Two Dissertations · §244 · John Davenant

Cap. II Sol. Arg. 3: earthly king analogy fails — strength from crown's destination

Last: the earthly-king crown analogy fails at the very hinge of the argument. If no one could climb by his own strength, and the king could breathe that strength into whomever he chose, the crown would not be destined from foresight of the climb — the climb foreseen, and the strength given, would flow from the crown's destination. That is exactly how it stands between God and men.

Latin

Postremo, quod attinet ad similitudinem allatam de Rege terreno coronam destinante adscendentibus muros civitatis; ingentem habet dissimilitudinem in illa ipsa re, unde tota vis argumenti dependet. Nam si nemo possit suis viribus adscendere, & Rex ille possit vires hasce quibus visum fuerit inspirare, non jam illis quibus hasce vires tribueret, destinata fuisset corona ex praevisione adscensionis; sed praevisa adscensio & vires inspiratae, ex destinatione coronae. At sic res habet planissime inter Deum & homines.

Report a mistake in this passage

About this text

John Davenant argues from Scripture that Christ's death is a remedy offered to every person, so that anyone who hears the Gospel may be called to believe, and then opens a second dissertation on predestination.

John Davenant (1572–1641) was Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, bishop of Salisbury from 1621, and England's leading delegate to the Synod of Dort. A Reformed theologian of the moderate school, he defended universal atonement language within a Calvinist frame.

The Two Dissertations (1650) press two theses: that Christ died sufficiently for all, and that God sincerely calls all who hear the gospel — against the novel claim that Christ died only for the elect in every sense. They are Davenant's mature statement of the hypothetical-universalist position that divided English Calvinists.

This volume covers the opening of the first dissertation through the close of chapter 3, with the theses on the extent of Christ's death.

Date1572–1641 AD (Bishop of Salisbury; 1650 Cambridge imprint)

The 1683 reprint was not used as base text. No modern English was copied.

Printed text used

Also checked PDF of the 1650 (Latin · print facsimile)
Also checked DjVu machine-read text of the 1650 (Latin)

We have not yet re-checked this work against its source. We made this study translation with AI help. No scholar has yet certified it as faithful and complete. Open Latin on any section, or the Latin source link, to see the source text. It is not a critical edition.

Report a mistake