See the introductory post, New Upcoming Project: Refutation of William Whitaker's Disputation on Holy Scripture on Sola Scriptura.
I am utilizing a copy of the book available at Internet Archive.
Whitaker's words will be in blue. Page numbers will correspond to the above book version.
* * *
The usual, yawningly and nauseatingly predictable anti-Catholicism . . . Hopefully, empty rhetoric of this sort will be at a minimum in the text itself. This is not, of course, argument, so there is little to say in response to it, other than to register our protest at the slanderous nonsense that is thrown our way.
It seems supremely important to anti-Catholic Protestants, then and now, to always impugn the honesty and motives and personal integrity of any and all Catholic apologists. They can't settle for simply discussing honest disagreements and refraining from disparaging personal remarks. No; the Catholic must be in bad faith, so they tell us, with relentless zeal. I had hoped beyond hope for better, after having read the glowing tributes to Whitaker by today's anti-Catholics, but unfortunately the animus and detestation (beyond theology) is present here, too.
(Epistle Dedicatory, p. 11)
Right. We shall see who is more closely following the Bible, and who is beholden to "decrees of men or their own caprice" as we proceed. That's the purpose of the present project.
There is nothing which truth fears so much as to be prevented from appearing in public, and being exposed to the examination of all men. It would rather have any patron that is not absolutely dumb, than go without defence from the unrighteous calumnies of unjust accusers. One thing only I would have carefully provided. Prudent and grave moderators should preside in this disputation ; who should restrain petulance, repress clamours, permit no breach of decorum, and maintain order, modesty and discipline. (Epistle Dedicatory, p. 11)
Amen! I guess, though, that these "grave moderators" let his immodest dedicatory slip through the ranks, . . . we see the same on Internet discussion boards today: solemn, grave incantations that personal attacks will not be allowed, that are ignored from the first post put up, or ignored for one side and not the other.
Interesting. In other words, "though decrees of councils, the fathers, tradition, and the practice of the church are ultimately irrelevant (since only Scripture is our rule of faith), we will, nevertheless utilize those things for the sake of argument, so as to meet our opponents on their own ground." Use of and citation of the fathers is not undertaken in order to demonstrate what the historical Church has always believed (as authoritative purveyors of apostolic tradition and apostolic succession), but merely in a purely pragmatic, utilitarian sense -- because Catholics argue in that fashion, therefore the Protestant will "play along" and argue that, if one is to argue about the fathers, they are actually more inclined to the Protestant side than the Catholic one.
This has been the specifically Anglican outlook ever since, and it was also that of Lutherans and Calvinists: at least in their earliest years. At length they basically abandoned the effort to "claim" or "co-opt" the fathers; while the Anglicans (i.e., the "High" or "Anglo-Catholic" portion of them) continued to maintain that the early Church fathers were more like primitive Anglicans than like Catholics, even up to our own time.
In one sense the Catholic apologist does something similar, in these discussions of authority (or indeed, of any doctrine): present as much scriptural argument as possible, knowing that it is the only ultimate authority that the Protestant will respect. But we regard Scripture as divinely inspired revelation, just as Protestants do, so it is not a mere argumentative tactic when we cite it (playing on the other guy's turf). We win the battle of "whether sola Scriptura is true" hands down. It's not true. I have just completed a book that contains 100 biblical arguments against sola Scriptura. It's a house of sand.
How melodramatic (and self-deluded) . . .
***
There have been many heretofore, illustrious Cecil, who have defended the papal interest and sovereignty with the utmost exertion, the keenest zeal, and no mean or vulgar erudition. But they who have played their part with most address, and far out-stripped almost all others of their own side, are those men who now, for some years back, have been engaged most earnestly in this cause; a fresh supply of monks, subtle theologians, vehement and formidable controvertists; whom that strange — and, in former times, unheard of — Society of Jesus hath brought forth, for the calamity of the church and the christian religion. For when, after that black, deadly, baneful, and tedious night of popish superstition and antichristianism, the clear and cheerful lustre of the gospel had illuminated with its rays some portions of the christian world, attracting, and by its incredible charms at the same time moving all, to gaze on, admire, and cleave to it; on a sudden, these men sprang up to obscure with pestilential vapours, and ravish, if possible, from our view, this light, so hateful to themselves, so hostile and prejudicial to their interests. (Epistle Dedicatory, p. 3; 30 April 1588)
The usual, yawningly and nauseatingly predictable anti-Catholicism . . . Hopefully, empty rhetoric of this sort will be at a minimum in the text itself. This is not, of course, argument, so there is little to say in response to it, other than to register our protest at the slanderous nonsense that is thrown our way.
I could wish that this were the only place in which Bellarmine had shewn bad faith, and that he had not elsewhere also played the Jesuit in matters of no small importance. (Epistle Dedicatory, p. 9)
It seems supremely important to anti-Catholic Protestants, then and now, to always impugn the honesty and motives and personal integrity of any and all Catholic apologists. They can't settle for simply discussing honest disagreements and refraining from disparaging personal remarks. No; the Catholic must be in bad faith, so they tell us, with relentless zeal. I had hoped beyond hope for better, after having read the glowing tributes to Whitaker by today's anti-Catholics, but unfortunately the animus and detestation (beyond theology) is present here, too.
. . . it cannot be doubted, that all who measured religion, not by the decrees of men or their own caprice, but by the standard of the holy scriptures, and were ready to acknowledge and embrace the truth when it was found, would easily reject the rotten devices of the papists, and prefer that sound and wholesome doctrine of the faith, which our churches have drawn from the pure springs of scripture, to their old and idle superstition.
(Epistle Dedicatory, p. 11)
Right. We shall see who is more closely following the Bible, and who is beholden to "decrees of men or their own caprice" as we proceed. That's the purpose of the present project.
There is nothing which truth fears so much as to be prevented from appearing in public, and being exposed to the examination of all men. It would rather have any patron that is not absolutely dumb, than go without defence from the unrighteous calumnies of unjust accusers. One thing only I would have carefully provided. Prudent and grave moderators should preside in this disputation ; who should restrain petulance, repress clamours, permit no breach of decorum, and maintain order, modesty and discipline. (Epistle Dedicatory, p. 11)
Amen! I guess, though, that these "grave moderators" let his immodest dedicatory slip through the ranks, . . . we see the same on Internet discussion boards today: solemn, grave incantations that personal attacks will not be allowed, that are ignored from the first post put up, or ignored for one side and not the other.
Our arms shall be the sacred scriptures, that sword and shield of the word, that tower of David, upon which a thousand bucklers hang, and all the armour of the mighty, the sling and the pebbles of the brook wherewith David stretched upon the ground that gigantic and haughty Philistine. Human reasonings and testimonies, if one use them too much or out of place, are like the armour of Saul, which was so far from helping David that it rather unfitted him for the conflict. Jerome tells Theophilus of Alexandria, that "a sincere faith and open confession requires not the artifice and arguments of words". However, since we have to deal with adversaries who, not content with these arms, use others with more readiness and pleasure, such as decrees of councils, judgments of the fathers, tradition, and the practice of the church; lest perchance we should appear to shrink from the battle, we have determined to make use of that sort of weapons also. And, indeed, I hope to make it plain to you, that all our tenets are not only founded upon scriptural authority, which is enough to ensure victory, but command the additional suffrage of the testimonies of fathers, councils, and, I will add, even of many of the papists, which is a distinguished and splendid ornament of our triumph. In every controversy, therefore, after the sacred scriptures of the old and new Testaments, we shall apply to the councils, the fathers, and even to our adversaries themselves ; so as to let you perceive that not only the ancient authors, but even the very adherents of the Roman church, may be adduced as witnesses in the cause. (Preface, p. 19)
Interesting. In other words, "though decrees of councils, the fathers, tradition, and the practice of the church are ultimately irrelevant (since only Scripture is our rule of faith), we will, nevertheless utilize those things for the sake of argument, so as to meet our opponents on their own ground." Use of and citation of the fathers is not undertaken in order to demonstrate what the historical Church has always believed (as authoritative purveyors of apostolic tradition and apostolic succession), but merely in a purely pragmatic, utilitarian sense -- because Catholics argue in that fashion, therefore the Protestant will "play along" and argue that, if one is to argue about the fathers, they are actually more inclined to the Protestant side than the Catholic one.
This has been the specifically Anglican outlook ever since, and it was also that of Lutherans and Calvinists: at least in their earliest years. At length they basically abandoned the effort to "claim" or "co-opt" the fathers; while the Anglicans (i.e., the "High" or "Anglo-Catholic" portion of them) continued to maintain that the early Church fathers were more like primitive Anglicans than like Catholics, even up to our own time.
In one sense the Catholic apologist does something similar, in these discussions of authority (or indeed, of any doctrine): present as much scriptural argument as possible, knowing that it is the only ultimate authority that the Protestant will respect. But we regard Scripture as divinely inspired revelation, just as Protestants do, so it is not a mere argumentative tactic when we cite it (playing on the other guy's turf). We win the battle of "whether sola Scriptura is true" hands down. It's not true. I have just completed a book that contains 100 biblical arguments against sola Scriptura. It's a house of sand.
We fight against men, and we have Christ on our side; nor can we possibly be vanquished, unless we are the most slothful and dastardly of all cowards. . . . They come against us with sword, and shield, and armour: we go against them in the name of Jehovah of Hosts, of the armies of Israel, whom they have defied. (Preface, p. 20)
How melodramatic (and self-deluded) . . .
***
.jpg)
