The Holy
Scriptures
by Francis
Turretin
An Excerpt from his "Institutes of Elenctic
Theology," Vol.
1
As mentioned in
our online paper The Preacher’s
Library, if finances allow (save for it if
necessary), get the mammoth three-volume Institutes
of Elenctic Theology (Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishers) by Francis Turretin (1623-1687). As the
flyleaf states, “As an ‘elenctic’ theology—which aims at
affirming and demonstrating the truth, in refutation of
false doctrine—the Institutes contrasts Reformed
understanding of Scripture with conflicting theological
perspectives, particularly, Roman Catholic, Arminian,
and Socinian.” Preachers would do well to read and
understand how evangelicals today are compromising and
even abandoning the truth on which the Reformation was
founded.
Here is a great
excerpt, preceded by a biographical
sketch.
Biographical
Sketch
Francis Turretin
was born October 17, 1623, son of Benedict and
Louise. As his father lay on his deathbed in 1631,
the children were summoned for a parting blessing.
To Francis he said, "This child is sealed with the seal
of the living God."
Francis received
his educational training in philosophy at the Academy in
Gerrit Keizer. Advancing to the study of theology,
he sat under John Diodati, Frederic Spanheim, Alexander
Morus, and Theodore Trunchin. He completed his
studies at Geneva in 1644 and prepared to go abroad.
Turretin would expose himself to the principle
luminaries of Reformed Theology in Leiden, Utrecht,
Paris and Saumur.
After nine months
of study in Paris with the Church Historian David
Blondel, Turretin was immersed into the conflict of
reformed theology and the theology of Moise Amyraut
(1596-1664). Amyraut was to give rise to
Amyraldianism, a highly deviant aspect trying to stem
out of Reformed theology which attempted to take the
doctrine of Limited Atonement to replace it with a kind
of Universalism. Amyraut taught the doctrine of
hypothetical Universalism: that Jesus died for all men
to make a way into heaven for each and everyone so long
as they were willing to initiate the conversion.
In reading Turretin's "Institutes" you can see vividly
his refutation of the Amyraldian doctrines, and how they
are truly deviant from the biblical
record.
Turretin, in 1650,
was called to the chair of philosophy at the Geneva
Academy. Pleading his commitment to the
Italian congregation, he declined, even as he declined a
call from the church in Lyons the year before. In
1652, Lyons renewed it call following the untimely death
of their pastor. Turretin filled the pulpit there
for a time.
On his return to Geneva,
Turretin was appointed successor of his mentor Theodore
Tronchin in the chair of theology. Together with
his duties as pastor in the Italian church, he would
hold this position until his death in 1687. He died at
la maison
Turrettini on Wednesday, September 28, 1687. His last
years spent summing up his remarkable career by
preparing what he taught and defended for years-Genevan
orthodoxy. The Institutio was published
seriatim: volume one in 1679;
volume two in 1682; and volume 3 in 1685. Turretin
was planning a major revision of the work when he
died.
Francis Turretin's magnum
opus is his Institutio
Thelogiae Electicae [Institutes of Elenctic
Theology]. This massive work of Reformed scholasticism
extends to nearly 1800 pages in the Latin edition of
1847. Written in bulky Latin with sentences
frequently lasting nearly a half a page, Turretin's
Institutes are at once familiar,
profound, erudite, thorough and
precise.
Turretin was
a Calvinistic Scholastic theologian in an age of
Protestant, Catholic, Lutheran and Socinian
Scholastics. Like his great predecessor, John
Calvin, Turretin entitled his scholastic work
Institutio. This word suggests
foundational or basic instruction. Yet, if a typical layman were to read
this book today, he would undoubtedly become overwhelmed
by its depth and preciseness, its theological and
philosophical treatises, and its thoroughly biblical
expositions. Yet, in Turretin's day, this was seen
as a foundational work. It was used as a
catechism.
Among Reformed Theologians
of the world, both present and past, Francis Turretin's
Insitutio fairs among the greatest
Protestant theological work ever written. And if
more disciples of Jesus Christ were to pick this work up
and read it, then live it, the church would a force to
be reckoned with in this 21st century. We may
compare Turretin's work against Luther's voluminous
productions, Calvin's writings, and others. Yet, I
believe Turretin's theological compilation and sheer
depth outweighs them all. Some may disagree
knowing Calvin and Luther, and others, were the
foundations on which Turretin's biblical theology
emerged, and this may be true, yet, his logic, order,
and keen insight into the Scriptures shines brighter
among the scholastics than any I
know.
* *
* * * * * * *
The Holy
Scriptures
"FIRST
QUESTION: THE WORD OF GOD —
Was
a verbal revelation necessary? We affirm."
"As the word of
God is the sole principle of theology, so the question
concerning its necessity deservedly comes before all
things." Rejecting false appeals to reason and nature,
Turretin says: "But the orthodox church has always
believed far otherwise, maintaining the revelation of
the word of God to man to be absolutely and simply
necessary for salvation. It is the 'seed' of which we
are born again (1 Pet. 1:23), the 'light' by which we
are directed (Ps. 119:105), the 'food' upon which we
feed (Heb. 5:13,14) and the 'foundation' upon which we
are built (Eph 2:20)"
"Although natural
revelation may hand over different things concerning God
and his attributes, will and works, yet it cannot teach
us things sufficient for the saving knowledge of God
without a supernatural verbal
revelation."
"SECOND QUESTION: THE NECESSITY OF
SCRIPTURE -- Was it necessary for the word of God to be
committed to writing? We affirm."
"...We hold
it to be necessary simply and absolutely, so that the
church can never spare it....Since God has seen fit for
weighty reasons to commit his word to writing. Hence the
divine ordination being established, it is made
necessary to the church, so that it pertains not only to
the well-being (bene esse) of the church, but
also to its very existence (esse). Without it the church could not now stand. So
God indeed was not bound to the Scriptures, but he has
bound us to them." 1 Tim 3:15: "But if I tarry
long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave
thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the
living God, the pillar and ground of the
truth."
"Three things
particularly prove the necessity of the Scripture: (1)
the preservation of the word; (2) its vindication; (3)
its propagation. It was necessary for a written word to
be given to the church that the canon of true religious
faith might be constant and unmoved; that it might
easily be preserved pure and entire against the weakness
of memory, the depravity of men and the shortness of
life; that it might be more certainly defended from the
frauds and corruptions of Satan; that it might more
conveniently not only be sent to the absent and widely
separated, but also be transmitted to
posterity."
"The Holy
Spirit (the supplier (epichoregia), Jer. 31:34; Jn. 6:45 and 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. Christ is our only
teacher (Mat. 23:8) in such a sense as that the ministry
of the word is not thereby excluded, but necessarily
included because now in it only he addresses us and by
it instructs us."
"THIRD QUESTION: Were the sacred
Scriptures written only occasionally and without the
divine command? We deny against the
papist."
"This question is
agitated between us and the papists. In order to lessen
the authority and perfection of the Scripture, they
teach not only that it is not so very necessary and that
the church could do without it, but also that it was not
delivered to the church by the express command of God,
but only in peculiar circumstances; that Christ neither
commanded the apostles to write nor did the apostles
think of writing the gospel with a primary intention,
but only with a secondary and occasional intention
(Bellarmine, VD 4.3,4, pp.116-122)."
"Hence Paul
calls the Scriptures God-inspired (theopneuston,
2 Tim. 3:16) and Peter says that 'prophecy came not in
old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost' (hypopheumatos
hagiou pheromenous, 2 Pet. 1:21). Now it would be
absurd (asystaton) to say
that the apostles wrote as God inspired and moved them
and yet that he did not command them. A command is not
more efficacious than the inspiration of the things to
be written; nor does a faithful ambassador ever depart
from his instructions."
"FOURTH QUESTION: THE AUTHORITY OF THE
HOLY SCRIPTURES -- Are the holy Scriptures truly
authentic and divine? We affirm."
"The first
question may seem hardly necessary among Christians who
should consider as an incontrovertible truth the fact
that the Scriptures are inspired of God
(theopneuston) as the primary foundation of
faith.Rather the question is whether in writing they
were so acted upon and inspired by the Holy Spirit (both
as to the things themselves and as to the words) as to
be kept free from all error and that their writings are
truly authentic and divine. Our adversaries deny this;
we affirm it....The word "Scripture" is used in two
senses: either materially, with regard to the doctrine
delivered; or formally with regard to the writing and
mode of delivery. In the former sense (as we said
before), we hold it to be necessary simply and
absolutely, so that the church can never spar it. The
Bible proves itself divine, not only authoritatively and
in the manner of an artless argument or testimony, when
it proclaims itself God-inspired
(theopheuston).
"
"FIFTH
QUESTION: Do real contradictions occur in Scripture? Or
are there any inexplicable (alyta) passages which cannot be
explained and made to harmonize? We
deny."
"Papists
insist upon the corruption of the original so as to
bring authority to their Vulgate version."..."Finally
others defend the integrity of the Scriptures and say
that these various contradictions are only apparent, not
real and true; that certain passages are hard to be
understood (dysnoeta), but
not altogether inexplicable (alyta). This is the more
common opinion of the orthodox, which we follow as safer
and truer."
Proving the scriptures are
not corrupted, Turretin said: "The reasons are:
(1)
The
Scriptures are inspired of God
(theopneutos, 2 Tim. 3:16).
The word of God cannot lie (Ps. 19:8,9); Heb. 6:18);
cannot pass away and be destroyed (Mt. 5:18); shall
endure forever (1 Pet. 1:25); and is truth itself (Jn.
17:17). (2) Unless unimpaired
integrity characterize the Scriptures, they could not be
regarded as the sole rule of faith and practice, and the
door would be thrown wide open to atheists, libertines,
enthusiasts and other profane persons like them for
destroying its authenticity
(authentian) and overthrowing
the foundation of salvation. For since nothing false can
be an object of faith, how could the Scriptures be held
as authentic and reckoned divine if liable to
contradictions....For if once the authenticity
(authentia) of the Scriptures is taken away (which would
result even from the incurable corruption of one
passage), how could our faith rest on what remains? And
if corruption is admitted in those of lesser importance,
why not in others of greater?" "Nor can we readily
believe that God, who dictated and inspired each and
every word to these inspired (theopneustois) men, would
not take care of their entire preservation." Comparing
man's diligence to preserve their own words, Turretin
says of God, "...how much more, must we suppose, would
God take care of his word which he intended as a
testament and seal of his covenant with us, so that it
might not be corrupted; especially when he could easily
foresee and prevent such corruptions in order to
establish the faith of his
church?"
"Although we
give to the Scriptures absolute integrity, we do not
therefore think that the copyists and printers were
inspired (theopneustous), but only that the
providence of God watched over the copying of the sacred
books, so that although many errors might have crept in,
it has not so happened (or they have not so crept into
the manuscripts) but that they can be easily corrected
by a collation of others (or with the Scriptures
themselves). Therefore the foundation of the purity and
integrity of the sources is not to be placed in the
freedom from fault (anamartesia) of men, but in the providence of God which
(however men employed in transcribing the sacred books
might possibly mingle various errors) always diligently
took care to correct them, or that they might be
corrected easily either from a comparison with Scripture
itself or from more approve manuscripts....it will be
wiser to acknowledge our own ignorance than to suppose
any contradiction."
"SIXTH QUESTION: From what source does
the divine authority of the Scriptures become known to
us?" Does it depend upon the testimony of the church
either as to itself or as to us? We deny against the
papists."
"The object
of the papists in this and other controversies set forth
by them concerning the Scriptures, is obvious, viz., to
avoid the tribunal of Scripture (in which they do not
find sufficient help for the defense of their errors)
and to appeal to the church (i.e., to the pope himself)
and thus become judges in their own cause....we must now
inquire concerning the Scriptures themselves whether it
is proper that religious controversies should be decided
by their authority and testimony." (Turretin quoted
Irenaeus, Against Heresies:
"When they are convicted from Scripture, they turn round
and accuse the Scripture as being corrupt, and having no
authority.")
"....We maintain
that primarily and principally the Bible is believed by
us to be divine on account of itself (or the marks
impressed upon it), not on account of the
church.....Hence if the question is why, or on account
of what, do I believe the Bible to be divine, I will
answer that I do so on account of the Scripture itself
which by its marks proves itself to be such. If it is
asked whence or from what I believe, I answer from the
Holy Spirit who produces that belief in me. Finally, if
I am asked by what means or instrument I believe it, I
will answer through the church which God uses in
delivering the Scriptures to me." "We think that
revelation to be contained in the Bible itself which is
the first and infallible truth and rule of faith. But
papists maintain that it must be sought in the voice and
testimony of the church."
"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."
"Thus Scripture, which is the first principle in the
supernatural order, is known by itself and has no need
of arguments derived from without to prove and make
itself known to us."
The church
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 (hedraioma) 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."
"We know that the
books of Scripture are canonical, not so much from the
common consent of the church, as from the internal
testimony and persuasion of the Holy Spirit....For the
same Spirit who acts objectively in the word by
presenting the truth, operates efficiently in the heart
also by impressing that truth upon our
minds."
"...the Spirit
that testifies in us concerning the inspiration of the
Scriptures is not peculiar to individuals with regard to
the principle and origin. Rather he is common to the
whole church and so to all believers in whom he works
the same faith, although he is such subjectively with
regard to each individual because he is given separately
to each believer." Thus we are reminded that the common
faith which directed the approval of the reformation
Bible as taught by the late Dr. Edward F. Hills is not
some new doctrine of the 20th
century.
"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 canon or authenticity of the Bible
comes from God the author and not determined by the
church." As Turretin says, "...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. 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."
The church is
called the pillar and ground of the truth (Eph. 2:20)
...not because she supports and gives authority to the
truth." "So the church is the pillar of the truth both
by reason of promulgating and making it known....and by
reason of guarding it. For she ought not only to set it
forth, but also to vindicate and defend
it. Whatever is called the pillar and stay of the
truth is not therefore infallible....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."
"SEVENTH QUESTION: THE CANON -- Has any
canonical book perished? We deny."
"Most papists
contend that many canonical books have been lost in
order that thus they may prove the imperfection of
Scripture and the necessity of tradition to supply its
defects. But as the word of God can be considered
in a two-fold aspect )either for the doctrine divinely
revealed or for the sacred books in which it is
contained), so there can be a twofold canon: one of the
doctrines, embracing all the fundamental doctrines; and
the other of the books, containing all the inspired
(theopneustous) books." "The Scriptures are called
canonical for a double reason, both with regard to the
doctrines (because they are the canon and standard of
faith and practice, derived from the Hebrew QNH, which
signifies a "reed" or surveyor's pen and is so used in
Gal. 6:16 and Phil. 3:16) and with respect to the books
(because it contains all the canonical
books)."
Since the papists
claim the same 27 book canon or the New Testament we do,
and add their apocryphal books to the Old Testament,
Turretin dealt at length in defense of the 39 book canon
of the Old Testament. Arguing that no book has perished
from the canon, he quoted the testimony of Christ: "It
is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle
of the law to fail" (Lk. 16:17; cf. Mat. 5:18). He
quoted Paul, "Whatsoever things were written aforetime
were written for our learning" (Rom 15:4), which
supposed all the writings of the Old Testament existed."
He reminded us that neither Christ or the apostles every
accused the Jews of altering scriptures, only their
interpretation. Finally, the practice of the Jews
preserved the same 39 book canon we still accept. (Rom
3:2).
"EIGHTH QUESTION: Are the books of the
Old Testament still a part of the canon of faith and
rule of practice in the church of the New Testament? We
affirm against the Anabaptists."
"If the Old
Testament is not important for Christians, it could not
be unexceptionably proved against the Jews that Jesus
Christ of Nazareth is the true
Messiah."
NINTH QUESTION:
THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS: Ought Tobit, Judith, Wisdom,
Ecclesiasticus, the first two books of the Maccabees,
Baruch, the additions to Esther and Daniel to be
numbered among the canonical books? We deny against the
papists.
I. The Apocryphal
books are so called not because the authors are unknown
(for there are some canonical books Apocryphal. whose
authors are unknown and some whose authors are known);
not because they could be read only in private and not
in public (for some of them may be read even in public),
but either because they were removed from the crypt (apo
tes kryptes) (that sacred place in which the holy
writings were laid up) as Epiphanius and Augustine
think; or because their authority was hidden and
suspected, and consequently their use also was
secret since the church did not apply to them to confirm
the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines (as Jerome
says, `Praefatio in libros Salomonis' from "Hieronymi
Prologus Galeatus" in Biblia Sacra VuLgata Editionis
Sixti V…et Celementis VIII [1865], p. lii); or, what is
more probable, because they are of an uncertain and
obscure origin (as Augustine says, CG 15.23* [FC
14:474]).
II. The question
is not about the books of the Old and the New Testament
which we hold as canonical, for the papists agree with
us as to these; nor about all the apocryphal books, for
there are some rejected by the papists as well as by us
(as the 3rd and 4th of Esdras, 3rd and 4th of Maccabees,
the Prayer of Manasseh, etc.). The question is only
about Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1
and 2 Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel,
which the papists consider canonical and we exclude from
the canon-not because they do not contain many true and
good things, but because they do not bear the marks of
canonical books.
III. The reasons
are various. ( 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 [Loeb, 1:178-79], Becanus, Manuale
controver siarum 1.1 [1750], pp. 11-12) and
Stapelton, "De Principiis
fidei
doctrinalibus controversia," Cont. 5.7* in Opera [1620],
1:322-23). This they could not have done without the
most grievous sin (and it was never charged upon them
either by Christ or his apostles) if these books no less
than the others had been committed to them. Nor should
the canon of the Jews be distinguished here from that of
Christians because Christians neither can nor ought to
receive other books of the Old Testament as canonical
than those which they received from the Jews, their
book-seravants "who carry the books of us students" (as
Augustine calls them, "On Psalm 40 [41]" [NPNFI, 8:132;
PL 36.463]). (2) They are never quoted as canonical by
Christ and the apostles like the others. 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 approves of the canon of the Jews and
excludes from it those books which are not embraced in
these classes. (3) The Christian church for four hundred
years recognized with us the same and no other
canonical books. This appears from the Canons of the
Synod of Iaodicea 59 (NPNF2, 14:158); Melito, bishop of
Sardis, who lived 116 years A.D. (according to Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History 4.26* [FC 19:262-63]); from
Epiphanius ("De Epicureis," Panarion [PG 41.206-23]);
Jerome ("Hieronymi Prologus Galeatus," in Biblia Sacra
Vulgatae Editionis Sixti V . . . et Clementis VIII
[1865], pp. xliii-lv); Athanasius (Synopsis Scripturae
Sacrae [PG 28.283-94]). (4) The authors were neither
prophets and inspired men, since they wrote after
Malachi (the last of the prophets); nor were their books
written in the Hebrew language (as those of the Old
Testament), but in Greek. Hence Josephus (in the passage
referred to above) acknowledges that those things which
were written by his people after the time of Artaxerxes
were not equally credible and authoritative with those
which preceded "on account of there not being an
indisputable succession of prophets" (dia to me
genesthai ten ton propheton akribe diadochen, Against
Apion 1.41 (Loeb, 1:178-79]).
IV. The style and
matter of the books proclaim them to be human, not
divine. It requires little acuteness to discover that
they are the product of human labor, although some are
more excellent than others. For besides the fact that
the style does not savor of the majesty and simplicity
of the divine style and is redolent with the faults and
weaknesses of human genius (in the vanity, flattery,
curiosity, mistaken zeal and ill-timed affectation of
learning and eloquence, which are often met with), there
are so many things in them not only foolish and absurd,
but even false, superstitious and contradictory, as to
show clearly that they are not divine but human
writings. We will give a few specimens of the many
errors. Tobias makes the angel tell a falsehood. He says
that he is Azariah, the son of Ananias (Tob. 5:12*) and
that he is Raphael, the angel of the Lord (12:15). The
angel gives a magical direction for driving away the
devil by the smoke of a fish's liver (Tob. 6:6), against
that of Christ (Mt. 17:21). He arrogates to himself the
oblation of prayers (Tob. 12:12), which belongs to the
work of Christ alone. The book of Judith celebrates the
deed of Simeon (Jud. 9:2), which Jacob cursed (Gen.
49:5-7); praises the deceits and lies of Judith (Jud.
11), which are not very consistent with piety. Worse
still, she even seeks the blessing of God upon them
(Jud. 9:13). No mention is made of the city Bethulia in
the Scriptures; nor does any trace of the deliverance
mentioned there occur in Josephus or Philo, who wrote on
Jewish subjects. The author of Wisdom falsely asserts
that he was king in Israel (Wis. Sol. 9:7, 8) that he
might be taken for Solomon. Yet he alludes to the
athletic contests which in the time of Solomon had not
been established among the Greeks (Wis. Sol. 4:2).
Further, he introduces the Pythagorean metempsychosis
(metempsychosin, Wis. Sol. 8:19, 20) and gives a false
account of the origin of idolatry (14:15, 16). The Son
of Sirach (Sir 46:20) attributes to Samuel what was done
by the evil spirit raised by wicked devices (1 S.
28:11), falsely speaks of Elijah's bodily return (Sir.
48:10), and excuses his oversights in the prologue.
V. There are so
many contradictions and absurdities in the additions to
Esther and Daniel that Sixtus Senensis unhesitatingly
rejects them. Baruch says that in the fifth year after
the destruction of Jerusalem, he read his book to
Jeconiah and to all the people of Babylon; but Jeconiah
was in prison and Baruch had been taken away to Egypt
after the death of Gedaliah (Jer. 43:7*). He mentions an
altar of the Lord (Bar. 1:10) when there was none, the
temple being destroyed. The books of the Maccabees often
contradict each other (compare 1 Mac. 1:16 with 9:5, 28
and chapter 10). The suicide (autocheiria) of Razis is
praised (2 Mac. 14:42). Will-worship (ethelothreskeia)
is commended (2 Mac. 12:42) in Judas's offering a
sacrifice for the dead contrary to the law. The author
apologizes for his youth and infirmity and complains of
the painful labor of abridging the five books of Jason,
the Cyrenian (2 Mac. 2:23*, 24; 15:39). If you wish any
more specimens from these books, consult Rainold,
Chamier, Molinaeus, Spanheim and others who have pursued
this line of argument with fullness and strength.
VI. The canon of
faith differs from the canon of ecclesiastical
reading. We do not speak here of the canon in the latter
sense, for it is true that these apocryphal books were
sometimes read even publicly in the church. But they
were read "for the edification of the people" only, not
"for establishing the authority of the doctrines" as
Jerome says, Praefatio . . . in Libros Salomonis (NPNF2,
6:492; PL 28.1308). Likewise the legends containing the
sufferings of the martyrs (which were so called from
being read) were publicly read in the church, although
they were not considered canonical. But we speak here of
the canon of faith.
VII. The word
"canon" is used by the fathers in two senses; either
widely or strictly. In the first sense, it embraces not
only the canon of faith, but also the canon of
ecclesiastical reading. In this way, we must understand
the Third Council of Carthage, Canon 47 (Lauchert, p.
173) when it calls these canonical books (if indeed this
canon has not been foisted in [pareisaktos] because it
mentions Pope Boniface who was not at that time
pope; hence Surius, the Ivlonk [Concilia omnia (1567),
1:508*] attributes this canon to the Seventh Council of
Carthage, not the Third) not strictly and properly of
the canon of faith, but widely, of the canon of reading.
The synod expressly says that the sufferings of the
martyrs should also be read and so we must understand
Augustine when he terms them "canonical:' For he makes
two orders of canonicals: the first of those which are
received by all the churches and were never called in
question; the second of those which are admitted
only by some and were usually read from the pulpit. He
holds that the latter are not to be valued as rightly as
the former and have far less authority (Augustine, Reply
to Faustus the Manichaean 11.5* [NPNFI, 4:180]). But the
Apocrypha are spurious, false and worthless writings-the
fables of the Scriptures (Augustine, CG 15.23 [FC
14:474]). However the word "canon" is taken strictly for
that which has a divine and infallible authority in
proving the doctrines of faith. Jerome takes the word in
this sense when he excludes those books from the canon.
Thus Augustine attached a wider signification to the
word "canon" than Jerome, who again takes the word
"apocryphal" in a wider sense than Augustine, not only
for books evidently false and fabulous, but also
for those which (although they might be read in the
church) should not be used to prove the doctrines of
faith. Thus the seemingly contradictory expressions
of these fathers may easily be reconciled. Thus Cajetan
near the end explains them: "The words of councils as
well as of teachers being brought to the test of
Jerome, it will appear that these books are not
canonical (i.e., regulars to establish matters of
faith), although they may be called canonical (i.e.,
regulars for the edification of believers), since they
were received into the Biblical canon for this purpose"
("In librum Hester commentarii, in quotquot in Sacra
Scripturae (1639], 2:400). Dionysius Carthusianus agrees
with him (Prooemium in "Tobiam," in Opera Omnia [1898],
5:83-84).
VIII. The papists
make a useless distinction between the canon of the Jews
and that of Christians. For although our canon taken
generally for all the books of the Old and New Testament
(in which it adequately consists) is not equally
admitted by the Jews, who reject the New Testament; yet
if it is taken partially with reference to the Old
Testament (in which sense we speak of it here), it is
true that our canon does not differ from that of the
Jews because they receive into the canon no other books
than we do.
IX. When the
fathers sometimes mention Deuterocanonical books, they
do not mean such as are truly and in the same sense
canonical as to faith, but only those which may be
placed in the canon of reading on account of their
usefulness for piety and edification.
X. The citation of
any passage does not of itself prove a book to be
canonical, for then Aratus, Menander and Epimenides
(quoted by Paul in Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; Tit. 1:12)
would be canonical. (2) The same passages which our
adversaries bring forward as quotations from the
Apocrypha are found in the canonical books, and the
apostles would rather quote from these than from the
former.
XI. If they are
connected with canonical books, it does not follow that
they are of equal authority, but only that they are
useful in the formation of manners and a knowledge of
history, not for establishing faith.
XII. Although some
of the Apocryphal books are better and more correct than
the others and contain various useful moral directions
(as the book of Wisdom and the Son of Sirach), yet
because they contain many other false and absurd things,
they are deservedly excluded from the canon of faith.
XIII. Although
some have questioned the authenticity of a few books of
the New Testament (i.e., the epistle of James, 2 Peter,
2 and 3 John and Revelation, which afterwards were
received by the church as canonical), it does not follow
that the same can be done with the Apocryphal books
because the relation of the books of the Old and New
Testaments to this subject are not the same. For the
books of the Old Testament were given to the Christian
church, not at intervals of time and by parts, but
she received at one and the same time from the Jews all
the books belonging to her written in one codex after
they had been stamped with an indubitable authority,
confirmed by Christ and his apostles. But the books of
the New Testament were published separately, in
different times and places and gradually collected into
one corpus. Hence it happened that some of the later
books (which came to some of the churches more slowly,
especially in remote places) were held in doubt by some
until gradually their authenticity was made known to
them. (2) Although in certain churches some of the
epistles and Revelation were rejected, yet those who
received them were always far more numerous than those
who rejected them. Yet there was no dispute about the
Apocryphal books because they were always rejected by
the Jewish church.
"TENTH QUESTION: THE PURITY OF THE
SOURCES -- Have the original texts of the Old and New
Testaments come down to us pure and uncorrupted? We
affirm against the papists."
"By the original
texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand
of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which
certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs
which are so called because they set forth to us the
word of God in the very words of those who wrote under
the immediate inspiration of the Holy
Spirit."
"Rather the
question is have the original texts (or the Hebrew and
Greek manuscripts) been so corrupted either by copyists
through carelessness (or by the Jews and heretics
through malice) that they can no longer be regarded as
the judge of controversies and the rule to which all the
versions must be applied? The papists affirm, we deny
it."
"The providence of God
proves that the sources have not been corrupted. The
following arguments prove that the sources have not been
corrupted. (1) The providence of
God which could not permit books which it willed to be
written by inspiration (theopneustois) for the salvation of men (and to continue unto
the end of the world that they might draw from them
waters of salvation) to become so corrupted as to render
them unfit for this purpose.... (2) The fidelity of the
Christian church and unceasing labor in preserving the
manuscripts.
(3) The
religion of the Jews who have bestowed upon the sacred
manuscripts great care and labor amounting even to
superstition.... (4) The carefulness of the
Masoretes not only about verses and words, but also
about single letters (which, together with all the
variations of punctuation and writing, they not only
counted, but also wrote down, so that no ground or even
suspicion of corruption could arise). (5) The multitude of copies;
for as the manuscripts were scattered far and wide, how
could they all be corrupted either by the carelessness
of librarians or the wickedness of enemies?...
(6) If the sources had been
corrupted, it must have been done before Christ or
after, neither of which is true. Not before because
Christ would not have passed it over in silence (for he
does censure the various departures in doctrine), nor
could he bear to use corrupted books....Not afterward,
both because the copies circulated among Christians
would have rendered such attempts futile, and because no
trace of any such corruption appears..... (7) The Jews neither would
nor could corrupt the sources...." Turretin argues that
if the Jews had corrupted any scripture it would have
been concerning the Messiah and prophecy used by
Christians. On the other hand, Christians would
immediately have noticed any changes made by the Jews
since the time of Christ. A corruption differs from a
variant reading. We acknowledge that many variant
readings occur both in the old and New Testament arising
from a comparison of different manuscripts, but we deny
corruption (at least corruption that is
universal)."
"ELEVENTH QUESTION: THE AUTHENTIC VERSION
-- Are the Hebrew version of the Old Testament and the
Greek of the New the only authentic versions? We affirm
against the papists."
"Of the
versions of the Scriptures; some are prototypoi
or archetypoi ("original" and "primary") which
the authors themselves used. Others are ektypoi
(or "secondary"), namely versions flowing from them
into other languages." After explaining how the papist
differed concerning the degree of certainty in the
Hebrew or Greek texts, He quoted the Council of Trent
Session 4, which says that "the Latin Vulgate should be
held as authentic in the public reading, disputations,
preaching, and expositions, so that no one should dare
to reject it under any pretext" "Hence Mariana complains
that after this promulgation of the Council of Trent,
"the Greek and Hebrew fell at one blow. Our opinion is
that the Hebrew of the Old and the Greek of the New
Testament have always been and still are the only
authentic versions by which all controversies of faith
and religion (and all versions) ought to be approved and
tested. What is an authentic writing? An authentic
writing is one in which all things are abundantly
sufficient to inspire confidence; one to which the
fullest credit is due in its own kind; one of which we
can be entirely sure that it has proceeded from the
author whose name it bears; one in which everything is
written just as he himself wished. However, a writing
can be authentic in two ways: either primarily and
originally or secondarily and derivatively. That writing
is primarily authentic which is
autopiston ('of
self-inspiring confidence") and to which credit is and
ought to be given on its own account....The secondarily
authentic writings are all the copies accurately and
faithfully taken from the originals by suitable
men...."
"Again, the
authority of an authentic writing is twofold: the one is
founded upon the things themselves of which it treats
and has relation to the men to whom the writing is
directed; the other is occupied with the treatise itself
and the writing and refers to the copies and
translations made from it. Over all these this law
obtains - that they ought to be referred to the
authentic writing and if they vary from it, to be
corrected and emended."
"Finally, authenticity may
be regarded in two ways: either materially as to the
things announced or formally as to the words and mode of
annunciation. We do not speak here of authenticity in
the former sense for we do not deny this to versions
when they agree with the sources, but only in the latter
which belongs to the sources alone. The reasons are:
(1) because the sources alone
are inspired of God both as to the things and words (2
Tim 3:16); hence they alone can be authentic. For
whatever the men of God wrote, they wrote under the
influence of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21), who, to keep
them from error, dictated not only the matter but also
the words, which cannot be said of any version.....
(2) They are the
standard and rule to which all the versions should be
applied, just as the copy (ektypon) should answer
to the pattern (archetypon)
and the stream be distinguished from its source....
(3) These editions were
authentic from the very first and were always considered
to be so..... (4) If the Hebrew
edition of the Old Testament and the Greek edition of
the New Testament are not authentic
(authentias), there would be
no authentic version, since none besides this has a
divine testimony of its own authenticity....
(5)
Our opponents
acknowledge that in certain cases it is right to have
recourse to the sources."
Concerning the
papist argument of Hebrew points being added late by the
Masoretes as an argument for tradition, Turretin
rejects, arguing that the points were of divine
origin.
"TWELFTH
QUESTION: Is the present Hebrew text in things as well
as words so authentic and inspired (theopneustos) in such a sense that all
the extant versions are to be referred to it as a rule
and, wherever they vary, to be corrected by it? Or may
we desert the reading it supplies, if judged less
appropriate, and correct it either by comparison of
ancient translators, or by suitable (stochastike) judgment and conjecture,
and follow another more suitable reading? We affirm the
former and deny the
latter."
"As the
authority (authentia) of the sacred text is the
primary foundation of faith, nothing ought to be held as
more important than to preserve it unimpaired against
the attacks of those who endeavor either to take it
entirely away or in any manner to weaken it." "Far
different however is the opinion held in common by our
churches; viz., that no other codex should be held as
authentic then the present Hebrew one, to which as to a
touchstone, all the ancient and modern versions should
be referred and if they differ from it to be corrected
by it, and not to be amended by them." "That this has
ever been the opinion of all Protestants is perfectly
clear. The controversy carried on previously with the
papists about the authentic edition sufficiently
confirms it. The illustrious author in question cannot
deny it, for in the beginning of his Critica
Sacra, he says, 'The first and
most ancient Protestants have said that all things
should be examined and corrected by the Hebrew text,
which they call the purest
source..."
"If it is
lawful to make conjectures on the sacred text, even when
the Hebrew codices agree with the versions (as the
learned man (Cappel) says, Critica sacra 6.8.17 (1650),
p. 424), there could no longer be any certainty of the
authenticity (authentias) of
it, but all would be rendered doubtful and unsettled and
the sacred text would be subjected to the will of each
conjecturer. Whether this is not to divest it of all
authority anyone can readily tell....Now who could be
the judge whether these conjectures are made rightly and
truly?...But what will become of this sacred book, if
everyone is allowed to wield a censorious pen and play
the critic over it, just as over any profane book? And
all the theologians who thus far have in any way argued
concerning the Hebrew text and its authenticity have
meant no other than the common and now received
text."
"THIRTEENTH QUESTION: VERSIONS -- Are
versions necessary, and what ought to be their use and
authority in the church?"
"This question has two
parts. The first relates to the necessity of versions;
the second to their authority..." The arguments for the
necessity of versions: (1)
The reading
and contemplation of the Scriptures is enjoined upon men
of all languages, therefore the translation of it into
the native tongues is necessary...(2)The gospel is preached in
all languages; therefore it can and ought to be
translated into them. The consequence holds good from
the preached to the written word because there is the
same reason for both and the same arguments (which
induced the apostles to preach in the native tongue)
prove the necessity of versions....(3) Vernacular versions are
necessary on account of the constant practice of the
church, according to which it is certain that both the
oriental and western churches had their versions and
performed their worship in the vernacular tongue, as
their liturgies evince...(4)
The numerous
Greek versions of the Old Testament follow
these....Hence it is evident that it has been the
perpetual practice of the church to use
versions."
The arguments for
the authority of the versions:
"Although the
versions are not authentic formally and as to the mode
of enunciation, yet they ought nevertheless to be used
in the church because if they are accurate and agree
with the sources, they are always authentic materially
and as to the things expressed."
"Hence we gather what the
authority of the versions is. Although their utility is
great for the instruction of believers, yet no version
either can or ought to be put on an equality with the
original, much less be preferred to it. (1)
For no
version has anything important which the Hebrew or Greek
source does not have more fully, since in the sources
not only the matter and sentences, but even the very
words were directly dictated by the Holy Spirit.
(2)
It is
one thing to be an interpreter, quite another to be a
prophet....The prophet as God-inspired
(theopneustos) cannot err,
but the interpreter as a man lacks no human quality
since he is always liable to err. (3) All versions are the
streams; the original text is the fountain whence they
flow. The latter is the rule, the former the thing
ruled, having only human authority."
"Nevertheless all
authority must not be denied to versions. Here we must
carefully distinguish a twofold divine authority: one of
things, the other of words. The former relates to the
substance of doctrine which constitutes the internal
form of the Scriptures. The latter relates to the
accident of writing, the external and accidental form.
The source has both, being God-inspired (theopneustos)
both as to the words and the things; but versions have
only the first, being expressed in human and not in
divine words."
"Hence it
follows that the versions as such are not authentic and
canonical in themselves (because made by human labor and
talent). Therefore, under this relation
(schesei), they may be
exposed to errors and admit of corrections, but
nevertheless are authentic as to the doctrine they
contain (which is divine and infallible). Thus they do
not, as such, formally support divine faith as to the
words, but materially as to the substance of doctrine
expressed in them."
"There is one
perfection of thing and truth to which nothing can be
added and from which nothing can be taken away; another
perfect ion of the version itself. The former is
strictly divine work and is absolutely and in every way
self-credible (autopiston). Such perfection is in the
word carried over into the versions.. The latter is a
human work and there liable to error and correction - to
which indeed authority can belong, but only human
(according to the fidelity and conformity with the
original text), not divine."
"The certainty of
the conformity of the versions with the original is
twofold: the one merely grammatical and of human
knowledge apprehending the conformity of the words in
the versions with the original this belongs to the
learned, who know the languages); the other spiritual
and of divine faith, relating to the agreement of things
and doctrines (belonging to each believer according to
the measure of the gift of Christ, as he himself says,
"My sheep hear my voice, Jn. 10:27; and Paul, "he that
is spiritual discerneth all things," 1 Cor 2:15).
Although a private person may be ignorant of the
languages, he does not cease to gather the fidelity of a
version as to the things themselves from the analogy of
faith and the connection of the doctrines: 'If any man
will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether
it be of God, or whether I speak of myself'" (Jo.
7:17)
"Conformity to the
original is different from equality. Any version
(provided it is faithful) is indeed conformable to the
original because the same doctrine as to substance is
set forth there. But it is not on that account equal to
it because it is only a human and not a divine method of
setting it forth."
"Although
any version made by fallible men cannot be considered
divine and infallible with respect to the terms, yet it
can well be considered such with respect to the things,
since it faithfully expresses the divine truth of the
sources even as the word which the minister of the
gospel preaches does not cease to be divine and
infallible and to establish our faith, although it may
be expressed by him in human words. Thus faith depends
not on the authority of the interpreter or minister, but
is built upon the truth and authenticity
(authentia) of the things
contained in the versions."
"If a
version could contain the pure word of God in divine
words, no correction could take place. For the sources
neither can nor ought to be corrected because they are
God-inspired (theopneustoi)
in things as well as in words. But because it sets forth
to us in human words the word of God, it follows that it
can admit of correction, not with regard to the doctrine
itself (which still remains the same), but with regard
to the terms which especially in difficult and obscure
passages can be differently rendered by different
persons according to the measure of the gift of
Christ."
"FOURTEENTH
QUESTION: THE SEPTUAGINT -- Is the Septuagint version of
the Old Testament authentic? We deny."
"FIFTEENTH
QUESTION: THE VULGATE -- Is the Vulgate authentic? We
deny against the papist."
"SIXTEENTH
QUESTION: THE PERFECTION OF THE SCRIPTURES: Do the
Scriptures so perfectly contain all things necessary to
salvation that there is no need of unwritten (apraphois) traditions after it? We
affirm against the
papists."
"In order to
shun more easily the tribunal of the Scriptures which
they know to be opposed to them, the papists endeavor
not only to overthrow their authentical
(authentian) and integrity,
but also to impeach their perfection and perspicuity.
Hence arises this question concerning the perfection of
the Scriptures between us."
"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)."
"The
question then amounts to this - whether the Scripture
perfectly contains all (not absolutely), but necessary
to salvation; not expressly and in so many words, but
equivalently and by legitimate inference, as to leave no
place for any unwritten (agraphon) word containing doctrinal or moral traditions.
Is the Scripture a complete and adequate rule of faith
and practice or only a partial and inadequate rule? We
maintain the former; the papists the latter, holding
that "unwritten traditions pertaining to faith and
practice are to be received with the same regard and
reverence as the Scriptures."
"....We give to
the Scriptures such a sufficiency and perfection as is
immediate and explicit. There is no need to have
recourse to any tradition independent of
them."
"Finally, they
were intended to be the contract of the covenant between
God and us."
