distinctive character of eighteenth-century evangelicalism, the focus has to be upon the ways in which these four elements were changed, modified or dif-ferently understood, or how they were given an altered significance during this period. Here, the seventeenth-century historian moves beyond his strict sphere of competence and into the realm of speculation. However, it would seem that one key discontinuity between the puritan theology of the seventeenth cen-tury and much of the evangelicalism of the eighteenth is that of the university context. Certainly in the form of English and Dutch puritanism, seventeenth-century Protestantism represented a successful marriage between academic theology and pastoral concern, whereby supremely accomplished learning connected with the life of the everyday believer through the media of ser-mons, catechisms and the pastorates of men who were well versed in scholastic theology. As such, it held two apparently incompatible strands of Protestant thought and life together: the need for a responsible, learned and theological approach to the biblical text and the belief that every individual, from the greatest to the least, had the responsibility to believe in God for their own salvation. Events in the latter part of the seventeenth century, however, served to rupture this relationship. In England the Restoration of 1660 and the subsequent imposition of the Clarendon Code effectively terminated puritanism as a movement and excluded not only serving puritan ministers but also subsequent generations of Nonconformists from both the Anglican ministry and, more importantly, from the universities. When nearly 2,000 puritan ministers left the established church in 1662, they took their theological tradition away from its academic roots in a university culture which stemmed from the Middle Ages and had been modified by the Renaissance. Their heirs in English Nonconformity were often men of formidable intellect – the names of Isaac Watts and Philip Doddridge spring immediately to mind – but they were not university men. They were not schooled in the language and thought forms of their puritan forebears and the theology they expounded did not coincide with that of their heritage in some of its most important aspects.

DOI link for distinctive character of eighteenth-century evangelicalism, the focus has to be upon the ways in which these four elements were changed, modified or dif-ferently understood, or how they were given an altered significance during this period. Here, the seventeenth-century historian moves beyond his strict sphere of competence and into the realm of speculation. However, it would seem that one key discontinuity between the puritan theology of the seventeenth cen-tury and much of the evangelicalism of the eighteenth is that of the university context. Certainly in the form of English and Dutch puritanism, seventeenth-century Protestantism represented a successful marriage between academic theology and pastoral concern, whereby supremely accomplished learning connected with the life of the everyday believer through the media of ser-mons, catechisms and the pastorates of men who were well versed in scholastic theology. As such, it held two apparently incompatible strands of Protestant thought and life together: the need for a responsible, learned and theological approach to the biblical text and the belief that every individual, from the greatest to the least, had the responsibility to believe in God for their own salvation. Events in the latter part of the seventeenth century, however, served to rupture this relationship. In England the Restoration of 1660 and the subsequent imposition of the Clarendon Code effectively terminated puritanism as a movement and excluded not only serving puritan ministers but also subsequent generations of Nonconformists from both the Anglican ministry and, more importantly, from the universities. When nearly 2,000 puritan ministers left the established church in 1662, they took their theological tradition away from its academic roots in a university culture which stemmed from the Middle Ages and had been modified by the Renaissance. Their heirs in English Nonconformity were often men of formidable intellect – the names of Isaac Watts and Philip Doddridge spring immediately to mind – but they were not university men. They were not schooled in the language and thought forms of their puritan forebears and the theology they expounded did not coincide with that of their heritage in some of its most important aspects.

distinctive character of eighteenth-century evangelicalism, the focus has to be upon the ways in which these four elements were changed, modified or dif-ferently understood, or how they were given an altered significance during this period. Here, the seventeenth-century historian moves beyond his strict sphere of competence and into the realm of speculation. However, it would seem that one key discontinuity between the puritan theology of the seventeenth cen-tury and much of the evangelicalism of the eighteenth is that of the university context. Certainly in the form of English and Dutch puritanism, seventeenth-century Protestantism represented a successful marriage between academic theology and pastoral concern, whereby supremely accomplished learning connected with the life of the everyday believer through the media of ser-mons, catechisms and the pastorates of men who were well versed in scholastic theology. As such, it held two apparently incompatible strands of Protestant thought and life together: the need for a responsible, learned and theological approach to the biblical text and the belief that every individual, from the greatest to the least, had the responsibility to believe in God for their own salvation. Events in the latter part of the seventeenth century, however, served to rupture this relationship. In England the Restoration of 1660 and the subsequent imposition of the Clarendon Code effectively terminated puritanism as a movement and excluded not only serving puritan ministers but also subsequent generations of Nonconformists from both the Anglican ministry and, more importantly, from the universities. When nearly 2,000 puritan ministers left the established church in 1662, they took their theological tradition away from its academic roots in a university culture which stemmed from the Middle Ages and had been modified by the Renaissance. Their heirs in English Nonconformity were often men of formidable intellect – the names of Isaac Watts and Philip Doddridge spring immediately to mind – but they were not university men. They were not schooled in the language and thought forms of their puritan forebears and the theology they expounded did not coincide with that of their heritage in some of its most important aspects.