charles made it clear that he wanted Sherfield humiliated, but Davenant, who evidently sympathized with the offender, sought to tone down the submission until the government intervened. As the dean of Salisbury observed, ‘in all business of ecclesiastical defence, the bishop … casts backward and retires himself into caution and silence’.69 HMC Cowper, ii. 2-3; CSP Dom. 1631-3, pp. 538-9, 571-2; 1633-4, p. 19.

Thereafter, Davenant trod a more careful path, doing just enough to stay out of trouble, but without entirely abandoning his own preferences. When the Book of Sports was reissued at the end of 1633, he ordered all his parish clergy to read it in their churches, but declined to enforce this instruction.70 Davies, 180, 182, 194. William Laud^*, in his 1634 metropolitan visitation as archbishop of Canterbury, found much evidence of nonconformity in Wiltshire, but conceded that Davenant ‘had taken a great deal of care’ in implementing royal instructions, even having copies distributed to all his clergy. On the strength of this assessment, Davenant was able to submit increasingly vague annual certificates to Laud for the rest of the decade, without his bland assurances of good order being challenged.71 Works of Abp. Laud ed. J. Bliss, v. 324, 334, 343, 349, 361, 369. Davenant had little taste for the archbishop’s ceremonial innovations, commenting to Ward in 1639: ‘I wish we could all content ourselves with that doctrine and those rites which our predecessors have left unto us. I can see nothing altered, or augmented, for the better’. Nevertheless, he went further than many bishops in enforcing the introduction of altar rails, and the placing of communion tables altar-wise at the east end of churches. Since he did not insist on congregations receiving communion at the altar rails, he seems to have believed that he was merely implementing the rules laid down under Elizabeth and James I, and indeed said as much in a well-known test case in May 1637, when he overruled local objections at Aldbourne, Wiltshire to an altar-wise table. Such was Davenant’s reputation as a traditionalist that Laud highlighted this ruling during the famous Star Chamber prosecution of three staunch puritans, John Bastwick, Henry Burton and William Prynne^‡, later that year.72 Tyacke, 210-11; Works of Abp. Laud, vi. 61; Davies, 218, 223-5; K. Fincham and N. Tyacke, Altars Restored, 205-6. In reality, Davenant’s old prejudices against all things papistical remained strong, and in April 1637, while preaching at court, he once again prompted comments by declining to bow towards the altar in the king’s chapel because there was a tapestry behind it bearing the image of a crucifix.73 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 99.

It was a measure of the success of Davenant’s personal via media that during the 1630s he most frequently came to the government’s notice over issues which had nothing to do with ecclesiastical policy. His relationship with the dean and chapter of Salisbury was intermittently fractious, the disputes generally relating to the distribution of offices.74 CSP Dom. 1629-31, pp. 17, 138; This was not entirely surprising, given his own marked tendency to nepotism. Five of his nephews, Edward Davenant, William, Robert and John Townson, and Thomas Fuller, became prebendaries of Salisbury. The bishop showed particular favour to Edward, who was also appointed archdeacon of Berkshire and treasurer of Salisbury cathedral, and presented to three benefices, such episcopal munificence causing considerable unrest.75 Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, vi. 13, 15, 34, 49-50, 53, 59, 63, 79; CCEd; Aubrey, i. 200. Despite these tensions, Davenant and the chapter closed ranks when their collective privileges were threatened, and from 1630 to 1638 they waged a protracted battle with Salisbury corporation over their respective local jurisdictions, the bishop eventually securing concessions but then failing to get them implemented.76 Searle, 419; CSP Dom. 1635-6, pp. 537-8; 1637, pp. 1, 4, 105; 1638-9, pp. 122-3; PC2/46, ff. 121v-2; 2/47, f. 197v; Hoare, iv. 321-2, 389-91; M. Weinbaum, Brit. Bor. Charters 1307-1660, p. 122. Davenant also caused irritation at court by his somewhat dubious claim to the chancellorship of the order of the Garter, which he first raised in 1636 on the basis that the post had been created for one of his predecessors, and then pursued for the rest of the decade.77 P.J. Begent and H. Chesshyre, Most Noble Order of the Garter, 109, 111.

Final months, 1640-1

With the end of Charles’s personal rule in 1640, Davenant once more felt able to slip his leash, and during the Convocation that coincided with the Short Parliament he unsuccessfully attempted to have all Arminian books suppressed.78 Tyacke, 236; Davies, 265. In the following year, he published his Animadversions … upon a Treatise Intituled: God’s Love to Mankind, in which he once more defended predestination, and distanced himself from hypothetical universalism.79 Searle, 420; Fuller, Life, 448; Tyacke, 99. Davenant died in April 1641 of a ‘consumption’, allegedly made worse by his anticipation of the ‘sorrowful times’ to come, and was buried in his cathedral. Fittingly, his memorial inscription alluded to his pursuit of the model of primitive episcopacy, which had marked him out from most other contemporary bishops.80 Fuller, Church Hist. vi. 193; Cassan, 120.