Two Dissertations · §638 · John Davenant

Cap. IX Arg. 9 Sol: creation of Judas is not a medium subordinated to his damnation — Augustine and Prosper; to create a reprobate ≠ to create that he may be damned

The Jesuits could see how the creation of particular angels in time did not fight the reprobation of some, set from eternity by God's will alone — and they could conceive the same of men. Let Corvinus bend his wit's edge, and he will easily see it. But he thinks he can shore up the consequence thus: Creation by nature is a communication of good; yet if such reprobation as we place preceded, it will be a path by which reprobation already made reaches its end — a medium of the those not chosen man subordinated to damnation — and so will not be a communication be judged from the giver's mind and the end for which it is given. That is weakly argued. First: creation of particular men follows both their election and their reprobation. As Peter's creation would improperly be called a medium subordinated to his election, so Judas's creation is improperly and falsely called a medium subordinated to his reprobation or damnation. If any dare hold that men's creation is a medium subordinated to their damnation, I dissent and embrace Augustine and Prosper, who everywhere oppose that.

Latin

Potuerunt Jesuitae intelligere, quomodo creatio singulorum angelorum facta in tempore non pugnaverit cum reprobatione quorundam, sola Dei voluntate ab aeterno constituta: potuerunt idem de hominibus concipere: Intendat aciem ingenii sui Corvinus, et idem facile intelligat. Sed putat se confirmare posse consequentiam hac argumentatione: Creatio sua natura est communicatio boni: At praecesserit talis reprobatio qualem nos ponimus, erit via quaedam per quam reprobatio jam ante facta finem suum consequatur, erit medium hominis non-electi damnationi subordinatum. Ac proinde non erit communicatio boni; cum bonum aestimari debeat ex mente dantis, et fine propter quem datur. Sed haec parum solide disputantur. Nam primo creatio singularium hominum tam electionem quam reprobationem eorundem consequitur. Sicuti ergo creatio Petri improprie diceretur medium subordinatum ejus electioni, ita et creatio Judae improprie et falso dicitur medium subordinatum aut reprobationi aut damnationi ejusdem. Si qui sunt qui audeant sustinere creationem hominum esse medium damnationi eorundem subordinatum, ego ab illis dissentio, et amplector sententiam Augustini et Prosperi, qui hoc passim adversantur.

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