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.
* * *
His third general argument is from the practice of the church in councils, and the testimonies of the fathers: and here he makes a large enumeration of councils by which controversies were decided. I answer, that I do not understand what concern all these have with the argument. For we allow that it is a highly convenient way of finding the true sense of scripture, for devout and learned men to assemble, examine the cause diligently, and investigate the truth; yet with this proviso, that they govern their decision wholly by the scriptures. Such a proceeding we, for our parts, have long wished for; for it is attended with a twofold advantage: first, that what is sought by many is found the more readily; second, that errors, and heretics the patrons of errors, are the more easily repressed, when they are condemned by the common consent and judgment of a great number. (p. 434)
This is about as good as we can expect from Whitaker. He almost "gets" it, but then stops short in one respect. One has to read in-between the lines, but taken together with other things he says, when he states, "yet with this proviso, that they govern their decision wholly by the scriptures," we may regard this as a mile-wide loophole. For the individual Protestant (filled with the Holy Spirit, of course, per Whitaker's subjectivistic outlook) simply has to judge that the council was "unbiblical" here or there and reject it accordingly.
This is always what Protestantism comes down to, and it is inevitable once notions of infallible councils, Church, and popes are rejected (a root premise of sola Scriptura). Thus, Protestants like Whitaker will always give lip service to councils, bishops, the Church fathers, great theologians like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, but they reserve the right to judge and reject them at will: which can only lead to ecclesiological chaos and theological relativism, and indeed has in the Protestant world.
. . . the weightiest controversies have been determined and settled in councils, but not by the absolute authority of the council itself, but by the judgment and authority of scripture in the council. (p. 434)
Note how the sola Scriptura presumption is smuggled in.
Pious bishops never assembled to define a point themselves by their own authority, but by that of scripture. (p. 434)
Sometimes it was by their own authority. Note to aspiring apologists of any sort: use the word "never" very sparingly. It'll come back to haunt you! The most obvious example of councils deciding a question (mostly) without the aid of Scripture, was the determination of the canon of Scripture. Since the Bible never lists its own books, this necessarily had to be a decision that was not based on the Bible. At best, once could note as internal evidence New Testament citations of Old Testament books as "Scripture." But that only goes so far. Peter calls Paul's writings "Scripture" but doesn't say which ones are. Therefore, in large part it was purely a decision of ecclesiastical authority, based on the existing tradition of usage.
Therefore all religious councils have ascribed the supreme decision to the scriptures. Such we see to have been the case in Acts xv.; for there the maintainors of circumcision were refuted out of the Law of Moses. (p. 434)
This was not the case at all, as I proved in Part 11. The only Scripture we know of that was cited (by James), was a general treatment of the Gentiles, and never mentioned circumcision (Acts 15:15-18). Moreover, it was a citation (according to my copy of the RSV) of prophets (Am 9:11-12; Jer 12:15; Is 45:21) -- as James himself states in 15:15 --, not "the Law of Moses" . Whitaker is engaging in pure fantasy here; inventing things supposedly part of a Bible passage out of whole cloth, with no textual support whatsoever. It's a spectacle to behold. It's as if he merely skimmed Acts 15 and is unaware of what is in it.
Let us now see how the case stands with the fathers. In the first place he objects to us Irenaeus, contra haer. [Against Heresies] Lib. iii. c. 2, where, he says, that father lays it down that controversies cannot be determined out of the scriptures alone, because they are variously expounded by heretics; and that therefore, in the next chapter, he sends the heretics against whom he disputes to the Roman church, and shews them that controversies are to be determined by the doctrine of that church. I answer: Whoever will look at the place itself in Irenaeus, will readily perceive the fraud and prevarication of the Jesuit. For there Irenaeus finds fault with those heretics with whom he was engaged, on the very score of not receiving the scriptures, but rather pressing and adhering to tradition. Now their reason was, that scripture admits various senses and no fixed interpretation. (p. 438)
Let's look at Book III, Chapter 2:
1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." 1 Corinthians 2:6 And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
"Tradition" here is referring to false, heretical tradition. Irenaeus then notes how this heretical tradition is set against Scripture, and that the heretics deny that "the truth was not delivered by means of written documents." It is very easy to refute heretics from the Scripture. I've been doing it for thirty years: starting with an in-depth refutation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.. . .
Now St. Irenaeus refers to true, apostolic tradition and apostolic succession, which he regards as decisive. The heretics in turn reject that, because they know better and have a subjective grasp of truth without necessary need of the apostolic tradition and the Church: precisely as Whitaker argues is the norm and rule of faith in Protestantism. Thus, Protestants have adopted the heretical rule of faith rather than the Catholic one. Whitaker isn't even consistent with his own stated principles. He argues that everything comes down to Scripture, yet the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was a counter-example of that rule.
Whitaker claims that he grounds all his arguments in Scripture, yet when he looks at Acts 15, he invents things that are not present in the passage at all, thus showing that he will treat Scripture itself with contempt if it doesn't teach exactly what he wants it to teach. We Catholics, on the other hand, can follow Scripture wherever it leads: including to an infallible Church, a pope, and apostolic succession and authoritative tradition (all of which notions are found there).
It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
The heretics rejected the authority of apostolic tradition ( a thing that St. Irenaeus casually takes for granted); so do Protestants (giving it only lip service at best, but rejecting it as they wish). Protestants then assert sola Scriptura and claim to have an unrivaled devotion to Holy Scripture as the final norm and only infallible authority and rule of faith. Yet they ignore all in Scripture that doesn't suit them, eisegete, engage in extremely selective and arbitrary prooftexting tactics (as Whitaker has been doing throughout his book) while ignoring context, and often, different literary styles and linguistic factors.
They gloss over the fact that the Bible itself teaches about an authoritative Church and apostolic succession and tradition. They allow radically contradictory treatments of the same Scripture, and denominations, pretending that the former is not theological relativism, and the latter not violently opposed to the biblical teaching of One Church and one faith only. So in the end, all is not what it seems. Who really respects Holy Scripture the most?
St. Irenaeus, elsewhere in the same work, teaches a full acceptance of the authority of Church and tradition:
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
(Against Heresies, III, 4, 1; ANF, Vol. I)
. . . carefully preserving the ancient tradition . . . by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.
(Ibid., III, 4, 2)
And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out.
(Ibid., IV, 32, 1)
Such passages in St. Irenaeus are countless, they are so prevalent . . .
Chrysostom follows in the fifth place, who, in his last Homily upon St John, says that Peter was set as a master over the whole world by Christ. I answer, but not as sole master. Neither does this avail anything towards establishing the pope's authority. For Chrysostom does not say that the pope was set as a master over the world. (p. 440)
Here is the reference (Homily 88; from the comment on John 21:19):
Here again He alludes to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say,How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.
Whitaker employs the usual Protestant tactic of denying that Peter had successors; therefore, his case has no relevance to the papacy. But here he is applying this mentality to St. John Chrysostom, as if it were his opinion. In other words, now it is a factual determination: one must see what the great saint and preacher believed on that score. Does he state that Peter had successors, in which case the prerogatives of Peter would descend upon them as well? The answer is yes:
For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors.
(The Priesthood, Book II, 1, NPNF1, 9:39)
If Peter was a teacher of the world, and he had successors, then it follows that the successors (popes) were also teachers of the world. So what Chrysostom says of Peter, applies also to the popes who continue his role and office, in succession, as in the following:
For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church in capable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as "a brazen pillar, and as a wall;" Jeremiah 1:18 but him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world.
I would fain inquire then of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven. "For heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35 How then is He less, who has given such gifts, has effected such things?
(Homily 54 on Matthew, 3)
Likewise, in many other passages, we find the same:
Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race form the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness.
(Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])
The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider's web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world.
(In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])
After that grave fall (for there is no sin equal to denial) after so great a sin, He brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the headship of the universal church, and, what is more than all, He showed us that he had a greater love for his master than any of the apostles, for saith he: 'Peter lovest thou Me more than these?'
(Hom 5 de Poen 2, vol II, 308[311])
Peter, the coryphaeus of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that company, the ruler [Greek] of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the fervent lover of Christ (for He said: 'Peter, lovest thou Me more than these?') I speak his praises, that you may learn that he truly loves Christ, for the care of Christ's servants is the greatest proof of devotion to Him; and it is not I who say this, but the beloved Master: 'If thou lovest Me,' saith He, 'Feed My sheep.' Let us see whether he has truly the primacy [Greek] of a shepherd, whether he really cares for and truly loves the sheep and is a lover of the flock, that we may know he also loves the Shepherd.
(In illud, scitote quod in noviss, diebus, 4, vol VI, 275[282-3])
God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler of the whole world [Greek], that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying, 'Simon, Simon, how often hath Satan desired to sift thee as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy strength fail not, and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren'.
(Hom quod frequenter conveniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[329])
When he is told, 'Thou canst not follow Me now,' he says, 'Though all should deny Thee, yet will not I deny.' Because, then, it appeared likely he would be puffed up even to madness, since he practiced contradicting, He warns him not to rebel. This is what Luke refers to when he says that Christ said: 'And I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not,' viz. that it may not be lost to the end, throughout teaching him humility, and proving that human nature is nothing by itself. For since his great love made him contradictory, He moderates him, that he might not in the future have the same fault, when he should receive the government of the world, but that remembering his fault he might know himself.
(Hom 73[72] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 395[429])
For more along these lines, see the magnificent compilation of Dom John Chapman, "St. John Chrysostom on the Apostle Peter," from his book, Studies on the Early Papacy.
Whitaker continues in this fashion, trying to shoot down numerous examples of Church fathers writing on the rule of faith (which was then exactly what it is now in the Catholic Church). Frankly, I don't have the patience to wade through all of them. I'd rather deal with his attempted arguments from Scripture: where the battle is truly met with Protestants, since they can always dismiss any Church father or any argument of same, but cannot do so with the Bible. The two examples above from two very prominent fathers are typical and plainly show how Whitaker has misrepresented the facts of the matter, by sophistry and highly selective citation. Whitaker ends the section with the following smug, flippant remark:
I pass over Anselm and Bernard, and excuse them, considering the time they lived in, if perchance they ascribed some extravagant prerogatives to the Roman pontiff. If he had produced even more numerous and stringent arguments than these, yet, since they are merely human, they could make no reason of demonstrative force. (p. 444)
Whitaker, of course, forgets that his entire book is "merely human" as well, so why bother writing it, since it can never be "demonstrative"? Protestants, it seems, so often exempt themselves from the criticisms they make of others: usually ones far more eminent than themselves, as presently, with Whitaker picking away and allegedly "refuting" St. Robert Bellarmine and many Church fathers, or spinning the opinions of the latter, so that they are magically transformed into "proto-Protestants." This has been standard Protestant apologetic fare regarding the fathers ever since. And it is uniformly a dismal failure and untrue to the documented facts of patristic history.
***
.jpg)
