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.
* * *
Those who are esteemed the most skilful and the best learned, now deny that they make the scripture inferior to the church; for so Bellarmine and others openly profess, and complain that they are treated injuriously by us in this respect. But, that they make the authority of scripture depend upon the church, and so do in fact make the scripture inferior to the church, and that we do them no injustice in attributing this to them, will appear from the words of their own theologians, and those not the meanest. (pp. 275-276)
This is priceless, ultra-typical anti-Catholic condescension. In effect, Whitaker argues, "Bellarmine, whom we have conceded, can ably, authoritatively speak for the Catholic Church, states that Catholics do not consider Scripture inferior to the Church, but we don't care about that, since others say otherwise, and we choose to follow their word because it agrees with our prior prejudiced preconceptions."
He correctly notes that Trent did not make a final judgment on this particular issue, but the next two ecumenical councils (Vatican I and II) did, and they entirely concur with Bellarmine's opinion (which should have been sufficient for Whitaker). I have written about this in the past. Here are the two conciliar statements (bolding my own, as throughout):
First Vatican Council (1870)
These the Church holds to be sacred and canonical; not because, having been carefully composed by mere human industry, they were afterward approved by her authority; not because they contain revelation, with no admixture of error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been delivered as such to the Church herself.
(Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, chapter II)
Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)
The divinely-revealed realities which are contained and presented in the text of sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For Holy Mother Church relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that they were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn. 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:15-16), they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.
(Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation [Dei Verbum], Chapter III, 11)
The key concept is the divine authorship of the Bible. Since God wrote the Bible, it is inspired revelation, and by no means inferior to Church authority. This notion was expressed at Trent (Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures), in a less explicit way than the above two conciliar proclamations:
. . . (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both -- . . .
God being the ultimate author, inspiring the human writers, obviously is a factor that occurs antecedently to any formation of the canon or involvement of men in that regard. It is what makes Scripture what it is: not the proclamation of men. It is what it is prior to the declarations on the canon. The Catholic Church does not pretend to be superior to Holy Scripture.
Rather, to find that view, one must look to various Protestants; particularly Martin Luther (the founder of the entire movement), who made all sorts of snide, disparaging, outrageous remarks about various books, such as Esther, or (notoriously, James, Jude, and Revelation). At least Luther kept these books in his own translation of the Bible and in the canon (perhaps while grimacing and plugging his nose at a few of them). Fellow Protestant "reformer" Huldreich Zwingli, on the other hand, rejected the book of Revelation outright, saying that he "takes no account of it, for it is not a book of the Bible" (Werke, II, I, p. 1569, ed. Schuler; cited by Brooke Foss Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, sixth edition [1889], Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, p. 487).
So Whitaker falsely chides individual Catholics for views that the Church did not officially espouse, while ignoring the problems in his own Protestant house. What else is new in anti-Catholic polemics?
But other papists now begin to speak with somewhat greater caution and accuracy. Cochlaeus, in his Reply to Bullinger, chap. 2, avails himself of a distinction. He says that the scriptures are indeed in themselves firm, clear, perfect, and most worthy of all credit, as the work of God; but that, with regard to us, they need the approval and commendation of the church, on account of the depravity of our minds and the weakness of our understandings. (p. 277; my bolding)
This is true, and this is likely the sense or at least primary sense of others whom Whitaker cites, who may appear at face value to believe differently. The history of the formation of the canon bears out that, practically speaking, the authority of the Church was needed to settle the issue once and for all. The Bible books are not all self-attesting and self-evidently inspired, which is why there were many differences of opinion on the canon up to the late 4th century. But that is a different question from determinations of what is on a "higher plane": Church or Scripture. Whitaker himself at least shows that one of his opponents Stapleton, asserts this very thing:
So our countryman Stapleton explains this controversy through almost his whole ninth book of Doctrinal Principles. In the first chapter he examines the state of the question; where he says that the question is not, whether the scripture be in itself sacred and divine, but how we come to know that it is sacred and divine: and therefore he blames Calvin for stating the question wrongly, when he says that the papists affirm, that it depends upon the church what reverence is due to scripture. For (says he) the scriptures are in themselves worthy of all reverence, but, with regard to us, they would not by themselves have been held in such honour. This, says he, is a very different thing from making it depend upon the church, what books should be reckoned in the canon of scripture. The one (he adds) relates to the reverence due to scripture in itself; the other to the same reverence in respect to us. (p. 277)
As a good Protestant, however, Whitaker shows his inability to grasp "both/and" notions in his next remark. He has to make a false dichotomy ("either/or" thinking):
But, I beseech you, what is the difference between these two opinions, It depends upon the judgment of the church what reverence is due to scripture; and, It depends upon the judgment of the church what books are to be received into the canon; since that sacred scripture, to which divine reverence is due, is to be found only in the canonical books? The papists affirm the latter opinion; therefore, also the first. (pp. 277-278)
Whitaker confuses two things. The following two assertions (both held by the Catholic Church) are logically and categorically distinct:
1) Reverence is due to all books in Scripture because of its inherent status as a God-breathed, inspired revelation.
2) We know what books are in Scripture primarily because of the authoritative declaration of the Church declaring which books are canonical.
#1 does not necessarily depend on the prior assertion of #2. It can exist apart from it, on its own. And this is what Catholics contend. We assert the practical necessity of #2 and we also assert the inherent state of affairs of #1: Scripture is what it is prior to the Church declaring anything about the canon. Therefore, #1 can be held prior to knowledge of #2.The difference is highlighted by the phrases bolded above: "with regard to us" and "in respect to us." It is the difference between what a thing is in itself and how a given person receives it.
By analogy, a President or a King is what he is. But particular persons may personally encounter them without knowing that it is royalty or the highest executive officer in the land that they are encountering. They don't cease to be what they are based on someone's mistake as to their identification and estate. By the same token, our knowledge of which book is in the Bible and which isn't, has to do with us, but not with the inherent status of a biblical book. The Church declares what is already the case of its own accord, for the sake of the knowledge of the masses (just as we declare the saving message of the gospel). It is a clear and distinct difference between one idea and the other, yet Whitaker can't grasp it, and so collapses the two, and makes out that we are teaching what we do not teach.
Whitaker, almost despite himself, shows that he can almost accept (as "tolerable") the obvious distinction as a legitimate opinion:
To the same effect Andradius also writes, Defens. Trid. Con, Lib. iii., that the church does not give to scripture its authority, but only declares to us how great its authority is in itself. This opinion might appear tolerable, — that scripture is in itself a sacred and divine thing, but is not recognised as such by us, except upon the testimony of the church. But in the second book the same author speaks much more perversely . . . (p. 278)
What he can't personally comprehend (because of hostile presuppositions and illogical thinking), he must first caricature and then put down. This is also a classic anti-Catholic Protestant mentality:
And now we are well nigh in possession of the true state of the question, which is itself no slight advantage: for they speak in so perplexed, obscure, and ambiguous a manner, that one cannot easily understand what it is they mean. Now these assertions might seem not to deserve any severe reprehension, — that the scripture hath authority in itself, but that it cannot be certain to us except through the church. But we shall presently shew where the true steps and turning point of the controversy be. (p. 278)
He goes on to elaborate his opinion:
In the first place, we do not deny that it appertains to the church to approve, acknowledge, receive, promulge, commend the scriptures to all its members ; and we say that this testimony is true, and should be received by all. We do not, therefore, as the papists falsely say of us, refuse the testimony of the church, but embrace it. But we deny that we believe the scriptures solely on account of this commendation of them by the church. For we say that there is a more certain and illustrious testimony, whereby we are persuaded of the sacred character of these books, that is to say, the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, without which the commendation of the church would have with us no weight or moment. The papists, therefore, are unjust to us, when they affirm that we reject and make no account of the authority of the church. For we gladly receive the testimony of the church, and admit its authority; but we affirm that there is a far different, more certain, true, and august testimony than that of the church. The sum of our opinion is, that the scripture . . . hath all its authority and credit from itself; is to be acknowledged, is to be received, not only because the church hath so determined and commanded, but because it comes from God; and that we certainly know that it comes from God, not by the church, but by the Holy Ghost. (pp. 279-280)
But Catholics do not dispute the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, either. After all, the Church is made up of men, and in order for men to declare on the canon of Scripture, they must have reasons and knowledge beforehand as to what constitutes Scripture and what does not, and why this is so. And that knowledge includes certain characteristics of inspired books, and internal testimony from the Holy Spirit. Catholic councils possessed the same dynamic that the Jerusalem Council in the book of Acts. The decisions of men were their own, yet authoritatively, infallibly guided at the same time by God:
it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord . . . (15:25; RSV)
For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . . (15:28)
We don't deny that at all, but we say that men can get this wrong; therefore, the authority of the Church is practically necessary insofar as some (often, many) men (not all) err without it. It's also necessary for a unified view of the canon of Scripture, so there is no disagreement, as there was in the early centuries, where there are many instances of canonical books not being considered so, and non-canonical books being regarded as Scripture.
As so often, actually, the two positions -- rightly understood on both sides -- are not all that far apart, and not even essentially different. Whitaker states that Protestants do indeed accept the authority of the Church at some (sub-infallible) level, in the determination of the biblical canon. But he emphasizes internal testimony of the Spirit. We don't reject the latter, so there is no huge difference here; only a difference as to relative importance in the overall scheme of things (we emphasize the role of the Church more). But if Whitaker caricatures our position on the relationship of Church authority and Holy Scripture, and then denies that we also hold to internal testimony, then a difference is trumped-up where there is none, and hostility against supposed falsehood generated where it is unnecessary since there is substantial agreement.
Now by the church we understand not, as they do, the pastors, bishops, councils, pope; but the whole multitude of the faithful. For this whole multitude hath learned from the Holy Spirit that this scripture is sacred, that these books are divine. This persuasion the Holy Spirit hath sealed in the minds of all the faithful. The state of the controversy, therefore, is this: Whether we should believe that these scriptures which we now have are sacred and canonical merely on account of the church's testimony, or rather on account of the internal persuasion of the Holy Spirit; which, as it makes the scripture canonical and authentic in itself, makes it also to appear such to us, and without which the testimony of the church is dumb and inefficacious. (p. 280)
Note the stark false dichotomy drawn: it's either the testimony of the Church or "the internal persuasion of the Holy Spirit." Why must anyone choose between the two? Why can't men acknowledge both? This is what the Catholic Church does, but because Whitaker can't grasp our "both/and" outlook (following the biblical paradoxical worldview) he denies it and falsely attributes to us things we don't believe.
The key is the use of the word "merely" above. He makes out that Catholics believe in the Scripture only, or "merely" because of the Church's "testimony." This is where his fundamental error of analysis lies. He can't comprehend that anyone can hold both things to be true. Yet he understands that his fellow Protestants accept the input of the Church on the matter (though non-infallibly), while at the same time denying that we accept the presence of an internal testimony in men (though some get it wrong, as non-infallible individuals).
Secondly, internal testimony alone is not decisive, since we know from the facts of history in the first four centuries, that these great fathers whom both sides revere (though Catholics more than Protestants) did not in fact come to a total agreement on the canon. The agreement didn't come until the Church declared which books were canonical and which were not. Those are the facts of the matter. We can literally "test" whether his theory actually worked in real life, by examining the centuries before the canon was declared, to see what actually happened.
The reason there is substantial agreement now (apart from the seven disputed books of the Old Testament period) is precisely because the list of canonical books has become an entrenched, unquestioned tradition: so much so that even Protestants automatically, axiomatically accept it.
It's easy to say now (and also in Whitaker's time in the 16th century), with this historic background, which books are biblical, and then argue that each is accepted because of its internal testimony. No; they are accepted because they are listed as the books in the Bibles we purchase. It's as simple as that. And they are listed because the Church determined what the canon was, in history, after four centuries of reflection on the part of Christians (as individuals), who disagreed with respect to many books. In other words, the agreement did not come about wholly spontaneously among the mass of Christians, because of the work of the Holy Spirit in individual souls. It came about because the Church (by means of its grave conciliar deliberations) authoritatively spoke.
Accordingly, as soon as Protestants split off from the Catholic Church, they immediately started questioning some books: thus illustrating again that it was the historic Church that was the "glue" that held the canon together. Luther came close to rejecting four New Testament books and some in the Old Testament, such as Esther; Zwingli rejected Revelation; some Anabaptists threw out Job, etc. The opposition to the seven deuterocanonical books was greatly increased (arguably, Luther didn't like some books because of his acceptance of the heresy of soul-sleep). Therefore, before the declaration of the Church (late 4th century) and after infallible Church authority was rejected, there was inevitable disagreement on the canon.
He [Stapleton] subjoins that the authority of the church respects the scriptures only materially; which he explains to mean, that it is fitting we should obey the judgment of the church, and, on account of its judgment, receive the scripture as sacred. But it would not, says he, be fitting that the truth of scripture, or of other objects of faith, should so depend upon the judgment of the church, as that they should only be true on condition of the church's approving them; but now, says he, the church does not make them true in themselves, but only causes them to be believed as true. Mark ye. The scripture is true in itself, and all the doctrines of scripture are true; but they could not appear true to us, we could not believe the scriptures, unless the church approved the scripture and the doctrines of scripture. Although these things be true in themselves, yet they would not have seemed true to us, they would not have been believed, or (to use Stapleton's expression) received by us, unless on account of the church's approbation. (p. 281)
Again, Whitaker makes the basic category or logical error, in assuming that what Catholics are concerned about as a tendency or strong possibility (men en masse getting things wrong; in this instance, the biblical canon) is meant to be a necessary condition for one and all. The latter is not what we are asserting, as Whitaker should have known by his summaries of his opponents. But he superimposes onto them (and Catholics generally) some of his own views and his own "either/or" bad thinking.
We determine far otherwise, and with far greater truth: for we resolutely deny that we are indebted to the church for this — that the scriptures are true even in respect to us; but we say that our belief of their truth is produced by the testimony and suggestion of the Holy Spirit. (pp. 281-282)
The stark, "either/or" false dichotomy is again expressed . . .
All therefore that the papists allege tends substantially to make the whole authority of scripture depend upon the authority of the church, which nevertheless they deny: yet that this is the real meaning of their opinion is manifest from what hath been already said. (p. 283)
In other words, "the best representatives of our papist opponents deny x, yet nevertheless we assert (in our illogical stupefaction) that they teach x, because we know their doctrines and rationales for them better than they do themselves." Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? We Catholics are so confused that we can't even comprehend our own doctrines, and so we need our Protestant anti-Catholic overlords and superiors to interpret them to us, in their conspiratorial, pseudo-Gnostic wisdom of the "real meaning" of our inscrutable mysteries, so that we can understand what we believe with their necessary help. How charitable of them . . .
St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622), a Doctor of the Catholic Church, who lived shortly after Whitaker, confirms what I have been contending, in his Catholic Controversy, written in 1596:
But here is the difficulty. If these books were not from the beginning of undoubted authority in the Church, who can give them this authority? In truth the Church cannot give truth or certitude to the Scripture, or make a book canonical if it were not so, but the Church can make a book known as canonical, and make us certain of its certitude, and is fully able to declare that a book is canonical which is not held as such by every one, and thus to give it credit in Christendom; not changing the substance of the book which of itself was canonical, but changing the persuasion of Christians, making it quite assured where previously it had not been so. But how can the Church herself define that a book is canonical? — for she is no longer guided by new revelations but by the old Apostolic ones, of which she has infallibility of interpretation. And if the Ancients have not had the revelation of the authority of a book, how then can she know it? She considers the testimony of antiquity, the conformity which this book has with the others which are received, and the general relish which the Christian people find in it.
For as we can know what is a proper and wholesome food for animals when we see them fond of it and feed on it with advantage, so, when the Church sees that the Christian people heartily relishes a book as canonical and gains good from it, she may know that it is a fit and wholesome meat for Christian souls; and as when we would know whether one wine is of the same vintage as another we compare them, observing whether the colour, the smell and the taste are alike in the two, so when the Church has properly decided that a book has a taste, colour and smell — holiness of style, doctrine and mysteries — like to the other canonical books, and besides has the testimony of many good and irreproachable witnesses of antiquity, she can declare the book to be true brother of the other canonical ones.
And we must not doubt that the Holy Spirit assists the Church in this judgment: for your ministers themselves confess that God has given the Holy Scriptures into her charge, and say that it is on this account S. Paul calls her the pillar and ground of the truth [1 Tim 3:15] And how would she guard them if she could not know and separate them from the mixture of other books? And how important is it for the Church that she should be able to know in proper time and season which Scripture is holy and which not: for if she received such and such Scripture as holy and it was not, she would lead us into superstition; and if she refused the honour and belief which befit God's Word to a holy Scripture, it would be an impiety. If ever then Our Lord defends his Church against the gates of hell, if ever the Holy Spirit assisted her so closely that she could say: It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, — we must firmly believe that he inspires her on occasions of such great consequences as these; for it would indeed be to abandon her at her need if he left her at this juncture, on which depends not only an article or two of our faith, but the substance of our religion. When, therefore, the Church has declared that a book is canonical, we must never doubt but that it is so. We [are] here in the same position.
For Calvin and the very bibles of Geneva, and the Lutherans, receive several books as holy, sacred, and canonical which have not been acknowledged by all the Ancients as such, and about which there has been a doubt. If there has been a doubt formerly, what reason can they have to make them assured and certain nowadays, except that which S. Augustine had [as we said above]: "I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me;" and "We receive the New and the Old Testament in that number of books which the authority of the Holy Catholic Church determines." Truly we should be very ill assured if we were to rest our faith on these particular interior inspirations, of which we only know that they exist or ever did exist, by the testimony of some private persons. And granted that they are or have been, we do not know whether they are from the false or of the true spirit; and supposing they are of the true spirit, we do not know whether they who relate them, relate them faithfully or not, since they have no mark of infallibility whatever. We should deserve to be wrecked if we were to cast ourselves out of the ship of the public judgment of the Church, to sail in the miserable skiff of these new discordant private inspirations. Our faith would not be Catholic, but private. (pp. 110-113 in the above linked version)
Whitaker paraphrases (or quotes?) his opponent Stapleton, and in so doing, shows that he is not arguing as Whitaker would make out that Catholics or the Catholic Church in its official capacity argue:
He bestows his whole ninth book upon this question, and in the fourth chapter of that book commences his reasoning against us in this manner: To have a certain canon of scripture is most necessary to faith and religion. But without the authority of the church it is impossible to have a certain canon of scripture; since it cannot be clear and certain to us what book is legitimate, what supposititious, unless the church teach us. (p. 285)
Note that Stapleton (assuming Whitaker describes his position accurately) is not arguing that no one can ascertain a biblical book at all without the Church, but rather, that no one can be "certain" of the entire canon, and that it cannot be "clear and certain" -- these are two different propositions. Whitaker continually represents our position as supposedly holding that no one can know that Scripture is Scripture, period, unless the Church tells him it is so. But the certitude of faith and knowledge (which can be fallible) are two distinct things. The Catholic argument in this respect has to do with the former, not the latter, and with the practical and historical realities of Christians disagreeing with each other.
Basically, Whitaker misses the nuances and finer points and logical subtlety of Catholic arguments, and is bound by his "dichotomous" mindset (a view typical of Protestantism, so brilliantly examined by Louis Bouyer in his classic work, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism), and so misrepresents them and fights against straw men, insofar as his argument about the canon is concerned. Intelligent, thoughtful men never argue so poorly as when their biases get in the way: clouding their logical judgment.
Because of this, Whitaker sinks deeper and deeper into wars against straw men and caricatures, and so writes downright silly, virtually self-refuting things such as:
I am surprised that Stapleton should have been so stupid as not to see that, if it be God who teaches through the church, the authority of God must be greater than that of the church. He confesses that we are taught by God through the church : therefore, since God is the prime and highest teacher, it is evident that his authority and trustworthiness is the chief. For the church is only his minister, subserves him in giving instruction, and expounds his commands. (p. 286)
It does not therefore follow that because the church knows very well the voice of Christ, the authority of the church is greater than that of Christ. (p. 288)
As if any informed Catholic ever claimed that the Church has more authority than Christ Himself! . . .That's not the issue at all, but it makes great "copy", and makes Catholics look ridiculous, to (supposedly) believe such a patently absurd thing, doesn't it?
Meanwhile, throughout this section, he ignores the real issue, which is: "what to do when men disagree on the canon (or anything else in theology)?" "Who has the final say?" "Whence comes the complete unity and oneness of doctrine that the Bible so often enjoins?" These are practical issues of supreme importance. The Catholic "solution" (which we contend was already the teaching of the Bible) is an infallible Church guided in a unique fashion by the Holy Spirit, and apostolic succession. The Protestant (as Whitaker classically states) ultimately falls back to the individual: the "me, my Bible, and the Holy Spirit" mentality. That breaks down as soon as there is disagreement (as there always is), because falsehood and division are not from God: they are from the devil, the father of lies. Jesus said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Is this not all quite obvious? But these inherent difficulties are utterly ignored in this section.
Whitaker at this point turns to the supposedly completely self-attesting nature of Scripture, so that men are in no need of a Church to declare the canon. That falsehood will be critiqued in our next installment.
***
.jpg)
