Two Dissertations · §329 · John Davenant

Cap. III Sol. Rat. 12: antecedent will to save does not coerce — free-moving means

Now to the point. I deny that God's antecedent will to give Peter eternal salvation takes away or hinders his free choice about obtaining it — and yet I affirm that, on that hypothesis, he cannot fall from salvation, so the divine decree cannot be made void. First: God's efficacious will works all he wills, but in the manner and by the means he wills. From an efficacious, antecedent purpose to save Peter he need not use coercive means that necessitate the human will; it is enough to use those Divine wisdom knows can move and bend the will efficaciously, infallibly, yet freely. Indeed, when from the antecedent decree to give salvation God moves the elect's free choice toward acquiring it, liberty is not lost but rather increased and strengthened. As Báñez puts it (In 1. q.22 a.4): the creature's free choice receives participated liberty from Divine free choice, moving it strongly and sweetly according to its nature.

Latin

Jam ad rem. Nego posita antecedente Dei voluntate de danda Petro aeterna salute, tolli aut impediri liberum ejus arbitrium circa salutis consecutionem: et tamen illud simul assero, non posse illum, posita hac hypothesi, a salute excidere, ac per consequens, Divinum decretum non posse fieri irritum. Quod ad prius; Efficax Dei voluntas non modo operatur omnia quae vult Deus, sed eo modo, et per illa media quae vult. Ex efficaci igitur et antecedente proposito salvandi Petrum, non tenetur Deus uti mediis coactivis, aut necessitantibus voluntatem humanam, sed sufficit ut utatur illis, quae sapientia Divina novit efficaciter, infallibiliter, et tamen libere posse movere, et flectere ejus voluntatem. Imo et hoc etiam addo, Dum Deus ex antecedente decreto dandae salutis movet liberum arbitrium electorum ad salutem acquirendam, tantum abest ut inde amittatur, ut potius augeatur et roboretur humanae voluntatis libertas. Nam ut optime Bannes, In 1. qu. 22. art. 4, Liberum creaturae arbitrium accipit libertatem participatam ex Divino libero arbitrio, movente illud fortiter et suaviter juxta modum suae naturae.

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