The Colloquy of Thorn (1645)

1. Common Confession of the Doctrine of the Reformed Church in the Kingdom of Poland, and in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Respective Provinces of the Kingdom, For the Clarification of
Disputed Points at the Colloquy at Thorn, in 1645,

Presented on September 1.

1) From sin and death, there is no salvation or justification by the power of nature or through the righteousness of the law, but only through the grace of God in Christ, who redeemed us from wrath and the curse who were dead in sins through that only sacrifice of His death and through the merit of His perfect obedience in which He worked sufficiently for our, and not only for our, but also for the sins of the entire world. . . .

5) We are falsely accused, however, as if we deny that the death and merit of Christ suffices for all or as if we diminish His power. For we teach much the same as that which the Council of Trent taught in its sixth session, in the third chapter, namely: “although Christ died for all yet not all enjoy the benefit of His death; rather only they to whom the merit of His suffering is imparted:” We profess also that the cause or blame for this, whereby it is not imparted to all, lies in men themselves and in no way in the death and merit of Christ.

6) We are also falsely accused, as if we teach that not all those called through the Word of the gospel are earnestly, sincerely, or sufficiently called to repentance and blessedness by God, but rather that most are only seemingly and deceitfully called, only by signs through the revealed will, whereas the inner will of God’s counsel is lacking and He does not therein wish blessedness for all. We profess that we are far removed from this notion, for which people have charged us, either through false understanding or by the up toward words of a few; and that in God we attribute the highest truth and fidelity to all of His words and works, but in particular to those words which accompany the grace which calls to salvation, we do not attribute to Him a will which stands in constant contradiction to itself.

“The Colloquy of Thorn (1645)” in, Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed., James T. Dennison, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010), 4:212, 213-214. [Underlining mine.] [Note: one could reasonably conclude from the above that, at that time, the entire body of Reformed churches in both Poland and Lithuania were hypothetical universalists!]

Read the rest of this entry »

Davenant:

To the first out of Ezek. 33:11, and the 18:32, we answer: This author¹ quite forgets the very question in hand. When we dispute of that special providence which is called predestination, and which concerns the bringing of some men unto eternal life, and the freeing of them from eternal death, we speak of such a will as (by the confession of all Divines), stands not upon uncertain conditions, but is most infallibly and immutable, and that not only certitudine præscientiæ Divinæ, but ordinis & causalitatis, as the Schoolmen speak. Now the will spoken of in the testimonies alleged is that of voluntas simplicis complacentiæ, or voluntas conditionata, which in regard of the good intended and promised unto men depends upon the good bahaviour of their own free-will. Notwithstanding this will which extends unto all, it is the Divine will and decree that some men creata libertas possit impedire effectus consecutionem: Et hoc vult permittere Deus propter majora bona[Ruiz, de volunt. 18. sect. 4.]. So that this will of exempting Judas or Cain from eternal death under condition of “Turning from their wicked ways,” and yet permitting them finally to run on their own wicked ways, is so far from proving that they were not under any such decree of reprobation, as we maintain that it is evidently demonstrated the truth thereof. It proves strongly that neither man’s sin nor man’s eternal death do fall sub voluntate simplicus complicentæ: for then they should be bona & ambilia per se: But it proves not but God may decree the permitting of some men to finally die in their sins, and eternally to be punished for their sins: wherein we place the decree of reprobation.

The inference or collection, “That God delights not in the destruction of wicked men,” we willingly grant. For he only said to delight in that whereunto he has a natural inbred propension, but this puts no necessary obligation upon God by special mercy to free all men from destruction, though he could most easily do it.

As for “sealing up millions under invincible damnation,” it does manifestly import an invincible act of God thrusting men first into sin, and then into hell, and both out of his mere pleasure. We utterly deny that reprobation infers any such dealing of God with men non-elected.

John Davenant, Animadversions Written By the Right Reverend Father in God, John, Lord Bishop of Sarisbury, upon a Treatise intitled “God’s love to Mankind” (London: Printed for Iohn Partridge, 1641), 166-177. [Some minor reformatting; some spelling modernized; marginal reference cited inline; italics original; and, footnote mine.]

_______________________

¹[That is, Davenant’s theological opponent.]

Davenant:

[2 Pet. 3:9.]

Not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, &c.

This Scripture is not so liable to the exceptions against the former testimony. For it is a negative proposition, and must be taken distributively: and therefore speaks that in plain terms which is contrary to absolute reprobation.¹

That which is usually replied, is, that the persons here spoken of, are the elect only, and such as truly believe; God is not willing that any of them should perish.

But the contrary appears in the text. For the persons here mentioned, are those toward whom God exercises much patience and long-suffering, as it is in the words next going before And who are they? Are they the elect? Are they believers only? No, but reprobates rather, who die for their contempt of grace. For it is apparent by Scriptures, that God does patiently expect the conversion even of them that are never changed, but die in their sins: as we may see, 1 Pet 3:19, 20, where we read that the patience of God was exercised towards those, who in the days of Noah despised it, and went to prison, that is to hell for it. Yea, of all men, reprobates are the truest and most proper objects of God’s patience: as we may see, Rom. 2:4, where St. Paul speaking of such as go in sin, that God uses patience towards them, “that he might lead them to repentance.” And, Rom. 9:22, “He endures,” says the text, “with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted with destruction.” In the fifth of Isaiah, vers. 2, and in the 65^th chap. vers 2, we may see the same thing. Reprobates therefore as well as others, nay rather than others, does Peter here speak of, and says, that God would have none of them perish: If they do perish, it is their own fault and folly, and not God’s absolute pleasure, who would have no man perish.

John Davenant, Animadversions Written By the Right Reverend Father in God, John, Lord Bishop of Sarisbury, upon a Treatise intitled “God’s love to Mankind,” (London: Printed for Iohn Partridge, 1641), 158-159. [Some spelling modernized; marginal Scripture reference cited inline; italics original; and, footnote mine.]

_________________________

¹[Here Davenant rehearses the objection to election and reprobation.]

Baxter:

A[rminian] “But the death of Christ effected something for them; viz., the new covenant and common grace, though it effect not their salvation.

B[axter]: Who denies any of this? not the Synod of Dort.

Richard Baxter, Catholic Theology (London: Printed by Robert White, for Nevill Simmons a the Princes Arms in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1675), book 2, page 55. [Some spelling modernized and some reformatting.]