Institutes of Elenctic Theology Quotes

“The perfection of Scripture asserted by us does not exclude either the ecclesiastical ministry (established by God for the setting forth and application of the word) or the internal power of the Holy Spirit necessary for conversion. It only excludes the necessity of another rule for external direction added to the Scriptures to make them perfect. A rule is not therefore imperfect because it requires the hand of the architect for its application.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“The ignorance and blindness of man are not to be compounded with the obscurity of the Scriptures. The former is often pressed upon the Scriptures, but it is not so, nor can the latter be legitimately inferred from the former no more than that the sun is obscure because it cannot be seen by a blind man.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“...these various apparent contradictions (enantiophanē) in Scripture might be easily reconciled. For the discourse does not concern the same thing, as when James ascribes justification to works, which Paul denies to them. For the former speaks of declarative justification of the effect a posteriori, but the latter of justification of the cause, a priori.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“The orthodox (although they hold the fathers in great estimation and think them very useful to a knowledge of the history of the ancient church, and our opinion on cardinal doctrines may agree with them) yet deny that their authority, whether as individuals or taken together, can be called authoritative in matters of faith and the interpretation of the Scriptures, so that by their judgment we must stand or fall. Their authority is only ecclesiastical and subordinate to the Scriptures and of no weight except so far as they agree with them.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“The Scriptures may have various and ambiguous senses, not from the nature of the thing affirmed or the intention of the affirmer, but from the unskillfulness or obstinacy of the distorter. Therefore this ambiguity and obscurity (if such there is) does not take away their authority, but shows the necessity of the Spirit of illumination and of the minister to explain them.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“It is not always necessary to make a distinction between the judge and the law. The Philosopher confesses that in prescribing universal rights the law has the relation of a judge; but in the particular application in things taken singly, the interpreter of the law performs the office of judge, but a ministerial and subordinate one (Aristotle, Politics 3.6). In this sense, we do not deny that the church is the judge, but still always bound by the Scriptures. As in a republic, the decision of a magistrate is so far valid as it is grounded on the law and agrees with it. Otherwise, if at variance with it, it is invalid and appeal may be made from it. Thus in the church the judgment of pastors can be admitted only so far as it agrees with the Scriptures.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“When we say that the Scriptures are the judge of controversies, we mean it in no other sense than that they are the source of divine right, and the most absolute rule of faith by which all controversies of faith can and should be certainly and perspicuously settled even as in a republic, the foundations of decisions and of judgments are drawn from the law. So a judge may be taken widely and by metonomy of the adjunct for a normal
and not a personal judge. Hence he must not be confounded with the subordinate judge who decides controversies according to the rule of the law and applies the authority of the law to things taken singly. This accords with the Philosopher’s rule, 'The law must govern all, but the magistrates and the state must decide as to individuals' (Aristotle, Politics 4.4.33–34).”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“When we say that the Scriptures are the judge of controversies, we mean it in no other sense than that they are the source of divine right, and the most absolute rule of faith by which all controversies of faith can and
should be certainly and perspicuously settled—even as in a republic, the foundations of decisions and of judgments are drawn from the law. So a judge may be taken widely and by metonomy of the adjunct for a normal
and not a personal judge. Hence he must not be confounded with the subordinate judge who decides controversies according to the rule of the law and applies the authority of the law to things taken singly. This accords with the Philosopher’s rule, 'The law must govern all, but the magistrates and the state must decide as to individuals' (Aristotle, Politics 4.4.33–34).”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“...the popes were neither able nor willing by that infallible authority to settle the various most important controversies which the Romish church cherished in her own bosom (i.e., between the Thomists and Scotists, the Dominicans and Jesuits, the Jesuits and Jansenists, etc). For why did they not at once repress those contentions by their infallibility and untie the tangled knots? If they could not, what becomes of their infallibility? If they could, why did they not save the church from such scandals?”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“The ignorance and blindness of man are not to be compounded with the obscurity of the Scriptures. The former is often pressed upon the Scriptures, but it is not so, nor can the latter be legitimately inferred from the former no more than that the sun is obscure because it cannot be seen by a blind man. Hence if David and other believers desire their eyes to be opened that they may see wonderful things out of the law, it does not therefore prove the obscurity of the Scriptures, but only the ignorance of men. The question here is not Do men need the light of the Holy Spirit in order to understand the Scriptures? (which we willingly grant); but Are the Scriptures obscure to a believing and illuminated man? Again, illumination may be either theoretical or practical, in its first stage or in its increase. David does not properly seek the former, but the latter.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“The question is not whether things essential to salvation are everywhere in the Scriptures perspicuously revealed. We acknowledge that there are some things hard to be understood and intended by God to exercise our attention and mental powers. The question is whether things essential to salvation are anywhere revealed, at least so that the believer can by close meditation ascertain their truth (because nothing can be drawn out of the more obscure passages which may not be found elsewhere in the plainest terms). As Augustine remarks: 'Admirable and healthily the Spirit has so arranged the Scriptures that by the plainer passages he might meet our desires and by the obscurer remove our contempt' (CI 2.6); and, 'We feed in the open places, we are exercised by the obscure; there hunger is driven away, here contempt' (Sermon 71, 'De Verbis Domini,' 7.11.)”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“The question is not whether the Holy Scriptures are perspicuous in all their parts so as to need no interpreter nor exposition of doubtful passages (which Bellarmine falsely and slanderously charges upon us, stating the question thus: 'Are the Scriptures of themselves as perfectly plain and intelligible as to need no interpretation?'—VD 3.1, p. 96. For we unhesitatingly confess that the Scriptures have their heights and depths which we cannot enter or sound and which God so ordered on purpose to excite the study of believers and increase their diligence; to humble the pride of man and to remove from them the contempt which might arise from too great plainness. Rather the question concerns only things necessary for salvation, and indeed as to them, only so far as they are necessary to be known and cannot be unknown without criminality. For instance, the mystery of the Trinity is plainly delivered as to the fact which is necessary, but not as to the how, which we are not permitted to know (nor is that essential to salvation). For as in nature so also in the Scriptures, it pleased God to present everywhere and make easy of comprehension all necessary things; but those less necessary are so closely concealed as to require great exertion to extricate them. Thus besides bread and sustenance, she has her luxuries, gems and gold deep under the surface and obtainable only by indefatigable labor; and as heaven is sprinkled with greater and lesser stars, so the Scriptures are not everywhere equally resplendent, but are distinguished by clearer and obscurer places, as by stars of a greater or lesser magnitude.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“The oral (agraphous) traditions of the papists, for they speak diversely of them. Sometimes tradition is used by them for the 'act of tradition' by which the sacred books were preserved by the church in an uninterrupted series of time (also a perpetual succession) and delivered to posterity. This is formal tradition and in this sense Origen says 'they learned by tradition that the four gospels were unquestioned in the church universal.' Second, it is often taken for the written doctrine which, being at first oral, was afterward committed to writing. Thus Cyprian says, 'Sacred tradition will preserve whatever is taught in the gospels or is found in the epistles of the apostles or in the Acts' (Epistle 74 'To Pompey'). Third, it is taken for a doctrine which does not exist in the Scriptures in so many words, but may be deduced thence by just and necessary consequence; in opposition to those who bound themselves to the express word of the Scriptures and would not admit the word homoousion because it did not occur verbatim there. Thus Basil denies that the profession of faith which we make in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit can be found in the Scriptures meaning the Apostles’ Creed, whose articles nevertheless are contained in the Scriptures as to sense (On the Spirit 8:41, 43). Fourth, it is taken for the doctrine of rites and ceremonies called 'ritual tradition.' Fifth, it is taken for the harmony of the old teachers of the church in the exposition of any passage of Scripture which, received from their ancestors, they retained out of a modest regard for antiquity because it agreed with the Scriptures. This may be called 'tradition of sense' or exegetical tradition (of which Irenaeus speaks, Against Heresies 3.3, and Tertullian often as well, Prescription Against Heretics 3:243–65). Sixth, they used the word tradition ad hominem in disputing with heretics who appealed to them not because all they approved of could not be found equally as well in the Scriptures, but because the heretics with whom they disputed did not admit the Scriptures; as Irenaeus says, 'When they perceived that they were confused by the Scriptures, they turned around to accuse them' (Against Heresies, 3.2). They dispute therefore at an advantage from the consent of tradition with the Scriptures, just as we now do from the fathers against the papists, but not because they acknowledged any doctrinal tradition besides the Scriptures. As Jerome testifies, 'The sword of God smites whatever they draw and forges from a pretended apostolic tradition, without the authority and testimony of the Scriptures' (Commentarii in prophetas: Aggaeum 1:11).”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“The 'seat of Moses' (Mt. 23:2) is not the succession in the place and office of Moses or the external court of a supreme judge to whom the authority in question belongs (for the seat of Moses was not in existence nor was any such privilege attached to it); rather it is the promulgation of the true doctrine delivered by Moses (as the ordinary gloss on Dt. 17 has it, 'The seat of Moses is wherever his doctrine is'), and the chair of Peter is wherever his doctrine is heard. So those who have been teachers of the law delivered by Moses are considered to have taught in Moses’ seat, as Hilary observes (Commentarius in Matthaeum 24.1 [PL 9.1048]). Therefore the Pharisees teaching in Moses’ seat were to be heard as far as they faithfully proposed to the people his doctrine, without any admixture of their own.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“The Old Testament Scripture was perfect essentially and absolutely for it contains sufficiently as to that time the substance of doctrine necessary to salvation; although accidentally and comparatively, with respect to the New Testament Scripture, imperfect as to the mode of manifestation, although with respect to the Jewish church it was the age of manhood (Gal. 4:1–4).”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“Second Thess. 2:15 does not sanction unwritten traditions, but designates the twofold method of delivering the same doctrine by the voice and by writing. The disjunctive particle eite, which can also be considered copulative (as in Rom. 12*:8; 1 Cor. 15:11; Col. 1:20), marks a diversity not of the thing, but of the mode, which might be
one or the other, especially in those primitive days when the canon of the New Testament Scriptures was not yet completed. Again, although all things were not contained in the epistle to the Thessalonians, it does not
follow that they were not to be found elsewhere in the Scriptures.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“The many things which the disciples of Christ could not bear (Jn. 16:12) do not imply the insufficiency of the Scriptures or the necessity of traditions. For they were not new doctrines differing in substance from the former (Jn. 14:26), but the same as about to be more fully declared and more strongly impressed by the Spirit. And afterwards, being instructed fully by the effusion of the Spirit, they committed them to writing.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“The trust committed to Timothy (1 Tim. 6:20) refers not to some doctrine delivered by the spoken voice and not written, but either to the form of sounder words (mentioned in 2 Tim. 1:13), instead of the profane novelties and oppositions of science falsely so called, or to the talents committed to his charge. These have nothing in common with the farrago of unwritten traditions.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“Although all things are not written severally as to words and deeds (since there is neither a number nor science of singulars, of which Jn. 20:30 treats), yet they are written as to form (kat’ eidos), as to the substance of necessary doctrine. Hence we grant that many sayings and doings of Christ and his apostles are not contained in the Scriptures, but deny that any such were different as to substance from those which are recorded there.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“Although all things are not written severally (kata meros) as to words and deeds (since there is neither a number nor science of singulars, of which Jn. 20:30 treats), yet they are written as to form (kat’ eidos), as to the
substance of necessary doctrine. Hence we grant that many sayings and doings of Christ and his apostles are not contained in the Scriptures, but deny that any such were different as to substance from those which are recorded there.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“No fit reason can be given why God should wish one part of his word to be written and the other to be delivered by spoken voice. And he would have strangely consulted the interests of his church, if he had entrusted a necessary part of doctrine to the uncertain tradition of men, since every tradition must necessarily be corrupted by the lapse of time.
Besides there is no rule for the distinguishing of traditions which does not bring us back to the testimony and authority of the church, and this very authority is most strongly controverted. Therefore, since their origin is
doubtful, their authority uncertain, the sense often perplexed and ambiguous and the test of them impossible, everyone must see that they are deservedly rejected by us that we may adhere to the Scriptures alone as the most perfect rule of faith and practice.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“The Jews preceded the papists in the reception of traditions, dividing the law into the written and oral. Moses, having received the law on Mt. Sinai, delivered it to Joshua, he to the seventy elders, they to the prophets, they again to the great synagogue and so on until at last it was committed to writing in the Talmud. Hence various deuterōseis ('traditions') prevailed among them as calling forth rebukes from Christ—an artifice of Satan to draw the Jews more easily from the written law by this law. By the same
device, he has caused the papists to contrive a twofold word of God: one written, the other not written, as if Christ and his apostles taught many things by the spoken word which they did not commit to writing. Hence
arose unwritten traditions, not because they never have been written, but because (according to Bellarmine) they were not written by the original author or because they are not found written in any apostolic book.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“The Jews preceded the papists in the reception of traditions, dividing the law into the written and oral. Moses, having received the law on Mt. Sinai, delivered it to Joshua, he to the seventy elders, they to the prophets, they again to the great synagogue and so on until at last it was committed to writing in the Talmud. Hence various deuterōseis ('traditions') prevailed among them as calling forth rebukes from Christ—an artifice of Satan to draw the Jews more easily from the written law by this law. By the same
device, he has caused the papists to contrive a twofold word of God: one written, the other not written, as if Christ and his apostles taught many things by the spoken word which they did not commit to writing. Hence
arose unwritten traditions (so-called agraphoi), not because they never have been written, but because (according to Bellarmine) they were not written by the original author or because they are not found written in any apostolic book.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“The question is not whether the divine and apostolic traditions (i.e., all the doctrines taught by Christ or his apostles) are to be received (for all readily grant this). The question is whether there are any such traditions beside the Scriptures. Therefore until our adversaries prove conclusively that their unwritten (agraphous) traditions have indeed flowed from Christ and his apostles (which they never can do), we discard them as human.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“Do the Scriptures so perfectly contain all things necessary to salvation that there is no need of unwritten (agraphois) traditions after it? We affirm against the papists On the state of the question consider: (1) that the question is not whether the Scriptures contain all those things which were said or done by Christ and the saints or have any connection whatever with religion. We acknowledge that many things were done by Christ which are not recorded (Jn. 20:30); also that many things occurred as appendices and supports of religion which are not particularly mentioned in the Scriptures and were left to the prudence of the rulers of the church who (according to the direction of Paul, 1 Cor. 14:40) should see that all things be done decently in the church. The question relates only to things necessary to salvation—whether they belong to faith or to practice; whether all these things are so contained in the Scriptures that they can be a total and adequate rule of faith and practice (which we maintain and our opponents deny).”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“Now although all things in the Scriptures are not equally important as to matter and use, yet all are equally so as to their source and authenticity (authentias) and therefore given equally for the good and edification of the church.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“The passage of Augustine, 'I would not believe the gospel if the authority of the church did not move me' does not favor the papists. First, Augustine speaks of himself as still a Manichean and not yet a Christian. What he places in the imperfect is equivalent to the preterite pluperfect: 'I would believe and it would move' for 'I would have believed and it would have moved'—a very common usage with the Africans (as the learned observe); cf. Augustine, 'If I would then love that fruit' for 'I would have loved' (Confessions 2.8 Second, the authority of which he speaks is not that of right and power (which our opponents here pretend), as if he would have believed because the church so ordered; but that of worth, derived from the great and remarkable proofs of the providence of God (visible in the church) such as miracles, the agreement of people, the succession, etc. (Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 4 which can lead to faith, although unable to produce it primarily. Third, the external motive to faith is here alluded to and not the infallible principle of believing which chap. 4 teaches us is to be sought in the truth alone. For he acknowledges that truth is to be preferred before everything else, if it is so perfectly exhibited as that it cannot be called into question.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“The passage of Augustine, 'I would not believe the gospel if the authority of the church did not move me' (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 5 [NPNF1, 4:131; PL 42.176]) does not favor the papists. First, Augustine speaks of himself as still a Manichean and not yet a Christian. What he places in the imperfect is equivalent to the preterite pluperfect: 'I would believe and it would move' for 'I would have believed and it would have moved'—a very common usage with the Africans (as the learned observe); cf. Augustine, 'If I would then love that fruit' for 'I would have loved' (Confessions 2.8 [FC 21:46; PL 32.682]).
Second, the authority of which he speaks is not that of right and power (which our opponents here pretend), as if he would have believed because the church so ordered; but that of worth, derived from the great and remarkable proofs of the providence of God (visible in the church) such as miracles, the agreement of people, the succession, etc. (Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 4 [NPNF1, 4:130]) which
can lead to faith, although unable to produce it primarily. Third, the external motive to faith is here alluded to and not the infallible principle of believing which chap. 4 teaches us is to be sought in the truth alone. For he
acknowledges that truth is to be preferred before everything else, if it is so perfectly exhibited as that it cannot be called into question.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“We do not deny that the church has many functions in relation to the Scriptures. She is: (1) the keeper of the oracles of God to whom they are committed and who preserves the authentic tables of the covenant of grace with the greatest fidelity, like a notary (Rom. 3:2); (2) the guide, to point out the Scriptures and lead us to them (Is. 30:21); (3) the defender, to vindicate and defend them by separating the genuine books from the spurious, in which sense she may be called the ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15*); (4) the herald who sets forth and promulgates them (2 Cor. 5:19; Rom. 10:16); (5) the interpreter inquiring into the unfolding of the true sense. But all these imply a ministerial only and not a magisterial power.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“We do not deny that the church has many functions in relation to the Scriptures. She is: (1) the keeper of the oracles of God to whom they are committed and who preserves the authentic tables of the covenant of grace
with the greatest fidelity, like a notary (Rom. 3:2); (2) the guide, to point out the Scriptures and lead us to them (Is. 30:21); (3) the defender, to vindicate and defend them by separating the genuine books from the
spurious, in which sense she may be called the ground (hedraiōma) of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15*); (4) the herald who sets forth and promulgates them (2 Cor. 5:19; Rom. 10:16); (5) the interpreter inquiring into the unfolding of the true sense. But all these imply a ministerial only and not a magisterial power.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology