Turretin and His Institutes

Francis Turretin (François or Francesco Turrettini or Franciscus Turrettinus) was one of the most distinguished Reformed theologians of the seventeenth century, being a notable representative of the “school theology” characteristic of that period. He was born on October 17, 1623, in Geneva, Switzerland. This year and this month, we arrive at the four-hundredth anniversary of his birth. It is fitting on this occasion to reflect a bit on his life, and particularly to ask the question about his importance for Reformed theology today.

Turretin was a pastor-theologian who zealously served the Reformed churches, particularly the Reformed cause in Geneva until his death on September 28, 1687. He completed his studies at the Genevan Academy in 1644. Given his giftedness as a student, he pursued further studies in theology at Leiden, Utrecht, Saumur, Montauban, and Nimes (1644–48). He also studied philosophy with the Roman Catholic Pierre Gassendi in Paris (1645–46). From 1648 he served as minister to the Italian congregation in Geneva, and from 1653 until his death he labored as pastor of the French congregation in Geneva and as professor of theology at the Academy in Geneva. In 1650 he also served for a year as interim pastor at Lyons.[1]

During his life, Turretin produced a number of significant theological disputations, a couple of which have been translated into English. Turretin also published two volumes of collected French sermons, a few of which have also become available in English translation.[2] His chief and most renowned work—indeed, his longstanding theological contribution—remains, however, his three-volume Institutio Theologiæ Elencticæ, which appeared in 1679, 1682, and 1685.[3] This work, contending for Reformed orthodoxy against all rival theologies, served as a textbook in theology during that time and subsequently. It was republished in 1847–48, along with a volume of his disputations, which revived its life as a theological textbook during the nineteenth century.[4] More recently, Turretin’s Institutes found new life serving a new generation of Reformed students since its publication into English in the 1990s. This muti-volume work comes from an earlier produced handwritten translation by George Musgrave Giger a century earlier, which James T. Dennison subsequently edited and presented for publication.[5]

Among the most prominent dogmatical works in the history of Reformed theology, Turretin’s Institutes merits attention as expressing the consensus of Reformed orthodoxy that prevailed at that time, while also well displaying the scholastic method that shaped much of the dogmatical theology of the era. These two features of his work reveal the abiding importance of Turretin the theologian for today’s Reformed and Presbyterian churches.

Turretin’s Scholasticism and Elencticism

Turretin’s theology builds on the foundation laid by earlier codifications of Reformed theology, employing scholastic methodology to defend that theology from its multiple opponents.[6] This scholastic theology, commonplace then, was pointedly academic in character. On a formal level, it is best understood as a method and approach to theological topics, using quæstiones to form theses or propositions that defend a staked-out position pertaining to those topics, seeking to defend against the many foes to the Reformed movement and to present this faith with intellectual vigor and biblical warrant. Turretin’s concern was to guard evangelical truth against error in its various guises and thereby safeguard confessional orthodoxy—specifically Dortian orthodoxy (see the Canons of Dordrecht in 1618–1619). Turretin’s most immediate field of concern was the Swiss and French Reformed churches. These churches were under increasing Roman Catholic threat, including the menace of armed attack. Turretin’s project, however, was targeted to assist the Reformed cause throughout Europe. Although Turretin labored during a period of high orthodoxy, the climate of change was already in the air, and his work, grounded in scholastic methodology, could not finally fend off the gradual demise of orthodoxy in Geneva or throughout Europe.[7]

Like John Calvin, his most renowned predecessor in Geneva, Turretin called his work an Institutio. The term refers to fundamental or foundational instruction. In adding the phrase theologia elenctica, Turretin reveals his intention to pursue the instruction of theology in an elenctic manner—for the latter term, “elenctic,” is derived from the Greek word ἒλεγχοϛ, which means to expose error. An elenctic theology, then, seeks to teach truth by way of contrast to and in refutation of error. For Turretin, and for his Reformed orthodox comrades, theology has the task to oppose heretical views or otherwise harmful theological opinion in the defense of the received catholic faith of the church, and specifically of the distinctive Reformed understanding of that faith. In the labor of theological education at Geneva, Turretin sought to expound Christian doctrine using the foil of error and heresy to explain and defend what he judged to be biblical truth. Thus, Turretin’s elenctic Institutes is deliberately disputative and polemical in form, zealously and soberly championing the Reformed confessional position while coupled with much positive exposition of theological topics as part of that project. However, neither the scholastic character of Turretin’s three-volume work nor its elenctic character embraced the emerging Christian rationalism of the late-seventeenth century. Rather, Turretin argues that “the theology of revelation”—being grounded in divine revelation of the supernatural sort—is a theology that transcends human reason and depends upon God’s grace as revealed in his Word (I.Q.2.7).[8]

Six Commendations of Turretin’s Institutes for Today

If readers are new to Turretin’s Institutes, they immediately discover that his writing does not have the rhetorical appeal of Calvin’s. Turretin’s argumentation is tight, his sentences long, and his vocabulary technical, with almost no rhetorical flourish. The learning curve is steep. Many give up rather than venture ahead, figuring they might do better to read a more contemporary source that is easier to digest. Certainly, that is an option, but there is no alternative to a work like Turretin’s for a student of Reformed orthodoxy (well, not unless the reader is fluent in theological Latin). Readers are amply rewarded by pressing on; and there are resources available that enable them to gain access to Turretin’s methodology and vocabulary, rendering the learning curve more manageable—such as Richard A. Muller’s Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 2nd ed., and Johannes Maccovius’s Scholastic Discourse.[9]

I venture to offer six commendations of Turretin’s Elenctic Institutes for today’s students of Reformed theology.

Commendation #1—Turretin’s Methodology Enables a Proper Engagement of Theological Controversy

For starters, Turretin teaches us how to engage in theological controversy. His Institutes are marked by a deliberate methodology that engages the many topics of the theological enterprise in a consistent manner. He employs the question-structure, somewhat modeled after the medieval scholastic Summas, as the principal format to address theological topics and subtopics, functioning as a textbook of theology for the benefit of students.[10] Even when the question-structure is not followed explicitly, the techniques of definition, distinction, logical reasoning, and refutation of objections are typical of Turretin’s scholastic discourse. In following the model of “questions,” Turretin’s Institutio addresses most theological topics in a discernable order, presenting specific topics of theology (loci) in a clear alignment. Therefore, in each of the twenty loci that comprise his Institutes, Turretin subdivides the specific topic into its requisite distinct questions. In outline form, the topics are (usually) set forth as follows: (1) He begins, in most instances, with a question or questions, with an affirmation or denial or even a reply of distinguishing to properly answer the issue in dispute, which often names specific opponents, including who they are and what they specifically believe. If opponents are not directly mentioned, Turretin will usually define the doctrine under dispute succinctly and note where disagreement resides. Thus, it is not unusual for Turretin to attach general introductory remarks after the question. These remarks take up the subject under discussion and can consist of a para­graph or two, but sometimes are much extended.

(2) Having accomplished the above, Turretin proceeds to delineate the question or questions at issue—thus follows the status quæstionis, wherein Turretin seeks to articulate the exact point needing exposition or that is under contest. The analysis of the exact question at hand reveals both what the question is and what it is not. The “state of the question,” then, results in a clarification of where there is agreement (what is not in dispute) to arrive at the nub of disagreement—that is, where parties split into diverse camps. A further observation here is that it is not uncommon for Turretin, under the “state of the question,” to enunciate the orthodox position by differentiating two extremes: those who err in excess and those who err in defect.

(3) Next, Turretin exposits his own stated position, presenting positive arguments in support of his view, though this is often done in light of an opponent’s position. This section can be brief or quite elaborate, depending on the nature of the issue under discussion. Turretin’s positive argumentation at this point, then, can be as short as a paragraph or extended for many pages.

(4) Last, there is a consideration and rebuttal of counterarguments, called “fontes solutionum” (often translated as “sources of solution” or “sources of explanation”). This section principally meets the counterarguments of opponents but may include a succinct summary of Turretin’s own views, and it can serve as a “handy check for the reader to see if the discussion is understood.”[11] Oftentimes Turretin does not so much state the counterarguments explicitly as he meets these objections as suppositions, which he then refutes.

We need hardly be reminded that much contemporary theological dispute would benefit from the disciplined and precise approach that Turretin practices in his Institutes.

A further observation regarding Turretin’s method is that he always seeks to ground his staked-out position in Scripture and to present biblical arguments for his view. Yet, besides bolstering his argument with the relevant Scriptural materials, he sometimes seeks support from the Church Fathers and medieval scholastic writers.[12] Although Turretin appeals to Reformed writers by name from time to time, he generally avoids dependence on them to make his case. In his Institutes, if not always in his sermons and disputations, he shuns heated polemics in treating disputed issues, especially with other Reformed authors. Given the precarious nature of the Reformed churches in France, for example, it hardly would have helped the Reformed cause to assist Roman Catholic opponents by engaging in denunciatory polemics against the Amyraldians. It is noteworthy, too, that in dealing with those who oppose the Reformed position, Turretin is uninhibited in specifying their names or their writings.

Commendation #2—Turretin Is a Reliable Expositor of the Views of Opponents

The second reason to commend Francis Turretin is that his work well instructs us regarding the views of those who opposed Reformed theology. Since theological opponents figure prominently in his work, the views of these opponents (principally Roman Catholics, Socinians, and Remonstrants, along with various Lutherans, Anabaptists, and others) needed to be fairly and accurately presented in order to contest fairly and accurately the same. Turretin’s scholastic theology, therefore, sought to defend the hard-wrought gains of the earlier codification of Reformed theology achieved by Calvin and his Reformed contemporaries, particularly against what was perceived to be the “Pelagianizing” acids that dissolved the primacy of divine grace and transgressed the right teaching of “catholic” Augustinianism (e.g., IV.Q.10.1; X.Q.1.1; XV.Q.51.). As such, Turretin is not interested in contending with marginal points of doctrine. His mission is to defend the Reformed confession of divine grace (sola gratia) robustly. In this regard, he is prepared to make common cause even with particular Roman Catholic thinkers who, with him, reject Jesuit deviations from the sovereignty of God’s grace; he appeals to the tradition of the church and to scholastic Roman Catholic authors in order to help make his case.[13] Certainly, Turretin’s polemic against Pelagianizing tendencies is a constant refrain in his Institutes.

As a general observation, Turretin engaged in polemics in an irenic spirit and treated his theological rivals equitably. In fact, he was rather scrupulous to present the views of opponents correctly if only to refute their position more persuasively. In doing so, Turretin was predisposed to be “mainstream” in his Reformed convictions; he also sought, at times, to play the role of mediator between parties, i.e., to effect reconciliation (or at least understanding) among the Reformed where theological debate had become over-blown or otherwise misconceived. An example is his treatment of conditionality in the covenant of grace (see, e.g., XII.Q.3.15). To his credit, then, Turretin excels at stating opponents’ views even-handedly and properly, and he resists ad hominem comments.[14] This “school theology,” with its polemical thrust, was no more fanatical or reactionary or intolerant than an earlier, less scholastic codification of Reformed theology. These negative traits mark personalities, not theological method. Once more, Turretin presents himself as an able example of how to engage in theological discussion and disputation.

Commendation #3—Turretin Is a Theologian’s Theologian

Third, Turretin treats the foundational questions of theology in a classically Reformed manner—that is, before the onset of Christian rationalism, which was followed by the Enlightenment. Although Turretin’s theology is obviously dated in certain respects and, just as obvious, does not address certain contemporary issues and errors, it often supplies the requisite materials to better construct answers to contemporary questions. Turretin is a fine resource for treating foundational questions, like the relationship between faith and reason, the role and limitations of human reason for theology, and circumscribing natural theology and natural law. In fact, he handles with great care a host of theological questions. For example, he exposits with finesse and insight the question concerning the nature of the moral law, its several uses, and its abrogation in opposition to the Antinomians (XI.Q.2.1–34.; Q.22.1–18 and Q.23.1–15). It is fitting also to mention his treatment of the question regarding the first moment of conversion and whether humans take any kind of active role in such an event, such that the human will cooperates in some way with divine grace (see XV.Q.5.1–21). Likewise, he handles the question of creaturely merit before God in a superb fashion (XVII.Q.5.1–45, esp. 6–7). Although such commendations are selective, they serve to alert readers that Turretin proves himself to be a theologian’s theologian, and anyone who wrestles with his technical reasoning will be better for the effort. There is not a topic in which Turretin fails to stimulate and educate the reader. Thus, to offer another example, his treatment of the sacraments, from a Reformed perspective, is sterling, though the Giger translation has the unfortunate penchant to translate the Latin word anima too often as “mind” rather than “heart” or “soul,” which has a way of coloring Turretin’s presentation in an intellectualistic direction.

Commendation #4—Turretin Is a Potent Defender of Dortian Orthodoxy

A fourth reason why we commend Turretin’s theology centers on, as adumbrated above, the way it defends the reformational concern for the doctrine of grace alone. Turretin persistently argues against Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian doctrines, even as he promotes the findings of the Synod of Dordrecht against the Remonstrants. Turretin’s work, then, constantly champions divine initiative in the face of human inability, divine mercy in view of human guilt and demerit, and God’s sovereign accomplishment of salvation—persevering to the end—considering human instability and impotence. All the main canons of the Synod of Dort are discernably defended in Turretin’s Institutes; he expounds upon the doctrine of predestination, including unconditional election (even lining up with Dort’s infralapsarian orientation) (IV.Q.11); human free choice and its limitations (X.Qs.1–5); and effectual calling (XV.Q.4). He likewise explicitly takes up the topic of Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement, the scope of that atoning work (XIV.Q.14), as well as the doctrine of the perseverance of faith (XV.Q.16).

In addition, in advocating for the doctrines of Dort against Remonstrant objectors, Turretin similarly combatted some in the Reformed camp (whom he considered “our men”), primarily the Amyraldians, the name being derived from Amyraldus, the Latinized name of Moïse Amyraut (1596–1664). Here we observe that Amyraldianism, Cocceianism, and Cartesianism form three chief aberrations that emerged among the Reformed in the seventeenth century. The philosophical program of Rene Descartes (1596–1650), with its subjectivistic method, became hotly debated in the Netherlands and beyond. However, Descartes’s thought did not immediately impact Turretin and his work in Geneva, so he does not address this movement. Meanwhile, only with moderation does he take on controversy with the Amyraldians and Cocceians. Turretin particularly disputes Cocceius’s views regarding Christ’s suretyship vis-à-vis Old Testament believers (XII.Qs.9–10).

It was the Amyraldians, however, who were Turretin’s topmost concern among Reformed writers, in part because some of Turretin’s theological colleagues at the Academy were sympathetic to Amyraldian views. Although the Swiss Reformed churches explicitly rejected distinct Salmurian doctrines in the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675) (see especially Canons VI, X, XVI, XXV), that document’s life was short-lived in the Swiss churches, being set aside in 1725. For his part, Turretin rebuts Amyraldian teachings, for example, in IV.Q.17, IX.Q.9.4–6, XII.Q.12, and XIV.Q.14.6.

Commendation #5—Turretin Is a Trustworthy Expositor of Reformed Federal Theology

Fifth, Turretin should be studied because he is a fine exhibit of Reformed federal theology, sifting through intramural debates characteristic in the seventeenth century, and doing that with an irenic spirit.[15] Although Turretin was a Reformed scholastic theologian, he was simultaneously a federal theologian. That designation is warranted since he developed his theology in the way of the twofold covenant scheme—namely the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, the latter being grounded in the intratrinitarian covenant of redemption or pactum salutis (see VIII.Qs.3–6; XII.Qs.1–12). For Turretin, the covenant of grace, Christ being the substance of the promise, included all the blessings of salvation (see XII.Q.2.18–25). All subsequent theological exposition detailing that redemptive work is really expounding features and dimensions of that gospel covenant. In other words, federal theology is woven into the whole fabric of Turretin’s work and is presupposed even when not specifically mentioned.[16] Turretin proves to be an able teacher and a careful theologian in treating disputed questions surrounding the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. For example, he well presents the Sinaitic economy as being, in substance, one with and an expression of the covenant of grace (XII.Q.12.1–25).

Commendation #6—Turretin Is an Evenhanded Codifier of Reformed Theology

Sixth, we warmly commend Turretin, indeed, make much of him as a theologian, inasmuch as he labored deliberately in the role of codifier of Reformed orthodoxy and wrote as a defender of the Reformed consensus. In doing so he aimed to bring Reformed thinkers into agreement with one another where possible. Although his theology is not marked by innovation, neither is it merely rote. He writes with clarity and acumen on each topic under his purview, treating subjects with erudition and insight. James T. Dennison Jr., the editor of the English translation of Turretin’s Institutes, “extracted more than 3,200 quotations from classic, patristic, medieval, Jewish, Socinian, Lutheran, Arminian, Anabaptist and Reformed authors,” which further commends its abiding value even as it alerts readers to many important sources. Given the elenctic form of Turretin’s theological exposition, his Institutes was and remains a pinnacle achievement in the development of Reformed scholasticism in Geneva and throughout Europe; and it remains an outstanding specimen of Reformed dogmatical works. Following the quæstiones-format of instruction, Turretin’s Institutes still exhibits its well-designed function as a textbook of theology; and its readers, upon mastering its scholastic vocabulary and method, at once discern that it is an effective pedagogical tool. Moreover, since Turretin was not given to embracing extreme views, refusing to color outside the lines of Reformed confessional orthodoxy, he set the benchmark of that orthodoxy, even as he persists as its standard-bearer. As such, his Institutes will endure as a work of interest to scholars of the early modern era and the history of doctrine. In its English translation, Turretin’s Institutes will continue to occupy a highly influential place among the dogmatical works of Reformed theology.

Endnotes

[1] See J. Mark Beach, “Reading Turretin: Some Observations on Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 27 (2016): 67–84; idem, “Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology,” The Oxford Handbook of Reformed Theology, eds. Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 280-294. For biography on Turretin, see “Funeral Oration of Benedict Pictet concerning the Life and Death of Francis Turretin,” trans. David Lillegard, in Turretin’s Institutes, vol. 3, 659–676; E. de Bude, Vie de François Turettini, théologien genevois (1623-1687) (Lausanne: Bridel, 1871); G. Keizer, François Turrettini. Sa vie et ses oeuvres et le Consensus (Lausanne: Bridel, 1900); and James T. Dennison, Jr., “The Life and the Career of Francis Turretin,” in Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed., James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997): III: 639–658; Nicholas A. Cumming, Francis Turretin (1623–1687) and the Reformed Tradition, St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History, ed. Bridget Heal (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2020); and Zachary Purvis’s “Introduction” in Justification by Faith Alone: Selected Writings from Theodore Beza (1519–1605, Amandus Polandus (1561-1610), and Francis Turretin (1623–1687), trans. Casey Carmichael, Classic Reformed Theology, vol. 6, ed. R. Scott Clark (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2023), xxxvi–xliii.

[2] See, for example, the recent translation of Turretin’s “The Harmony of Paul and James on the Article of Justification,” in Justification by Faith Alone: Selected Writings, 183–216; also “Francis Turretin’s Seventh Disputation: Whether It Can Be Proven the Pope of Rome Is the Antichrist,” trans. Kenneth Bubb, ed. Rand Winburn (Forestville, CA: Protestant Reformation Publications, 1999). Turretin’s French sermons are Sermons sur divers passages de l’Ecriture Sainte (Geneva, 1676) and Recueil de sermons sur divers texts de l’Ecriture Sainte (Geneva, 1686). In certain disputations and sermons Turretin can be sharply polemical.

[3] For the publishing history of Turretin’s Institutes, see Beach, “Reading Turretin,” 67, fn. 1.

[4] The four-volume work was published in Edinburgh and New York. This edition has been reprinted as recently as 2010 (Nabu Press, Charleston, South Carolina).

[5] See bibliography in footnote 1.

[6] On Reformed orthodoxy and scholasticism, two important sources are Willem J. van Asselt, et al., Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, trans. Albert Gootjes (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011); and Richard A. Muller, After Calvin (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 3–102.

[7] M. I. Klauber, “Reformed Orthodoxy in Transition: Benedict Pictet (1655–1724) and Enlightened Orthodoxy in Post-Reformation Geneva,” in W. F. Graham, ed., Later Calvinism: International Perspectives, Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, vol. 22 (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994), 93–113.

[8] References to Turretin’s Institutes are according to topic, question, and paragraph.

[9] Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 2nd ed (1985; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017); Johannes Maccovius, Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588-1644) on Theological and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules, eds. Willem J. van Asselt, et al. (1652; Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009).

[10] Turretin, “Preface to the Reader,” in Institutes, I, xl–xli.

[11] Willem J. van Asselt, et al, Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in Early Modern Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 172.

[12] See E. P. Meijering, Reformierte scholastic und patristische theologie (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1991).

[13] van Asselt, et al, Reformed Thought on Freedom, 171–73.

[14] van Asselt, et al, Reformed Thought on Freedom, 172.

[15] See J. Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace, Reformed Historical Theology, vol. 1, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis, et al. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007). For an analysis of diverse interpretations of federal theology, see 22–73.

[16] See Beach, Christ and the Covenant, 316–39.

J. Mark Beach is a minister in the United Reformed Churches and serves as Professor of Doctrinal and Ministerial Studies at Mid-America Reformed Seminary in Dyer, Indiana, and is associate pastor of Redeemer United Reformed Church in St. John, Indiana. Ordained Servant Online, October, 2023.