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.
* * *
Here we have to inquire, whether the scripture contained in the books of the old and new Testaments comprehend a full and perfect body of teaching, or whether unwritten traditions are requisite to complete this necessary doctrine. In this place, therefore, we have to dispute against the popish traditions, about which they are no less anxious than about the scriptures themselves, which they defend with the most eager vehemence, and in which they repose much greater confidence than in the scriptures. (p. 496)
We observe for the thousandth time the usual false dichotomy. Unable to comprehend that the authority of Scripture - Church - Tradition as a "three-legged stool" is upheld by Scripture itself, Whitaker must distort the Catholic (biblical, historical, patristic) view and pretend that we place tradition "much" higher than the Bible. The same thing occurs in the discussion about faith. Since we dare to talk about works organically connected with faith, just as St. Paul incessantly does, we are falsely accused, of course, of believing in works salvation and of being Pelagians.
This is because the classic Protestant mind cannot comprehend biblical paradox and the harmony of all things in Scripture. In the final analysis, faith and works are no more opposed in Scripture than tradition and Scripture are. But when folks start thinking in terms of dichotomy, then it is pretended that opposition exists where there is none. Human traditions trump biblical truth once again.
Assuredly they do find more support in them than in the scriptures. These traditions they call divine, sacred, holy, apostolic, and ecclesiastical; but we style them human, secret, obscure, silent, unwritten. (pp. 496-497)
More dichotomies. Of course, there is indeed such a thing as merely human traditions (ones that oppose true doctrine); we see many of these in Protestantism. Sola Scriptura is one. Faith alone is another; denominations yet another; likewise, a symbolic Eucharist and a baptism devoid of regeneration. All false Protestant doctrines are traditions of men. And there is an altogether true, apostolic tradition, as the Bible frequently alludes to. But for Whitaker, "tradition" seems to be altogether a "dirty word" -- pure and simple. That is simply not a biblical worldview, as I have shown in this series and will continue to demonstrate.
The latter tradition (that there are four gospels and no more) does not rest merely upon unwritten teaching: for the books themselves indicate that they were written by divine inspiration; (p. 502)
But that tells us exactly nothing about whether there are four gospels or not.
and if these men seek to obtrude upon us more gospels, such gospels we can refute out of the scriptures. (p. 502)
How would one go about doing that? In the end, the canon was determined by tradition and Church authority. There is no way out of it. This has always been a thorny difficulty for the sola Scriptura position. I think it was the anti-Catholic Presbyterian luminary R. C. Sproul who was honest enough to admit that Protestants are necessarily left with a "fallible collection of infallible books."
But the papists affirm that the church can now prescribe some new article of faith, which had not been esteemed in former ages as a necessary dogma. That the virgin Mary was conceived without original sin, was formerly thought a free opinion, not a necessary part of faith: . . . But, at present, it is not permitted amongst papists to retain the ancient liberty of opinion upon this subject; and he is hardly deemed a catholic, who ascribes any even the slightest taint of sin to Mary. The university of Paris admits no one to any of the higher degrees in divinity, who does not solemnly swear both that he believes that Mary was conceived in immaculate purity, and that he will constantly persevere in the assertion of the spotless conception of the virgin. So Canus informs us, Lib. i. c. 7 (de Maria Deipara Virgine); which custom he says is also received and tenaciously adhered to in Spain and in other popish universities. This then is at the present day one great article of the popish faith; and it is a new article, because no such formerly was publicly received. (pp. 504-505)
Note that the Immaculate Conception of Mary is (rather fascinatingly) described as a view considered to be binding among Catholics. Whitaker's book was written in 1588. This is proof from a hostile witness that there are varying levels of infallible authority in Catholicism short of ex cathedra definition (which in this instance occurred in 1854). Less informed anti-Catholics will argue that the Immaculate Conception was invented out of whole cloth in the 19th century. It's not so. I have shown the same about the doctrine of papal infallibility, as reported by St. Francis de Sales in roughly the same time period (it was defined ex cathedra in 1870). This has to do with slow development of doctrine and the deliberation of centuries on doctrines. Likewise, the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and of Christology developed for several centuries in the early Church.
The fourth rule is not more certain than the rest, and is to this effect: When the doctors of the church, whether assembled in council, or writing it in their books, affirm something to have descended from apostolical authority, it is to be held apostolical. He gives, as an example of the former sort, that the fathers assembled in the second council of Nice taught the worship of images to be an apostolical tradition. . . . For Gregory the great, in the ninth Epistle of his seventh book of Epistles 3, says that, although images should not be broken, yet the people should be carefully taught and admonished not to worship them; as, indeed, many churches to this day retain images, but worship them not. However, it is much more prudent and safe to remove them altogether. Thus the worship of images is not an apostolic, but an antichristian tradition, if we believe pope Gregory the first. (p. 509)
Whitaker distorts what was decreed, and Gregory's opinions. What was sanctioned was veneration of images, not worship of them in the sense of adoration (reserved for God alone). Thus, Gregory defends the same thing. He wrote to an iconoclast bishop, Serenus of Marseilles, who had had images destroyed:
For indeed it had been reported to us that, inflamed with inconsiderate zeal, you had broken images of saints, as though under the plea that they ought not to be adored . And indeed in that you forbade them to be adored, we altogether praise you; but we blame you for having broken them. Say, brother, what priest has ever been heard of as doing what you have done? If nothing else, should not even this thought have restrained you, so as not to despise other brethren, supposing yourself only to be holy and wise? For to adore a picture is one thing, but to learn through the story of a picture what is to be adored is another. For what writing presents to readers, this a picture presents to the unlearned who behold, since in it even the ignorant see what they ought to follow; in it the illiterate read. Hence, and chiefly to the nations , a picture is instead of reading. And this ought to have been attended to especially by you who livest among the nations, lest, while inflamed inconsiderately by a right zeal, you should breed offense to savage minds. And, seeing that antiquity has not without reason admitted the histories of saints to be painted in venerable places, if you had seasoned zeal with discretion, you might undoubtedly have obtained what you were aiming at, and not scattered the collected flock, but rather gathered together a scattered one; that so the deserved renown of a shepherd might have distinguished you, instead of the blame of being a scatterer lying upon you. But from having acted inconsiderately on the impulse of your feelings you are said to have so offended your children that the greatest part of them have suspended themselves from your communion.
(Epistles, Book XI, Letter 13)
Furthermore we notify to you that it has come to our ears that your Fraternity, seeing certain adorers of images, broke and threw down these same images in Churches. And we commend you indeed for your zeal against anything made with hands being an object of adoration; but we signify to you that you ought not to have broken these images. For pictorial representation is made use of in Churches for this reason; that such as are ignorant of letters may at least read by looking at the walls what they cannot read in books. Your Fraternity therefore should have both preserved the images and prohibited the people from adoration of them, to the end that both those who are ignorant of letters might have wherewith to gather a knowledge of the history, and that the people might by no means sin by adoration of a pictorial representation.
(Epistles, Book IX, Letter 105)
There is no contradiction here. Both the council and the pope upheld veneration but not idolatrous adoration of images. Gregory the Great was also a great advocate of devotion to relics (even more objectionable to Protestants than images):
[W]e have handed over, according to your Excellency’s request, with the reverence due to them, certain relics of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul. But, that laudable and religious devotion may be more and more conspicuous among you, you must see that these benefits of the saints be deposited with reverence and due honour, . . .
(Epistle L. To Queen Brunichild, Queen of the Franks; NPNF 2, Vol. XII)
Here is what the Second Council of Nicaea (787) decreed about veneration of images and icons, according to Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff:
The Nicene Council nullified the decrees of the iconoclastic Synod of Constantinople, and solemnly sanctioned a limited worship (proskynesis) of images.Under images were understood the sign of the cross, and pictures of Christ, of the Virgin Mary, of angels and saints. They may be drawn in color or composed of Mosaic or formed of other suitable materials, and placed in churches, in houses, and in the street, or made on walls and tables, sacred vessels and vestments. Homage may be paid to them by kissing, bowing, strewing of incense, burning of lights, saying prayers before them; such honor to be intended for the living objects in heaven which the images represented. The Gospel book and the relics of martyrs were also mentioned among the objects of veneration.The decree was fortified by a few Scripture passages about the Cherubim (Ex. 25:17–22; Ezek. 41:1, 15, 19; Heb. 9:1–5), and a large number of patristic testimonies,. . .
(History of the Christian Church, Vol. IV, Ch. X, § 102. The Restoration of Image-Worship by the Seventh OecumenicalCouncil, 787)
Schaff informs the reader of the important fact of the Greek term used (proskynesis). This has a biblical pedigree. So does use of images in worship. The ancient Hebrews utilized the pillar of cloud as a worship tool (to worship God, not a cloud):
Exodus 33:8-10 (RSV) Whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people rose up, and every man stood at his tent door, and looked after Moses, until he had gone into the tent. [9] When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the door of the tent, and the LORD would speak with Moses. [10] And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the door of the tent, all the people would rise up and worship, every man at his tent door. [see more on this; cf. 2 Kings 19:14-15; 1 Chronicles 16:1-2, 4]
Joshua prayed to God using the devotional aid of the ark of the covenant:
Joshua 7:6-7 Then Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD until the evening, he and the elders of Israel; and they put dust upon their heads. [7] And Joshua said, "Alas, O Lord GOD, why hast thou brought this people over the Jordan at all, to give us into the hands of the Amorites, to destroy us? Would that we had been content to dwell beyond the Jordan!"
See also my paper: Explicit Biblical Evidence for the Veneration of Angels and Men as Direct Representatives of God for much more along these lines. Also, for a great historical treatment, see: History of the Iconoclastic (Image Breaking) Heresy (Phil Porvaznik). Where Whitaker sees conflict, there is none, neither in fathers and councils, nor in Catholic teaching, in relation to biblical revelation. According to the Bible and Catholic tradition, veneration of images is good and to be encouraged. But Whitaker (in fine Protestant anti-traditional form) knows better: "it is much more prudent and safe to remove them altogether."
We say, in the first place, that every thing which the apostles either taught or did is not contained in the books of the old and new Testaments. We allow besides, that Christ said and did many things which are not written. Out of twelve apostles seven wrote nothing, who yet orally taught, and did many things in many places; for they were commanded to go into all the world, and preach the gospel to all nations: which command they sedulously performed. Indeed, it is plain from the last chapter of John, that all the things which Christ did are not committed to writing. (p. 513)
This is a significant admission, that allows the door of tradition to open wide indeed. Yet in every particular, Whitaker will back away from it. His view is ultimately incoherent.
But we say that all things that are necessary, whether they regard either faith or practice, are plainly and abundantly explained in the scriptures. (p. 513)
Yet sola Scriptura (the very subject of his book) is not (it's not found at all; I contend); nor is sola fide (faith alone). And these are the two infamous "pillars" of the so-called "Reformation." Ironies and radical inconsistencies always abound whenever a Protestant condemns traditions (actually or allegedly) not found in the Bible.
Hence we say that the sum of our religion is written, being precisely the same as the teaching of those apostles who wrote nothing. For those who wrote not taught absolutely the same gospel as those who wrote: all preached the same Christ, and the same gospel, and the same way of salvation. (p. 513)
But that is a bald assumption with no proof. It is basically believed in faith, but is not consistent with the Protestant outlook against extrabiblical tradition. This is more akin to Catholic thought (same Christ, same gospel), though Whitaker seems to be unaware of that as he writes it.
Although indeed the precise words which they spoke are not extant, yet, as far as the thing itself and subject-matter is concerned, that same unwritten preaching of the apostles is found in scripture: all the words, indeed, of Peter, John and the rest, are not written down, yet the substance of that teaching which those apostles delivered is found in the scriptures. (pp. 513-514)
Catholics agree that unwritten tradition is harmonious with Scripture (same in substance); we deny, however, that it is identical to it and never goes beyond it, in content. This is the present disagreement. It seems rather obvious that the apostles were not "Scripture machines" whose every word was either Scripture or the same exact thoughts that are found in Scripture. The latter notion can't be proven and is an unsubstantiated assumption: yet another tradition of men. It certainly isn't taught in Scripture. Protestants simply "came up with" it because they can't comprehend or imagine an extrabiblical authentic Christian tradition (even though sola Scriptura is exactly that: it is in fact extrabiblical, but they erroneously regard it as authentic "biblical" teaching).
Thus, although Christ said and did many things which are not written, yet the sum of all Christ's words and works is consigned in the monuments of scripture. . . . although every single thing they said and did be not written (for which no books would have been sufficient), yet nothing necessary hath been omitted; and, when the chief heads and doctrines are written so clearly, it might be said with perfect truth that all is written. He who compares these unwritten things with the written, does only in other words praise the written teaching. (p. 514)
None of this can be proven at all; Scripture never states any of this. It's special pleading of the worst and most insubstantial sort. Whitaker simply grabbed it out of thin air. Therefore, it is itself an unbiblical tradition, and for the Protestant, such utterances carry no infallible authority; thus, Whitaker cuts the limb off that he was sitting on.
But if he [Bellarmine] mean under the term expressly to include what is inferred and deduced by necessary argument from the scriptures, we accept his statement. For if that which is directly laid down in scripture be true, then that also which is deduced from it by necessary consequence must needs be true also. (p. 514)
This is not unlike a statement of material sufficiency of Scripture, that I and many Catholics wholeheartedly accept. That is: all Christian, Catholic doctrines can be found in Scripture, explicitly, implicitly, or deduced from same. And all Catholic doctrines are certainly harmonious with Scripture. My apologetics career has this very emphasis.
Thus, to comprise the whole matter in a few words, we say that all things appertaining to faith and morals may be learned and derived from scripture, so as that traditions are in no way requisite. (p. 515)
This is exactly why I vigorously reject sola Scriptura, sola fide, denominationalism, symbolic-only sacraments, and other false Protestant doctrines.
***
.jpg)
