Francis Turretin > Quotes

“If hatred of sin is necessary to God, then penal justice is equally necessary because the hatred of sin is the constant will of punishing it.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“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 subject of free will is neither the intellect, nor the will, but both faculties conjointly.”
― Francis Turretin

“The threefold misery of men introduced by sin--ignorance, guilt and the tyranny and bondage by sin--required this conjunction of a threefold office. Ignorance is healed by the prophetic; guilt by the priestly; the tyranny and corruption of sin by the kingly. Prophetic light scatters the darkness of error; the merit of the Priest takes away guilt and procures a reconciliation for us; the power of the King removes the bondage of sin and death. The Prophet shows God to us; the Priest leads us to God; and the King joins together and glorifies us with God. The Prophet enlightens the mind by the Spirit of illumination; the Priest by the Spirit of consolation tranquilizes the heart and conscience; the King by the Spirit of sanctification subdues rebellious affections.”
― Francis Turretin

“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

“A common book was not composed by all the apostles conjointly, both that they might not seem to have entered into a compact and that it might not appear of greater authority than that which would be written separately by each individual. This seems to have been the reason why Christ abstained from writing that we might say that here is one who writes his epistle not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the heart (2 Cor. 3:2). It was sufficient, therefore, for these things to be written by some and approved by the rest. Yea, it adds great weight and authority to the apostolic writings that they wrote in different places, for various reasons and on different occasions, in a different style and method to different persons and yet so consistent with each other.”
― 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

“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

“The church is called 'the pillar and ground of the truth' (1 Tim. 3:15) not because she supports and gives authority to the truth (since the truth is rather the foundation upon which the church is built, Eph. 2:20), but because it stands before the church as a pillar and makes itself conspicuous to all. Therefore it is called a pillar, not in an architectural sense (as pillars are used for the support of buildings), but in a forensic and political sense (as the edicts of the emperor and the decrees and laws of the magistrates were usually posted against pillars before the court houses and praetoria and before the gates of the basilica so that all might be informed of them, as noted by Pliny, Natural History, lib. 6, c. 28+ and Josephus,? AJ 1.70–71 [Loeb, 4:32–33]). So the church is the pillar of the truth both by reason of promulgating and making it known (because she is bound to promulgate the law of God, and heavenly truth is attached to it so that it may become known to all) and by reason of guarding it. For she ought not only to set it forth, but also to vindicate and defend it. Therefore she is called not only a pillar, but also a stay by which the truth when known may be vindicated and preserved pure and
entire against all corruptions. But she is not called a foundation, in the sense of giving to the truth itself its own substructure and firmness. (2) Whatever is called the pillar and stay of the truth is not therefore infallible; for so the ancients called those who, either in the splendor of their doctrine or in the holiness of their lives or in unshaken constancy, excelled others and confirmed the doctrines of the gospel and the Christian faith by precept and example; as Eusebius says the believers in Lyons call Attalus the Martyr (Ecclesiastical History 5.1 [FC 19:276]); Basil distinguishes the orthodox bishops who opposed the Arian heresy by
this name (hoi styloi kai to hedraiōma tēs alētheias, Letter 243 [70] [FC 28:188; PG 32.908]); and Gregory Nazianzus so calls Athanasius. In the same sense, judges in a pure and uncorrupted republic are called the pillars and stays of the laws. (3) This passage teaches the duty of the church, but not its infallible prerogative (i.e., what she is bound to do in the promulgation and defending of the truth against the corruptions of its enemies, but not what she can always do). In Mal. 2:7, the 'priest’s lips' are said to 'keep knowledge' because he is bound to do it (although he does not always do it as v. 8 shows). (4) Whatever is here ascribed to the church belongs to the particular church at Ephesus to which, however, the papists are not willing to give the prerogative of infallibility. Again, it treats of the collective church of believers in which Timothy was to labor and exercise his ministry, not as the church representative of the pastors, much less of the pope (in whom alone they think infallibility resides). (5) Paul alludes here both to the use of pillars in the temples of the Gentiles (to which were attached either images of the gods or the laws and moral
precepts; yea, even oracles, as Pausanius and Athenaeus testify) that he may oppose these pillars of falsehood and error (on which nothing but fictions and the images of false gods were exhibited) to that mystical pillar of truth on which the true image of the invisible God is set forth (Col. 1:15) and the heavenly oracles of God made to appear; and to that remarkable pillar which Solomon caused to be erected in the temple (2 Ch. 6:13; 2 K. 11:14; 23:3) which kings ascended like a scaffold as often as they either addressed
the people or performed any solemn service, and was therefore called by the Jews the 'royal pillar.' Thus truth sits like a queen upon the church; not that she may derive her authority from it (as Solomon did not get his from that pillar), but that on her, truth may be set forth and preserved.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“Hence if they think they observe anything in them worthy of correction [the creeds and confessions], they ought to undertake nothing rashly or disorderly and unseasonably, so as to violently rend the body of their mother (which schismatics do), but to refer the difficulties they feel to their church and either to prefer her public opinion to their own private judgement or to secede from her communion, if the conscience cannot acquiesce in her judgement. Thus they cannot bind in the inner court of conscience, except inasmuch as they are found to agree with the word of God (which alone has the power to bind the conscience).”
― Francis Turretin, Institues of Elenctic Theology

“The knowledge of a thing may be confused or distinct. The church can be known before the Scriptures by a confused knowledge, but a distinct knowledge of the Scriptures ought to precede because the truth of the church can be ascertained only from the Scriptures. The church can be apprehended by us before the Scriptures by a human faith, as an assembly of men using the same sacred things; yet it can be known and believed as an assembly of believers and the communion of saints by a divine faith, only after the marks of the church which Scripture supplies have become known.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“A common book was not composed by all the apostles conjointly, both that they might not seem to have entered into a compact and that it might not appear of greater authority than that which would be written separately by each individual. This seems to have been the reason why Christ abstained from writing—that we might say that here is one who writes his epistle not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the heart (2 Cor. 3:2). It was sufficient, therefore, for these things to be written by
some and approved by the rest. Yea, it adds great weight and authority to the apostolic writings that they wrote in different places, for various reasons and on different occasions, in a different style and method to different persons and yet so consistent with each other.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“That the authority of the Scriptures either as to itself or as to us does not depend upon the testimony of the church is proved: (1) because the church is built upon the Scripture (Eph. 2:20) and borrows all authority from it. Our opponents cannot deny this since, when we ask them about the church, they quickly fly to the Scriptures to prove it. Therefore the church cannot recommend the authority of Scripture either as to itself or as to us, unless we wish to make the cause depend upon the effect, the principle upon that which derived from it and the foundation upon the edifice. Nor ought the objection to be brought up here (that both may be true) that the church borrows its authority from the Scriptures, and the Scriptures in turn from the church (just as John bore testimony to Christ who also himself gave testimony to John). For it is one thing to give testimony to someone as a minister, as John testified concerning Christ, that through him (di’autou), not on account of him (di’auton), the Jews might believe (Jn. 1:7). It is quite a different thing to give authority to him as a lord which Christ did to
John. (2) The authority of the church would be prior to that of the Scriptures and so would be the first thing to be believed (upon which our faith at first would depend and into which it would finally be resolved), which our opponents, who make the authority of the church depend upon Scripture, would not admit. (3) A manifest circle would be made since the authority of the church is proved from Scripture, and in turn the authority of the Scripture from the church. (4) Our opponents are not yet agreed as to what is meant by the church—whether the modern or the ancient, the collective or the representative, a particular or the universal; or what is the act testifying concerning the authority of Scripture (whether enacted by some judicial sentence or exercised by a continuous and successive tradition). (5)
A fallible and human testimony (as that of the church) cannot form the foundation of divine faith. And if God now speaks through the church, does it therefore follow that she is infallible because there is one kind of inspiration which is special and extraordinary (such as made the apostles and prophets infallible [anamartētous], and of which Christ speaks properly when he says that the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles into all truth, Jn. 16:13*); another common and ordinary which does not make pastors inspired (theopneustous).”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“The Holy Spirit (the supplier [epichorēgia] by whom believers should be God-taught [theodidaktoi], Jer. 31:34; Jn. 6:45*; 1 Jn. 2:27) does not render the Scripture less necessary. He is not given to us in order to introduce new revelations, but to impress the written word on our hearts; so that here the word must never be separated from the Spirit (Is. 59:21). The former works objectively, the latter efficiently; the former strikes the ears from without, the latter opens the heart within. The Spirit is the teacher; Scripture is the doctrine which he teaches us.”
― 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

“When Paul says, 'I speak, not the Lord' (1 Cor. 7:12), he does not deny the inspiration of the Lord (which he claims, 1 Cor. 7:40), but only that this precept or this law was expressly mentioned by the Lord before himself. Thus the meaning is, this controversy concerning willful desertion was not agitated in the time of Christ and there was no occasion for deciding it. Paul (now illuminated by the Spirit) does.”
― 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

“Although the church before Moses did not have a written word, it does not follow that it can also do without it now. Then the church was still in its infancy and had not as yet been formed into a body politic, but now it is
increased and more populous. Its position in former times was different from what it is now. In those times, the unwritten (agraphon) word could be more easily preserved on account of the longevity of the patriarchs, the fewness of the covenanted and the frequency of revelations (although it suffered not a few corruptions).”
― 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

“It is one thing to discern and to declare the canon of Scripture; quite another to establish the canon itself and to make it authentic. The church cannot do the latter (as this belongs to God alone, the author of Scripture), but it does only the former, which belongs to it ministerially, not magisterially. As the goldsmith who separates the dross from the gold (or who proves it by a touchstone) distinguishes indeed the pure from the adulterated, but does not make it pure (either as to us or as to itself), so the church by its test distinguishes indeed canonical books from those which are not and from apocryphal, but does not make them such. Nor can the judgment of the church give authority to the books which they do not
possess of themselves; rather she declares the already existing authority by arguments drawn from the books themselves.”
― 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 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

“It is not always necessary that a thing should be proved by something else. For there are some things which are self-evident according
to the philosophers (as the highest categories of things, and ultimate differences and first principles) which are not susceptible of demonstration, but are evident by their own light and are taken for granted as certain and
indubitable. If perchance anyone denies them, he is not to be met with arguments, but should be committed to the custody of his kinsmen (as a madman); or to be visited with punishment, as one (according to Aristotle)
either lacking sense or needing punishment. Aristotle says there are certain axioms which do not have an external reason for their truth 'which must necessarily be and appear to be such per se', Posterior Analytics 1.10 [Loeb, 70–71]); i.e., they are not only credible of themselves, but cannot be seriously denied by anyone of a sound mind. Therefore since the Bible is the first principle and the primary and infallible truth, is it strange to say that it can be proved by itself? The Bible can prove itself either one part or another when all parts are not equally called into doubt (as when we convince the Jews from the Old Testament); or the whole proving the whole, not by a direct argument of testimony (because it declares itself divine), but by that made artfully and ratiocinative (because in it are discovered divine marks which are not found in the writings of men). Nor is this a begging of the question because these criteria are something distinct from the Scriptures; if not materially, yet formally as adjuncts and properties which are demonstrated with regard to the subject. Nor is one thing proved by another equally unknown because they are better known by us; as we properly prove a cause from its effects, a subject by its properties. The argument of the papists that Scripture cannot be proved by itself (because then it would be more known and more unknown than itself) can with much greater force be turned against the church.”
― 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

“Since the circle (according to philosophers) is a sophistical argument (by which the same thing is proved by itself) and is occupied about the same kind of cause in a circuit coming back without end into itself, the circle cannot be charged upon us when we prove the Scriptures by the Spirit, and in turn the Spirit from the Scriptures. For here the question is diverse and the means or kind of cause is different. We prove the Scriptures
by the Spirit as the efficient cause by which we believe. But we prove the Spirit from the Scriptures as the object and argument on account of which we believe. In the first, the answer is to the question Whence or by what
power do you believe the Scriptures to be inspired? (viz., by the Spirit). But in the second, the answer is to the question Why or on account of what do you believe that the Spirit in you is the Holy Spirit? (viz., on account of the marks of the Holy Spirit which are in the Scriptures).”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“Although the church is more ancient than the Scriptures formally considered (and as to the mode of writing), yet it cannot be called such with respect to the Scriptures materially considered (and as to the substance of the doctrine) because the Word of God is more ancient than the church itself, being its foundation and seed.”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“The papists (who charge the circle upon us) evidently run into it themselves in this question, when they prove the Scriptures by the church and the church by the Scriptures; for this is done by the same means and by the same kind of cause. If we ask why or on account of what they believe the Scriptures to be divine, they answer because the church says so. If we ask again, why they believe the church, they reply because the Scriptures apply infallibility to her when they call her the pillar and ground of truth. If we press upon them whence they know this testimony of Scripture to be credible, they add because the church assures of it. Thus they are rolled back again to the commencement of the dispute and go on to infinity, never stopping in any first credible thing.”
― Francis Turretin, Institues of Elenctic Theology

“By the nature of the highest genera and of first principles; for those things are known by themselves and are not susceptible (anapodeikta) of proof which cannot be demonstrated by any other, otherwise the thing would go on to infinity. Hence Basil says 'it is necessary that the first principles of every science should be self-evident' (anankē hekastēs mathēseōs anexetastous einai tas archas, In Psalmum cxv homilia, PG 30.104–5).”
― Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“Why the Apocryphal books are excluded from the canon:...(1) The Jewish church, to which the oracles of God were committed (Rom 3:2), never considered them as canonical, but held the same canon with us (as is admitted by Josephus, Against Apion 1.39-41...(2) And Christ, by dividing all the books of the Old Testament into three classes (the law, the Psalms and the prophets, Lk 24:44), clearly approved of the canon of the Jews and excludes from it those books which are not embraced in these classes.”
― Francis Turretin, Institues of Elenctic Theology