Institutes of Elenctic Theology

Institutes of Elenctic Theology #1

by Francis Turretin

This is Francis Turretin's magnum opus, a massive work of Reformed scholasticism. Written originally in Latin with sentences frequently lasting nearly a half a page, Turretin's Institutes are at once familiar, profound, erudite, thorough and precise, detailed, comprehensive, historically significant, and truly Reformed, etc. Turretin organized his Institutes into 20 topics (loci) that range from "Prolegomena" (that is, very necessary introductory considerations) to "The Last Things." Each topic (locus) is organized by specific questions. The work is Elenctic (polemic or argumentitive), for a large chunk of this work is written against the Roman Catholics, Arminians, Socinians, Anabaptists, Molinists and others.

Translated by George Musgrave Giger Edited by James T. Dennison Jr.

Volume 1: Topics 1-10

Topic I: Theology

Topic II: The Holy Scriptures

Topic III: The One and Triune God

Topic IV: The Decrees of God in General and Predestination in Particular

Topic V: Creation

Topic VI: The Actual Providence of God

Topic VII: Angels

Topic VIII: The State of Man Before the Fall and the Covenant of Nature

Topic IX: Sin in General and in Particular

Topic X: The Free Will of Man in a State of Sin

Genres: Theology, Reference, Christian, Philosophy, Nonfiction

685 pages, Hardcover

First published July 1, 1992

About the author

Francis Turretin (also known as François Turretini) was a Swiss-Italian Protestant theologian.

Turretin is especially known as a zealous opponent of the theology of the Academy of Saumur (embodied by Moise Amyraut and called Amyraldianism), as an earnest defender of the Calvinistic orthodoxy represented by the Synod of Dort, and as one of the authors of the Helvetic Consensus, which defended the formulation of double predestination from the Synod of Dort and the verbal inspiration of the Bible.

Reviews

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have now finished my second reading of the first volume of Francis Turretin's Institutes. I had initially planned to read it more quickly (perhaps 100 pages per day), but Turretin is not that type of author. While he is not difficult to read, he tends to pack a lot of information into a very small space. Thus, you will miss a lot if you try to read him too quickly. Basically, you read Turretin's Institutes in the same way that you would eat an elephant - slowly and in small chunks. Generally speaking, 10-25 pages per day is what you should aim to read (and 25 is really pushing it).

In terms of content, Turretin is the most judicious Reformed dogmatician that I have ever read. His view of the lapsarian question (infralapsarian) and a few other minor points will not be universally welcomed, but Turretin generally gives you a nuanced defence of Reformed orthodoxy on virtually every major theological topic. Every serious reader of Reformed theology should make an effort to read his Institutes at least once. After reading another systematic theology by a different author, I look forward to re-reading volume two.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Introduction

Recent (that is, pre-1992 A.D.) Reformed theology can be sadly described as a generation arising “which knew not Turretin.” To paraphrase Galadriel in The Fellowship of the Ring: Some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. Turretin’s categorical form of argumentation was one of those “things.” Turretin’s strength is in identifying precisely the issue in question. This allows him to accept and acknowledge points of agreement with his opponents,rather than simply seeing everything as “Arminian.” Recent Reformed (and Arminian-Papist) polemics have all focused on a few issues: predestination, free will, assurance, the Canon, etc.

Turretin understood that there were other issues, too: anthropology, middle knowledge, etc. which also need to be addressed. The English translation of Turretin fills a woeful lacuna.

Principia

While it might be anachronistic to label Turretin’s epistemology as “Common Sense Realism,” one can see similarities. Reason is not ultimate, but it is a reliable guide not only in matters of “nature” but also in “grace.” In using reason in theology, Turretin distinguishes between two extremes. Unlike the irrationalists (Anabaptists, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox), reason can function as a principia in theology. It is not the fundamental principia upon which all theology rests (that is the principium essendi); rather, it is an instrumental principle (I: 24).

Turretin does ascribe a functional role to “natural reason.” Natural man, whatever that phrase means, can understand axiomatic truths (29-30). Reason is of particular instrumental use in terms of inference and middle premises. For example, Christ’s ubiquity denied in the following way: “Besides, while the theologian uses arguments drawn from reason, he does it rather as a philosopher rather than as a theologian. As to the ubiquity of the body of Christ, we reject this doctrine both philosophically and theologically, because it is absurd and contradicts the first principles of theology and philosophy.” In other words, the definition of a human nature is that it isn’t ubiquitously extended into space. The Lutheran (and EO) view of the communicatio extends it ubiquitously in space. Therefore, such view is wrong.

Turretin explains:[T]he middle term [in the theological syllogism] is not taken from reason, but scripture…For example, I deny that the glorified body of Christ is everywhere, having taken from Scripture this mean, that it is a real body” (26-27)

Canon and Scripture

So did the Church create the canon? If so, doesn’t that mean the church has authority over the canon? Turretin meets this challenge head-on and notes, given what everyone accepts about principia, proves that the Protestant position is the only feasible one. If the Scriptures come primarily from God—as all must concede—then they bear God’s authority. If they bear God’s authority, then they get their primary authentication from God (85ff). That the church was instrumental in delivering aspects of a canon (I still dispute that the church gave a neat canon) no one denies. That is precisely the point: the church was instrumental, not original. Only the Protestant doctrine of magisterial and ministerial authority can make sense of this point.

Decrees of God

God’s Foreknowledge of Future Contingencies:

Middle Knowledge: God’s foreknowledge about future contingent events whose truth depend not on God’s free decree (being anterior to this), but upon the liberty of the creature (which God certainly foresees). As Turretin clarifies, Whether besides the natural knowledge of God (which is only of things possible) there is in God a middle knowledge of men and angels where he knows what they may without a special decree preceding (I: 214).

Turretin responds: things not true cannot be foreknown as true. Now, conditional future things are not true apart from the determination of the divine will; for example, the Sidonians would have repented if the powers had been supplied to them, for they would have been indifferently disposed in their nature to repend or not repent, those powers being given. ..No effect can be understood as future without the divine decree, so no future conditional can be knowable before the decree.
Again, knowledge either makes the event certain or foresees it as certain…
A thing may be contingent in two ways:
• by depending on God as first cause (as all of creation is thus contingent, since God didn’t have to create)
• by depending on prior second causes (which produce or not produce their effects).
Turretin is speaking of these contingents.

A future contingent implies both certainty of event and mode of production. As future it is certain, but as contingent in its mode of production. It has the former from the decree of the First Cause, the latter from the constitution of the second cause. The mode of production is clarified by the Westminster Confession of Faith V.2: It identifies God as the First Cause, corresponding with the first point made by Turretin, but notes that the First Cause orders the events to happen in three modes: freely, necessarily, or contingently.
An event can be both infallibly certain yet contingent. Thus, all things take place by the necessity of consequence, not the necessity of the consequent. Turretin notes that man’s actions can be free because they are spontaneous and follow rational judgment, but necessary because of God’s decree (I: 211).

Free Will

(Turretin, I: 502). God does not compel rational creatures to act by a physical necessity, he only effects this–that they act both consistently with themselves and with their own natures (508). This necessity is one of consequence–it secures the action and result of a cause. It is necessary according to the eternal premotion of God, but it is spontaneous according to the mode of acting (509). The premotion does not take away the mode proper to the nature of things.
For example, the harp player is the cause of music, but not of the dissonance plucked from the strings. Quoting Alvarez, “It does not follow that God is the cause of sin because he determines to the act; because the deformity follows the act, not as in the genus of nature, but as it is in the genus of morals and as it is caused by the free will (510). Relating the concourse of God and the free will of man 1. The concourse of providence and the human will is not of collateral and equal causes, but of unequal and subordinate (512). This follows on anyone’s gloss since God is by definition the First Cause.

2. God moves secondary causes according to their nature and mode. Thus, it is necessary according to the source (as coming from the First Cause), but free as to the mode. 3. Absolute liberty belongs to God; dependent liberty belongs to the creature. “The subject of free will is neither the intellect, nor the will, but both faculties conjointly” (I: 660). Here Turretin examines the Scholastic problem of the priority between intellect and will. Viewed in different lights either one can work. Practically speaking, people do not separate these two in their actings so we can speak of them together.

Turretin gives his famous discussion concerning the “necessity of necessity.” Non-Reformed positions, while prating long about free will, rarely interact with the hard questions it raises. Only the Reformed position does justice to both necessity and liberty. “Choice” belongs to the intellect; …

The will is determined by God with respect to decree but only in a concursive sense (God determines the actions but leaves the modes of acting free). We deny indifference of will but affirm rational spontaneity (665). Concourse and concurrence: When God and man’s will overlap. The question is how may we best explain man having liberty while being under the control of God’s providence? Turretin follows Aquinas: second causes are predetermined by God; When the free will moves itself, this does not exclude its being moved by another, from whom it receives the very power to move itself (ST, 1, Q. 83, Art. 1)
1. God gives second causes the strength and faculty to act
2. God keeps and sustains them in being and vigor.
3. He excites and applies second causes to acting
4. He determines them to acting
5. he rules them to accomplish the ends.

Anthropology and Sin

Original Sin: Those who deny original sin have to explain why death is prevalent even among infants and imbeciles. Romans says the wages of sin is death. If the curse of death is universal, it necessarily follows that the wages of sin is universal. Yet, how can they be held accountable for sin before the giving of the law (Romans 5:12-13)? Only something like the Covenant of Works can really answer this question. Yes, the curse of death is imputed to us (as our Eastern friends tell us). Yes, death is the enemy. But as Paul makes clear, how can there be death without the wages of sin?

Rome and the Superadditum

Rome, pace Bellarmine (“De Gratia prime hominis,” 5, 6 in Opera [1858], 4:23-29, quoted in Turretin, I:471), viewed in natural man a contest between flesh and spirit, and God’s superadded gift is like a “golden bridle” to reign in the flesh. By contrast, Turretin notes that if original righteousness were an added gift, then man’s nature would have been inherently lacking. Rome places concupiscence before the fall; Protestants place it after the fall. At this point Rome cannot escape the age-old stereotype that it views matter as “not quite bad.” If concupiscence is natural to man’s created state before the fall, then ultimately man’s problem isn’t sin but finitude. The inevitable conclusion is that God made man’s very matter one of disorder (472). Protestants do believe in concupiscence, though. We see it as an inclination to sin after the fall. Still, we reject a positive principal of sin in the human nature. This rejection, plain and simple, precludes any possibility of a so-called Manicheanism.

Conclusion:
If Reformed seminaries are not teaching through this book, then their students will not be prepared to face challenges from Rome and neo-Socinians.

[C. A. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a theological mic-drop.
Turretin answers questions with utter thoroughness and cites all his sources, both allies and adversaries (so useful when you want to go further with the material! Many thanks to the editors who kept the citations and made them easy to read). But, beyond his solid scholastic methodology, lies a desire to show the beauty of Theology, and the ultimate beauty of its subject, the triune God of the Bible. This book is an immense tool for all amateurs of theology and a true blessing to all who wish to know God more. "For who has known God but not loved him, who has loved Him but not known him?" - William of St Thierry

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

FIRST OF THREE VOLUMES OF AN "ELENCTIC" (i.e., refutative) REFORMED THEOLOGY

Francis Turretin (1623-1687) was a Swiss-Italian Calvinist theologian, who was a firm opponent of Amyraldianism, and one of the authors of the Helvetic Consensus (which defended the Synod of Dort's formulation of double predestination). The other volumes in this set are 'Institutes of Elenctic Theology Vol. 2, 11th thru 17th Topics,' and 'Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 3: Eighteenth Through Twentieth Topics.'

There are ten topics in the first volume: Theology; The Holy Scriptures; The One and Triune God; The Decrees of God and Predestination; Creation; The Actual Providence of God; Angels; The State of Man Before the Fall; Sin In General and In Particular; The Free Will of Man.

He asserts, "The mysteries of faith are beyond the sphere of reason to which the unregenerate man cannot rise." (Pg 24-25) He later adds, "to reason belongs the judgment of discretion in matters of faith... But in things known only by revelation ... the only rule is the word of God, beyond or above which we must not be wise." (Pg. 29)

"The question is not as to the particular corruption of some (Bible) manuscripts or as to the errors which have crept into the books ... All acknowledge the existence of many such corruptions. The question is whether ... they cannot be restored and corrected... We deny the former." (Pg. 71) He states that "the fathers neither can not ought to be regarded as judges in our controversies, but as witnesses who... give testimony to the truth of Christianity and prove... the falsity of the doctrines introduced by the papists beyond and contrary to the Scriptures." (Pg. 167)

He admits, "Although it is difficult to comprehend the mode in which God certainly knows future contingent things, yet the thing itself... is not therefore to be denied." (Pg. 211) "The mystery of predestination is too sublime to be comprehended by us ... But this does not hinder it ... from being firmly held by us." (Pg. 330) He adds, "A predestination of angels may be granted" (pg. 336), and charges that Arminians "bring popery and Pelagianism in by the back door" (pg. 357), whereas "the Reformed maintain election to be purely gratuitous and that no foresight can be granted of faith or of works and merit." (Pg. 357) He rejects the supralapsarian position (pg. 418).

Concerning free will, he notes, "the providence of God concurs with all second causes and especially with the human will; yet the contingency and liberty of the will remain unimpaired. But how these two things can consist with each other, no mortal can in this life perfectly understand." (Pg. 511)

This series is a true "classic" of Reformed theology---almost on a par with Calvin's "Institutes," and will be of continuing interest to all students of Reformed theology.

[Etienne OMNES · Rating 5 out of 5]

La théologie systématique la plus précise, la plus complète et la plus subtile que je lirais jamais (probablement). C'est aussi un sommet de la théologie réformée: vous pouvez lire des théologies différentes, arrangées ou présentées différemment, mais meilleures et plus profondes que celle de Turretin, j'en doute fort.

A noter cependant quelques passages bien techniques, qu'il vaut mieux lire bien lentement^^ J'espère que le volume 2 le sera un peu moins.

[Andy Dollahite · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone needs more Franky T in their lives and reading calendars.

[Hobart · Rating 5 out of 5]

This originally appeared at The Irresponsible Reader.
---
WHAT'S ELENCTIC THEOLOGY ANYWAY?
Elenctic refers to a logical method involving asking questions, of defending a position (or arguing to persuade people to accept it) by proposing alternatives and asking a series of questions—practically cross-examing the alternatives, to show the problems of the alternatives. A good deal of what we call the "Socratic method" is elenctics.

Therefore, Elenctic Theology is a form of defending the truth of Christianity or Christian dogmas by suggesting alternatives and demonstrating their lack by way of asking and answering questions about them. Or by asking a question about a true dogma and asking questions that affirm them. Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles is one example. This book is another.

WHAT'S INSTITUTES OF ELENCTIC THEOLOGY THEN?
For a long time, it was the standard textbook to train Presbyterian and Reformed ministers in various parts of the world—including the U.S.—until Charles Hodge's systematic theology overtook it in popularity (Hodge, it should be noted had his students read Turretin's Institutes).

Turretin wrote it at the height of Protestant Scholasticism, defending the Reformed understanding of Christianity in a post-Synod of Dordt and post-Westminster Assembly-era. He interacts with the best of Roman Catholic theology of the era, as well as Socinians, Remonstrants (read: Arminians), Lutherans, and others.

He examines the big issues of the time—and several smaller issues, as well. In this volume, he covers the first 10 of the 20 topics he'll cover in the three volumes (which suggests something about the length he'll discuss the second half of the topics in the following volumes). The topics in this volume are:

Theology
The Holy Scriptures
The One and Triune God
The Decrees of God in General and Predestination in Particular
Creation
The Actual Providence of God
Angels
The State of Man Before the Fall and the Covenant of Nature
Sin in General and in Particular
The Free Will of Man in a State of Sin

TURRETIN'S METHOD
I think the best way to show how Turretin approaches these discussions is to show you the list of questions from one of the topics. Here's what he looks at in the roughly 120 pages of The Fourth Topic: The Decrees of God in General and Predestination in Particular:
I. Are decrees in God, and how?
Il. Are the decrees of God eternal? We affirm against Socinus.
Ill. Are there conditional decrees? We deny against the Socinians, Remonstrants and Jesuits.
IV. Does the decree necessitate future things? We affirm.
V. Is the fixed and immovable end of the life of each man with all its circumstances so determined by the decree of God, that he cannot die in another moment of time or by another kind of death than that in which he does die? We affirm against the Socinians and Remonstrants.
VI. Ought predestination to be publicly taught and preached? We affirm.
VII. In what sense are the words “predestination,” prognōseōs, eklogēs and prosthesōs used in this mystery?
VIII. Was there a predestination of angels, and was it of the same kind and order with the predestination of men? The former we affirm; the latter we deny.
IX. Whether the object of predestination was man creatable, or capable of falling; or whether as created and fallen. The former we deny; the latter we affirm.
X. Is Christ the cause and foundation of election? We deny against the Arminians and Lutherans.
XI. Is election made from the foresight of faith, or works; or from the grace of God alone? The former we deny; the latter we affirm.
XII. Is the election of certain men to salvation constant and immutable? We affirm against the Remonstrants.
XIII. Can the believer be certain of his own election with a certainty not only conjectural and moral, but infallible and of faith? We affirm against the papists and Remonstrants.
XIV. Is the decree of reprobation absolute, depending upon the good pleasure (eudokia) of God alone; or is sin its proper cause? We distinguish.
XV. Is infidelity, or unbelief of the gospel, presupposed as a cause of reprobation? We deny against the Remonstrants.
XVI. Is the will of God to save persevering believers and condemn the unbelieving, the whole decree of reprobation? We deny against the Remonstrants.
XVII. Can there be attributed to God any conditional will, or universal purpose of pitying the whole human race fallen in sin, of destinating Christ as Mediator to each and all, and of calling them all to a saving participation of his benefits? We deny.
XVIII. Is any order to be admitted in the divine decrees, and what is it?

I'm not sure if it was while reading this topic (I think so), or something a little later, but I remember texting a friend saying that I wish I could break down an idea like Turretin. He made me feel a little better by replying, "You and everyone else born in the 20th century." Because from these questions, he'll spend a few pages breaking down the idea further, systematically working his way through the question and seemingly every possible angle of it.

There's part of me that wants to abandon this re-read and just focus on observing his method and trying to replicate it in my life.

SO, WHAT DID I THINK ABOUT INSTITUTES OF ELENCTIC THEOLOGY VOL. 1?
Let me get this out of the way first: This is dry. Dry like a stale crouton. I know most people think that about Theology in general—and sure, bad theology is usually dry, but not the good stuff. This is one of those exceptions that proves the rule.

There are moments, I should note, that some of Turretin's personality shows through, some moments expressing the awe appropriate to the topic, the emotions stirred by the Gospel, and even a little humor/snark at the thoughts of his opponents. But those moments are brief and rare.

As it's dry, it's a little harder to read than others (say, Calvin or Bavinck). But it's absolutely worth the effort—and after a little while, you won't notice the effort. It's so crisp, so clear, so helpful that you relish getting to read it. Giger and Dennison likely are due as much credit for this as Turretin is. Giger's also likely due some credit for the arid language (he was translating in the early Nineteenth Century, not one an era known for punchy prose).

I can't recommend this highly enough.

[Darren Lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is probably the most detailed and precise systematic theology book I have ever read. But it's not easy and it's quite technical. Here are a few tips I recommend to make read this book

1. Don't expect to understand everything when you read this book cover to cover for the first time. As long you can understand 70-80% of the book then it's good enough.

2. Make sure you have read the Westminster Confessions, 3 Forms of Unity, Berkhof or Bavinck and be familiar with them before reading this book. This is definitely not the first systematics everyone should pick up. Some parts of the books are extremely difficult to understand but not all of the difficult parts are crucial to understand. Having an intermediate level of background knowledge in ST from the Reformed Confessions and from either Berkhof or Bavinck will help you to identify which of the points are crucial for understanding and which parts are not so crucial when you are having trouble understanding the difficult parts of the book.

3. Treat this book as a long marathon instead of a sprint which requires long-term regular commitment and dedication. Try to read this book at least 4 out of 7 days every week.

4. Richard Muller's Latin dictionary is a must-have. Don't have to buy it since it can be accessed through Perlego. And keep your bible gateway and google dictionary on at all times on your browser tabs while reading this book because you will use them very frequently.

5. Underline using pen and ruler, or highlight and jot down your own personal notes and comments. This will help a lot!

Overall I am very impressed with Turretin, although there are some parts I disagree with him they are relatively minor. Some parts of also outdated, but you will be surprised how most of the contents in this book are still very relevant, as a whole, this book is much better than the 21st-century modern ST textbooks we have today. Some parts of the books are speculative, just like any other modern commentaries we read today. But Turretin will most of the time give strong exegetical arguments for his position first before giving his speculative arguments so that's fine. Even though I don't agree with all of his exegesis (just like how we wouldn't agree with all of the exegesis put forth by a modern commentary), nevertheless his exegesis is very good and sound!

[Tyler Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: on p. 574 Turretin is riffing on God's covenant with Adam. "As [God] wished to assert more strongly his own right over man, so he demonstrated the highest benignity in this - that he (himself in need of nothing) willed to invite to a nearer communion with him (and more powerful allure by that bond of of love and mutual obligation), the creature (already subject to him by right of creation and owing him all things from natural obligation) by entering into covenant with him, so that man now excited by the promise of God can certainly expect happiness, not from his mere philanthropy (philanthropia) alone, but also from a covenant (on account of his truthfulness and fidelity)." I wrote in the margin: You have the gift of taking beautiful truths that should comfort the simple, and hiding them in needlessly complex language and rhetoric!

In general, this is a really helpful book to read for those willing to get through the density. I will say that the scholastic structuring of the arguments and the very short subpoints become really helpful once you figure out the pattern. I hope that Turretin is helping me to become a better thinker and communicator by studying his method, even if content itself is denser than I'd like. Theologically, this is a great work of 17th century Protestant Scholasticism!

I do wonder if the overly polemical style makes this work uniquely less helpful for a timeless systematic theology. Calvin, Bavinck, and Berkhof (the only 3 others that I've read in full) definitely did their polemics and addressed the errors of their time, but they less focused on that project. The positive presentation seems in the driver's seat, while Turretin feels to be driven by the negative work of correcting errors (which is obviously his project and still a worthwhile one. I'm more wonder why this work became the standard Western textbook until Hodge if it's this way).

There's definitely some weird stuff in here too. There's literally a whole long discussion about whether the world was created in spring or autumn. Turretin is #teamautumn in case you were wondering. It seems like he mildly denies that women are made in God's image from 1 Cor. 11:7. I'm pretty sure he doesn't think the body is part of the image of God.

[Daniel Arter · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book provides an excellent example of what it means to defend the faith in a gracious, but also robust way.

Turretin deals with several issues that were debated during his time in a way that makes this less of a systematic theology and more of an apologetics resource.

It is worth reading by anyone serious about understanding the faith from a Reformed perspective, but be prepared to think.

[Testmenow · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sound doctrine, and devotional in application. Would hope there would be an ebook soon, for greater reach and advancement and defense of the gospel.

[Joseph Barnet · Rating 5 out of 5]

Turretin is great. Very clear and well argued throughout. Very impressed with the thorough interaction of theologies throughout church history.

[Nick Roark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Erudite

[Mark Lickliter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Extremely difficult to read.

[Zach de Walsingham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read for a class and for self study

[Lu Tsun · Rating 3 out of 5]

Turretin may be better understood against the historical background of post-reformation history in Dutch Reformed community. Scholasticism was used as a method of articulating knowledge, but the thoughts were consistently Reformed. The Remonstrants (Arminian sect in Netherlands) were heavily interacted by Turretin. He is also known for a firm advocate of infralapsarianism.

[Jay · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read slowly over a few years. His precision necessitates vocabulary that was above my head but it was worth the struggle. Looking forward to reading volume 2. I am NOT planning on recommending this as a systematics book to most folks at my church because of its density. I've heard this book described as "intellectual vanity," but I thought it was devotional, warm, and rewarded perseverance.

[Richard]

This was given to me by a friend of mine. "Elenctic" theology "aims at affirming and demonstrating the truth, in refutation of false doctrine" (dust jacket). Should be interesting once I get around to it.

[Mad Russian the Traveller]

WOULD SOMEONE WITH LIBRARY PRIVILEGES PLEASE FIX THE NUMBER OF PAGES IN THE BOOK DATA???

The hardcover editon has 685 numbered pages.

[Cameron Borders · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stout. Not for the faint of Heart. Great nonetheless.

[Alex]

Only read the following:

"The Canon" - p. 95-102
"The Purity of the Sources" - p. 106 - 112