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.
* * *
Now since Christ hath bid us search the scriptures without exception, not this part, or that part, or the other, it is manifest that in these words we are commanded to search the whole of scripture; not to confine ourselves to certain portions of it, while we despise or overlook the rest. All parts give plain testimony to Christ. But the scriptures are praised by the papists, as well as highly esteemed by us; nor is there any controversy, whether the scriptures are to be searched. (pp. 25-26)
Exactly. Would that all the Protestants who cite this passage (John 5:39) and similar ones, understood that we totally agree, and that, therefore, this verse and others like it form no argument either against us or for sola Scriptura. Whitaker has enough wits about him to grasp this, which is a good sign that he will be able to put up some real arguments, rather than war against straw men. He goes on to deal with the issue of the canon, which is beyond our purview.
The books of scripture are called canonical, because they contain the standard and rule of our faith and morals. For the scripture is in the church what the law is in a state, which Aristotle in his Politics calls a canon or rule. As all citizens are bound to live and behave agreeably to the public laws, so Christians should square their faith and conduct by the rule and law of scripture. (p. 27)
Christianity should always be in accord with Scripture; absolutely. To say that it is the sole rule of faith, however, with the intent to exclude Church and tradition and apostolic succession, is to say something that the fathers never held. We shall easily demonstrate this, as Whitaker starts to bring Church fathers to the table, in a futile attempt to enlist them for his cause. I've done this before, in lengthy debates on the fathers and sola Scriptura (one / two / three / four), and in my book on the Church fathers, that devotes 114 pages to the topic.
It was never difficult at all to shoot down Protestant arguments along these lines, because they habitually repeat the same falsehoods over and over: taking out of context what might be stated about Scripture, or misinterpreting it, or excluding other things written by any given father about the Church and tradition and apostolic succession, that demonstrate that they did not hold sola Scriptura as Protestants do. Whitaker is no exception in his methodology. He's like the proverbial fish in an aquarium: he can't see that there is a world beyond the water (a metaphorical word picture of his premises) that he is in.
So Tertullian, in his book against Hermogenes, calls the scripture the rule of faith. (p. 27)
Well, no; actually he doesn't do that, and moreover, he states that the rule of faith is something else. I located an online translation of this work, and quickly saw (through searching) that Tertullian never made any such statement. He starts right in, in the first chapter, making an argument that the rule of faith is antiquity: what the Church has always held (similar to the later St. Vincent of Lerins' famous "dictum"). Heretics like Hermogenes violate this rule by introducing novelties. This is what the fathers held, generally speaking, and what Catholics teach: a common variation of the notion of apostolic succession (my own bolding, as throughout):
Chapter I.-The Opinions of Hermogenes, by the Prescriptive Rule of Antiquity Shown to Be Heretical. Not Derived from Christianity, But from Heathen Philosophy. Some of the Tenets Mentioned.
We are accustomed, for the purpose of shortening argument, to lay down the rule against heretics of the lateness of their date. For in as far as by our rule, priority is given to the truth, which also foretold that there would be heresies, in so far must all later opinions be prejudged as heresies, being such as were, by the more ancient rule of truth, predicted as (one day) to happen. Now, the doctrine of Hermogenes has this taint of novelty. He is, in short, a man living in the world at the present time; by his very nature a heretic, and turbulent withal, who mistakes loquacity for eloquence, and supposes impudence to be firmness, and judges it to be the duty of a good conscience to speak ill of individuals. Moreover, he despises God's law in his painting, maintaining repeated marriages, alleges the law of God in defence of lust, and yet despises it in respect of his art. He falsifies by a twofold process-with his cautery and his pen. He is a thorough adulterer, both doctrinally and carnally, since he is rank indeed with the contagion of your marriage-hacks, and has also failed in cleaving to the rule of faith as much as the apostle's own Hermogenes.
Note that Scripture is never specifically mentioned here (though "God's law" is close); let alone equated with the rule of faith. It is antiquity that is the rule of faith. Hermogenes violates it, and in Tertullian's opinion that is more than enough for him to be judged as a heretic and false teacher. The only other time he uses the phrase "rule of faith" in this treatise, it is also not referring to Scripture. Biblical argument is used throughout, of course, in conjunction with his defense of the Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing), but Scripture itself is not called the "rule of faith" (which was Whitaker's claim):
Chapter XXXIII.-Statement of the True Doctrine Concerning Matter. Its Relation to God's Creation of the World.
But although Hermogenes finds it amongst his own colourable pretences (for it was not in his power to discover it in the Scriptures of God), it is enough for us, both that it is certain that all things were made by God, and that there is no certainty whatever that they were made out of Matter. And even if Matter had previously existed, we must have believed that it had been really made by God, since we maintained (no less) when we held the rule of faith to be, that nothing except God was uncreated. Up to this point there is room for controversy, until Matter is brought to the test of the Scriptures, and fails to make good its case.
Eminent Protestant historian Philip Schaff states that such a view was Tertullian's standard position; thus verifying my "take" above. He specifically deals with what Tertullian meant by "rule of faith":
Besides appealing to the Scriptures, the fathers, particularly Irenaeus and Tertullian, refer with equal confidence to the "rule of faith;" that is, the common faith of the church, as orally handed down in the unbroken succession of bishops from Christ and his apostles to their day, . . .
Tertullian finds a universal antidote for all heresy in his celebrated prescription argument, which cuts off heretics, at the outset, from every right of appeal to the holy scriptures, on the ground, that the holy scriptures arose in the church of Christ, were given to her, and only in her and by her can be rightly understood. He calls attention also here to the tangible succession, which distinguishes the catholic church from the arbitrary and ever-changing sects of heretics, and which in all the principal congregations, especially in the original sects of the apostles, reaches back without a break from bishop to bishop, to the apostles themselves, from the apostles to Christ, and from Christ to God. "Come, now," says he, in his tract on Prescription, "if you would practise inquiry to more advantage in the matter of your salvation, go through the apostolic churches, in which the very chairs of the apostles still preside, in which their own authentic letters are publicly read, uttering the voice and representing the face of every one. If Achaia is nearest, you have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi, you have Thessalonica. If you can go to Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you live near Italy, you have Rome, whence also we [of the African church] derive our origin. How happy is the church, to which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood," etc.
(History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976, from the revised fifth edition of 1910, Chapter XII, section 139, "Catholic Tradition," 525-528)
Therefore, Whitaker has erroneously cited Tertullian. I need not speculate that he did this wickedly and deliberately. Strong bias, a zeal that is capable of partially blinding one, and the delusion of a system built upon false premises are more than enough to account for shoddy citation, without recourse to charges of deliberate dishonesty. I shall show throughout my critiques that Whitaker is in error (factually, exegetically, and logically, as the case may be), not that he is an altogether wicked, incorrigible soul who lies unashamedly in favor of his cause (as he accuses his Catholic opponents).
Cyprian says, in his discourse upon the baptism of Christ: "One will find that the rules of all doctrine are derived from this scripture; and that, whatever the discipline of the church contains springs hence, and returns hither." (p. 27)
I spent well over an hour trying to locate this treatise, so I could read the context of these words. No wonder I couldn't find it: the footnote in Whitaker's book (from more modern translators and commentators) on the same page, states: "This treatise, falsely ascribed to Cyprian, may be found in the works of Arnold of Chartres (Carnotensis)." He lived in the twelfth century. Again, I assume that this was an innocent error and not a malicious one, but in any event, the argument fails (insofar as St. Cyprian is concerned), since it is based on a spurious text.
Chrysostom too, in his 13th Homily upon 2 Corinthians calls scripture the exact balance, and standard, and rule of all things. (pp. 27-28)
Here is that source and the relevant quote:
For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer this to figures and calculation; but in calculating upon facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learnt what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things; which may we all obtain, through the grace and love towards men of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom, to the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory, might, and honor, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.
In and of itself, this sounds like it could be stated by a sola Scriptura advocate (though it could also be held by a person who believes in the material sufficiency of Scripture, as I and most Catholics do). Remember, though, that sola Scriptura is the view that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith, over against the Church and tradition (for elaboration on the [Protestant] definition, see my Introduction to my first book devoted to sola Scriptura). Therefore, if we see St. John Chrysostom adhering to the binding authority of Church or tradition or apostolic succession elsewhere, then it follows that he does not believe in Scripture alone as the rule of faith (since if he did, he wouldn't have appealed to other non-scriptural sources).
Jason Engwer, an anti-Catholic Internet apologist, has used the same passage for the same purpose. The same tired "patristic falsehoods" are recycled over and over in the anti-Catholic world. It so happens that I have already written a paper demonstrating that St. John Chrysostom did not believe in sola Scriptura. I wrote:
St. John Chrysostom's own position is not sola Scriptura, and this can easily be shown. He also accepts an authoritative oral tradition that isn't (by definition) even written; therefore, the furthest thing from sola Scriptura and the Bible alone as ultimate authority. Furthermore, he grounds such authority in the testimony of Scripture itself (just as I, as a Catholic apologist and critic of sola Scriptura, have done, and would do). To show this is a rather easy matter. In fact, it can be demonstrated from St. John Chrysostom's homilies on other epistles of Paul . . .
And here is the proof from St. John Chrysostom:
Since then he had already admonished them concerning these things when present, and some perhaps listened to him and others disobeyed; therefore in his letter also again, he foments the place, like a physician, by his mode of addressing them, and so corrects the offence. For that he had heretofore admonished them in person is evident from what he begins with. Why else, having said nothing of this matter any where in the Epistle before, but passing on from other accusations, doth he straightway say, “Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you?”
. . . "That ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you." It appears then that he used at that time to deliver many things also not in writing, which he shows too in many other places. But at that time he only delivered them, whereas now he adds an explanation of their reason: thus both rendering the one sort, the obedient, more steadfast, and pulling down the others' pride, who oppose themselves.
(Homily XXVI on 1 Corinthians; commenting on 1 Cor 11:2)
He comments in similar fashion on the related verse, 2 Thessalonians 2:15:
"So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours."
Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken.
(On Second Thessalonians, Homily IV)
Concerning the "sacred writers" and St. Paul in particular, he stated:
. . . it was no object with them to be writers of books: in fact, there are many things which they have delivered by unwritten tradition.
(On Acts of the Apostles, Homily 1)
For many things he delivered to him without writing. Of these therefore he reminds him, when he says, “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me.”
(Homily III on 2 Timothy - on 2 Tim 1:13-18)
More proofs can be found in the paper aforementioned. Whitaker is guilty of ultra-selective citation and ignoring of many other relevant passages from the same father, that exhibit his full view of authority. It's an extremely common tactic in Protestant "patristic apologetics." Jason Engwer has done this over and over. David T. King and William Webster, authors of a three-volume set on sola Scriptura, do the same thing. It's an entrenched (and, thankfully, easily refuted) methodology.
For the same reason Augustine affirms, that "whatever belongs to faith and moral life may be found in the scriptures" and he calls the scripture the scales, in the following passage: "Let us not apply deceitful scales, where we may weigh what we wish, and as we wish; but let us bring God''s own scales from the holy scriptures," etc. (p. 28)
Whitaker gives us no source, so I will simply refer to a past paper of mine that gave several passages from St. Augustine, showing his acceptance of the binding authority of Church and tradition. See also my debate with Jason Engwer, Part 1, section VIII, on St. Augustine's views.
My good friend Paul Hoffer tracked down these quotes and made a great reply in the combox below, that I will cite here:
Part of the quote comes from On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 9:14:For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life—to wit, hope and love[.]
The second part comes from On Baptism, Against the Donatists 6:9:Let us not bring in deceitful balances, to which we may hang what weights we will and how we will, saying to suit ourselves, "This is heavy and this is light;" but let us bring forward the sacred balance out of holy Scripture, as out of the Lord's treasure-house, and let us weigh them by it, to see which is the heavier; or rather, let us not weigh them for ourselves, but read the weights as declared by the Lord.
What is funny about this latter quote is that it comes from Saint Augustine's work which upholds the authority of the universal Church councils over local ones as is seen in Chapter 9:14:Wherefore let the Donatists consider this one point, which surely none can fail to see, that if the authority of Cyprian is to be followed, it is to be followed rather in maintaining unity than in altering the custom of the Church; but if respect is paid to his Council, it must at any rate yield place to the later Council of the universal Church, of which he rejoiced to be a member, often warning his associates that they should all follow his example in upholding the coherence of the whole body. For both later Councils are preferred among later generations to those of earlier date; and the whole is always, with good reason, looked upon as superior to the parts.
Whitaker decried cherrypicking quotes earlier, but here he did it himself! Moreover, I see another problem Whitaker has in quoting Augustine. The reason that Augustine considers the Scriptures to be authoritative is because they were passed down from the apostolic succession of the bishops:Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of Catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles.(On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8:12)Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things. But if both readings, or all of them (if there are more than two), give a meaning in harmony with the faith, it remains to consult the context, both what goes before and what comes after, to see which interpretation, out of many that offer themselves, it pronounces for and permits to be dovetailed into itself.
(On Christian Doctrine, Book III, 2:2)
In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind.
(Contra Faustum 11:5)
So Basil calls the sacred doctrine "the canon of rectitude and rule of truth," which fails in no part of perfection . . . (p. 28)
But this proves nothing with regard to sola Scriptura. Scripture is true . . . it always teaches truth.
Whitaker then proceeds to deal with issues of the canon, including an interesting aside on p. 33 where he (on the side of the angels in this instance) noted that Anabaptists ridiculed and rejected the book of Job and thought it non-canonical, on the basis that it was a mere fable or allegory (the latter opinion was held also by Martin Luther, according to some versions of his Table-Talk). He refutes this by citing Ezekiel 14:14, which mentions Job as historical, along with Noah and Daniel, and concludes, "Hence it is manifest that this was a true history, and that the book itself is canonical, and that they who determine otherwise are to be esteemed as heretics."
Bravo! This shows how divided Protestants are: one of innumerable examples. The Anabaptists got it wrong; Luther may have been so wrong (if in fact he thought that Job was a fable, as his contemporary Aurifaber recorded) that Whitaker in effect classified him as a "heretic" in consequence, and the Anglican Whitaker was correct, since he followed orthodox canonical tradition (insofar, that is, as Catholics and Protestants agree on the Old Testament canon, for all but seven disputed books).
It is not my intention in this series to delve into the issue of the deuterocanonical books and Whitaker's treatment, but I wanted to note in passing how Whitaker does not give the full picture of St. Athanasius' views on the topic. He states:
Athanasius says, in his Synopsis: "Our whole scripture is divinely inspired, and hath books not infinite in number, but finite, and comprehended in a certain canon." There was, therefore, at that time a fixed canon of scripture. He subjoins: "Now these are the books of the old Testament." Then he enumerates ours, and no others, and concludes: "The canonical books of the old testament are two and twenty, equal in number to the Hebrew letters." But, in the meanwhile, what did he determine concerning the rest? Why, he plainly affirms them to be uncanonical. For thus he proceeds: "But, besides these, there are also other non-canonical books of the old Testament, which are only read to the catechumens." Then he names the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, the fragments of Esther, Judith, Tobit." These," says he, "are the non-canonical books of the old Testament." For Athanasius makes no account of the books of Maccabees. (p. 57)
The actual facts of the matter were not nearly so straightforward or simple. For one thing, when St. Athanasius makes his list of books in the canon (Letter 39), he refers to "Jeremiah with Baruch" (and omitted Esther altogether). Baruch is one of the books of the deuterocanon, or what Protestants call "the Apocrypha." Thus, Whitaker has again misrepresented what a Church father taught. He had said that St. Athanasius (in the passage he refers to) "enumerates ours, and no others." St. Athanasius included Baruch in his canonical list; Whitaker either missed it or ignored this fact. Yet he deals with Baruch on pages 67-70, and never mentions that Athanasius accepted its canonicity. He somehow misses that, while observing, similarly:
. . . I acknowledge that some testimonies are cited from this book by the fathers; and I add too that some of them believed this piece to be a part of Jeremiah. And, in truth, this book does seem preferable to the rest of the apocrypha: for everything in it, whether we consider the matter or the style, appears more august and suitable to the sacred character than in the other books. Nevertheless, the book is apocryphal, as you shall hear. There is no consequence in this reasoning: Some fathers thought this book a part of Jeremiah, therefore it is a part of Jeremiah. For those fathers were in error, as is manifest. (pp. 67-68)
But St. Athanasius is so esteemed by Protestants, and so often "co-opted" by them (second only to Augustine in this respect), perhaps Whitaker couldn't bring himself to see that he, too, was guilty of this error that he decried. Or this fact was conveniently overlooked (which is perhaps the most charitable view one could take).
My good friend, Catholic apologist Gary Michuta, has written the best book today about the deuterocanon: Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Port Huron, Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007). Here is some additional facts that he discovered regarding St. Athanasius and the canon question:
Athanasius quotes both Baruch and Susanna right along passages from Isaiah, Psalms, Romans, and Hebrews; he makes no distinction or qualification between them [1]. Wisdom also is used as an authentic portion of sacred Scripture . . .:But of these and such like inventions of idolatrous madness, Scripture taught us beforehand long ago, when it said, 'The devising of idols, as the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them, the corruption of life . . .' [Ws 14:12] [2]And later in the same work:For since they were endeavouring to invest with what Scripture calls the incommunicable name . . . [3]This reference to the "incommunicable name" comes from Wisdom 14:21 . . .
Athanasius quotes another passage from Wisdom as constituting the teachings of Christ, the Word of God. He undoubtedly uses it to confirm doctrine. [4] In another argument against Arians, he calls both the Protocanonical Proverbs and the Deuterocanonical Wisdom "holy Scripture" . . . [5] . . .
Athanasius also quotes the book of Sirach without distinction or qualification, in the midst of several other scriptural quotations. [6] . . . Athanasius calls the Book of Judith Scripture. [7] Tobit is cited right along with several Protocanonical quotations [8] , and even introduced with the solemn formula "it is written." [9]
[1] Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 1.12.
[2] Against the Heathen, 11.1. Emphasis added.
[3] Against the Heathen, 1, 17.3.
[4] On the Incarnate Word, 4.6; 5.2.
[5] Defense Against Arius, 1, 3.
[6] Life of Anthony, 28 and Apology Against the Arians, 66.
[7] Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 2.35 . . .
[8] Defense of Constantius, 17. Tobit is cited after Matthew and Isaiah.
[9] Defense Against Arius, Part 1, 11.
(pp. 110-112; footnote numbering my own)
The great Protestant Bible scholar F. F. Bruce confirms Michuta's analysis:
As Athanasius includes Baruch and the 'Letter of Jeremiah' in one book with Jeremiah and Lamentations, so he probably includes the Greek additions to Daniel in the canonical book of that name, and the additions to Esther in the book of that name which he recommends for reading in church . . .
In practice Athanasius appears to have paid little attention to the formal distinction between those books which he listed in the canon and those which were suitable for instruction of new Christians. He was familiar with the text of all, and quoted from them freely, often with the same introductory formula -- 'as it is written', 'as the scripture says', etc.
(The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 79-80)
See also the related article, Did Athanasius Reject the Deuterocanon?, by Sam Entile.
***
.jpg)
