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.
* * *
Since scripture therefore is concerned not merely with the words, but the true sense of the words, which we may rightly call the very life and soul of scripture; it is plain that this precept of Christ, wherein he bids us ''search the scriptures," is to be understood of the sense and meaning of the scriptures, and not of the bare words alone. Hence arises this question, concerning which we dispute with the papists, — Whence the true interpretation of scripture is to be sought ? Here we must seek first the state of the question; and then come to the arguments on both sides. The Tridentine fathers, in their fourth session, command that no one shall dare to interpret holy scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother church hath held, and holds, to whom (as they say) it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of scripture; or contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers. They seem, therefore, to determine that the interpretation of scripture is the privilege of the church, and that that is the true one which agrees with the fathers. (pp. 402-403)
Of course, because the Bible says that the Church is the "pillar and foundation [or, bulwark] of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). And the fathers always taught that the true theological position is the one that goes all the way back to the apostles and Christ, and is the consensus. That's how they invariably fought heretics: they cited Scripture, and then (trump card) appealed to apostolic succession and "what had always been believed" (St. Vincent of Lerins' "dictum").
This outlook was all thrown to the wind in the so-called "Reformation" (which was really a Revolt). They gave lip service to the fathers for a while, but then discovered that this was not a great strategy, since the fathers consistently bear witness to Catholic positions. Luther and Melanchthon at first cited St. Augustine in particular, with great enthusiasm, but at length grew tired of him because he contradicted them so often. But the Protestant Myth is that Protestantism supposedly restored what was before in the early Church. Hardly . . .
I again reiterate that the idea in Catholicism is not to run to the Church to understand every individual Bible verse (this is the Protestant caricature of our position in this regard). Rather, the Church provides an orthodox framework or parameter beyond which one may not go. For example, if one were to interpret John 14:28 (". . . the father is greater than I") in terms of Jesus being a mere creation and not God (as Jehovah's Witnesses and historic Arians habitually do and did), then the Church would say that this is impermissible since Jesus is God (hundreds of biblical indications), and that this referred to his lowering and humbling of Himself to become a man (cross-reference: Phil 2:5-8), while retaining His Divine Nature (Godhood or divinity or deity) all the while.
Scripture has to be interpreted with all of Scripture in mind, and also historic interpretation. Protestantism moves away from this state of affairs by taking away an infallible Church, and by emphasizing far too highly, individual "prooftexts" (as we have seen Whitaker do throughout his book). Heresy is always right around the corner if it is not held in check. If Church history teaches us nothing else, it teaches that.
But still the matter is left in doubt. (p. 403)
Of course. Heaven forbid that it should be otherwise . . . we must have needless discord and controversy.
For we inquire further, what is this church; and who are these fathers? (p. 403)
The Church had been perfectly identifiable for 1500 years, but all of a sudden, the "reformers" had the greatest difficulty figuring out what and where it was; and then they redefined it (as "invisible" and so forth) according to their own arbitrary whims and fancies. It's equally absurd for Whitaker to inquire as to the identity of the fathers, seeing that he has been citing them himself all through his book.
These things we do not wholly reject: we concede such things as allegory, anagoge, and tropology in scripture; but meanwhile we deny that there are many and various senses. We affirm that there is but one true, proper and genuine sense of scripture, arising from the words rightly understood, which we call the literal: and we contend that allegories, tropologies, and anagoges are not various senses, but various collections from one sense, or various applications and accommodations of that one meaning. . . . there is but one true and genuine sense of scripture, namely, the literal or grammatical, whether it arise from the words taken strictly, or from the words figuratively understood, or from both together; and that allegorical expositions are not various meanings, but only various applications and accommodations of scripture. (pp. 404, 406)
A distinction without a difference; quibbling about words; though there is such a thing as multiple meanings within passages (as he appears to deny). Whitaker's quick concession of the complexities of literary styles in the Bible, and hence, of its interpretation, should tell him something of the relative difficulty (not complete difficulty) of understanding, over against perspicuity.
Our third preliminary observation is, that we must not bring any private meanings, or private opinions, but only such as agree with the mind, intention, and dictate of the Holy Spirit. For, since he is the author of the scriptures, it is fit that we should follow him in interpreting scripture. (p. 410)
This is almost the whole point of having the Church as a guide. It is simplistic and naive to think that individuals (or relentlessly competing and contradictory denominations) will all arrive at this understanding minus such guidance. It is the easiest thing in the world to state and possess this noble ideal. To put it into practice on a wide scale is another thing entirely. But the high, sublime words sound great, don't they?
But what is the sense of the Holy Spirit? what his mind and intention, wherewith all our interpretation should suit and agree? In this the controversy consists. (p. 410)
Great question! It isn't the Holy Spirit's intention that there be contradictory opinions by the hundreds (as in Protestantism). We know that God isn't the author of that confusion and great amount of falsehood.
For we also say that the church is the interpreter of scripture, and that this gift of interpretation resides only in the church: but we deny that it pertains to particular persons, or is tied to any particular see or succession of men. (p. 411)
What sense does it make to hold the opinion at all, then? It's as if the sentence has no content, to be qualified away so much as to make the view literally meaningless.
The first caution is, that the enemies of the church are not to be listened to. This we also concede; — that when the sense of scripture is sought for, the enemies of the church are not to be consulted. (p. 411)
Then where there is contradiction, as in Protestant denominations, there necessarily must be an "enemy of the church": for no falsehood can be part of the truth or the teaching of the true Church. The Protestant may not know which of two competing views is wrong, but he knows that one of them must be (by the laws of logic). Therefore, denominations cannot possibly be defended from a biblical worldview. This has always been the strongest objection to Protestantism.
But which is that church? He takes it for granted that their church is the true church; which none of us will ever grant. (p. 411)
. . . because of wholly inadequate grounds for rejecting the indefectible, infallible historic Catholic Church, that has been continuous since the apostles.
Now we determine that the supreme right, authority, and judgment of interpreting the scriptures, is lodged with the Holy Ghost and the scripture itself: for these two are not mutually repugnant. We say that the Holy Spirit is the supreme interpreter of scripture, because we must be illuminated by the Holy Spirit to be certainly persuaded of the true sense of scripture; otherwise, although we use all means, we can never attain to that full assurance which resides in the minds of the faithful. But this is only an internal persuasion, and concerns only ourselves. (p. 415)
In other words, this is a completely subjective criterion: which never works in real life, with more than one person involved.
As to external persuasion, we say that scripture itself is its own interpreter; and, therefore, that we should come to the external judgment of scripture itself, in order to persuade others: in which proceeding we must also use means; of which more hereafter. But that the interpretation of scripture is tied to any certain see, or succession of men, we absolutely deny. (p. 415)
Back to the same old same old. After taking the greatest pains to mock the Catholic system of authority and dogma (bishops, councils, popes), Whitaker falls back on the good ol' individual, as if that is superior to a group of Church authorities or to apostolic succession itself. It's amazing. Such individualism certainly cannot be found in Holy Scripture. It's basically a cultural, post-Renaissance, post-Luther construct superimposed onto a Christian worldview, where it doesn't fit at all.
Stapleton . . . adduces four arguments, whereof the first is from the authority of the old Testament, the second, from the authority of the new Testament; the third, from the common practice of the church, and the testimonies of the fathers; the fourth, from necessary reason. He cites seven testimonies from the old Testament, which we will examine in order. The first place is Exodus xviii. 13, 26, from which he argues thus: after the people of God were collected and reduced to the form of a church, Moses sat as supreme judge; and afterwards also, though other judges were established, yet he reserved the more difficult causes for his own decision. (p. 416)
Exodus 18:13, 25-26 (RSV) On the morrow Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood about Moses from morning till evening.. . . [25] Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. [26] And they judged the people at all times; hard cases they brought to Moses, but any small matter they decided themselves.
My friend Paul Hoffer provided several such examples in two combox posts (one / two). It is obvious that the Mosaic law was not self-evidently understood upon reading (as we saw in previous installments), or able to be applied without express guidance of ecclesiastical leaders. This is perfectly relevant as an analogy to Christian authority and Bible interpretation.
Therefore, now also there ought to be in the church one common tribunal, and some supreme judge and moderator of all controversies, from whom no appeal is to be permitted. I answer, first; Moses was a prophet, endowed with singular wisdom, adorned with extraordinary gifts of God, commended also to the people by divine testimonies, and sent immediately by God himself. (p. 416)
That is an irrelevant, silly objection on at least two counts. Exodus 18:25-26 shows that Moses' authority was delegated to others, in order to carry out the duties and obligations of his office on a more broad scale. This is analogous to and suggestive of apostolic succession, and even hierarchy and the papacy: with Moses as the "court of final appeal."
Secondly, Jesus sanctions the authority of Moses as passed down to others, by stating, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you . . ." (Matthew 23:2-3). Therefore, since Moses' authority is carried on through multiple successors (as we see from not one, but two Bible passages, and one from Our Lord), it is a non sequitur and irrelevant for Whitaker to argue that since he was a prophet, it is pointless to talk about successors.
Whitaker seems to be at his weakest when it comes to interpreting Bible passages (how ironic!). He persistently ignores context and cross-referencing in his exegesis, while praising the glories of same in his more abstract analyses and apologetics. I think he is far more of a mere polemicist than a particularly able exegete. But then again, look what he is trying to prove; it is a futile, uphill battle to try to establish a falsehood and unbiblical doctrine from the Bible.
Secondly, I confess that in every republic there ought to be judges to determine and put an end to such disputes as arise amongst men, although not with so much authority as Moses: I confess also, that, in every particular church there should be ministers to interpret the scriptures to the people, and answer those who inquire concerning the will of God. (p. 416)
Then Whitaker practically concedes the argument, if he can grant all this. It rather works against his overall argument. The biggest problem is if he uses "particular church" in the sense of denomination, rather than the biblical view of local churches as part of the One True Church.
But an argument from particular churches to the whole universal church does not hold: for then one might also conclude from this place, that there ought to be amongst Christians one supreme political judge (since Moses was such in the Israelitish republic), who should examine every thing that was brought into controversy. But even the papists themselves do not require this. (p. 417)
Correct; the pope is the head of the whole Church (lots of biblical evidence for that, from the overall primacy of Peter, from the "keys" and from Peter's being called the "rock" by Christ; also from biblical analogies [one / two] to infallibility). It is not his job to exegete every single passage of Scripture. There are only about 7-10 passages even to this day that the Church requires to have a certain meaning. The Church is the guardian of orthodoxy and intervenes when someone leaves the territory of apostolic tradition.
Thirdly, I affirm that this should be attributed to Aaron rather than to Moses, and that for two reasons: first, because Aaron was the ordinary priest and had successors; not Moses, whose function was extraordinary: for Moses had no successors in his office. (p. 417)
As already shown, he had helpers and assistants, and Jesus referred to the Pharisees having authority because of being in the line of "Moses' Seat" (a term that is not found in the Old Testament, by the way; hence as an "extrabiblical" and oral tradition). And this authority was independent of their own hypocrisy (Jesus went on in the next chapter to blast them for that). Aaron was Moses' direct aide, so in a sense it is irrelevant if one wants to hold (wrongly, I think) that he had successors and Moses did not. It is still a strong authority, including interpretation of Scripture.
Moreover, Whitaker is again strongly contradicted by Scripture. He says Moses had no successors. In one sense he is correct; only Moses was the initial lawgiver, leader of the exodus, etc. He had many unique and singular functions and qualities. But in terms of leadership authority, Joshua was quite his equal, according to God's own words, and Moses' wishes. And since that is the sense we are discussing, it is more than adequate to bolster the Catholic case:
Numbers 27:15-23 Moses said to the LORD, [16] "Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation, [17] who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall lead them out and bring them in; that the congregation of the LORD may not be as sheep which have no shepherd." [18] And the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand upon him; [19] cause him to stand before Elea'zar the priest and all the congregation, and you shall commission him in their sight. [20] You shall invest him with some of your authority, that all the congregation of the people of Israel may obey. [21] And he shall stand before Elea'zar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the LORD; at his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the people of Israel with him, the whole congregation." [22] And Moses did as the LORD commanded him; he took Joshua and caused him to stand before Elea'zar the priest and the whole congregation, [23] and he laid his hands upon him, and commissioned him as the LORD directed through Moses.
Deuteronomy 34:9 And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him; so the people of Israel obeyed him, and did as the LORD had commanded Moses.
Joshua 1:1-5, 16-18 After the death of Moses the servant of the LORD, the LORD said to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, [2] "Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, you and all this people, into the land which I am giving to them, to the people of Israel. [3] Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you, as I promised to Moses. [4] From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the river Euphra'tes, all the land of the Hittites to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun shall be your territory. [5] No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life; as I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake you. . . . [16] And they answered Joshua, "All that you have commanded us we will do, and wherever you send us we will go. [17] Just as we obeyed Moses in all things, so we will obey you; only may the LORD your God be with you, as he was with Moses! [18] Whoever rebels against your commandment and disobeys your words, whatever you command him, shall be put to death. Only be strong and of good courage."
When Joshua died, God in turn "raised up judges" to lead His people. Note how after a judge would die, the people would rush right back into immorality and false doctrine (polytheism, idolatry, etc):
Judges 2:16-19 Then the LORD raised up judges, who saved them out of the power of those who plundered them. [17] And yet they did not listen to their judges; for they played the harlot after other gods and bowed down to them; they soon turned aside from the way in which their fathers had walked, who had obeyed the commandments of the LORD, and they did not do so. [18] Whenever the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge, and he saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the LORD was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who afflicted and oppressed them. [19] But whenever the judge died, they turned back and behaved worse than their fathers, going after other gods, serving them and bowing down to them; they did not drop any of their practices or their stubborn ways.
This supports the notion of authoritative leaders and interpreters of the Law / Scripture, doesn't it? people haven't changed. They are exactly the same now as they were, then. I'm delighted that Whitaker denied that Moses had successors, so that I could discover this insightful apologetic argument. I love to be motivated by erroneous contentions, to find more support for Holy Mother Church. That's what we apologists do, and I love it. I get blessed every time I am able to, because it is inevitably shown that the truth lies in its fullness with the Catholic Church, following inspired Scripture far more closely than any alternative view. Thus, I become more confident in my faith, and am happy to pass on that confidence and the truth to readers.
Now many of the priests, who in fixed succession after Aaron held the chief place in the church, were impious men and idolaters, as is clear from the sacred text. (p. 417)
Yes they were, but this does not man they are no longer authorities, since Jesus told His followers to do what the Pharisees taught, despite their own hypocrisy (Matthew 23:2-3). The high priest Caiphas is said to have given a true prophecy (Jn 11:49-52); Paul recognized the authority of the Jewish high priest even at his trial (Acts 23:1-8), Jesus still referred to the corrupt churches in Revelation (early chapters) as "churches", etc. But Joshua had more authority than they did (Josh 1:16-18 above).
Secondly, because Moses was not a priest, after the law was published and Aaron consecrated and anointed, nor discharged any priestly function, but was merely a prophet : therefore we must not ascribe to him a judicial power, which, according to them, belongs only to a priest. (p. 417)
He had a judicial power because Scripture said that he did. case closed. He was the leader of the assembly, and specially called and guided by God; just as we believe about popes, following the model of Peter (the leader of the apostles and the early Church) in the Bible.
The second place of the old Testament alleged by Bellarmine is contained in Deut. xvii. 8 — 13: "If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment between blood and blood," and c. (p. 418)
Deuteronomy 17:8-13 "If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns which is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the LORD your God will choose, [9] and coming to the Levitical priests, and to the judge who is in office in those days, you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision. [10] Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place which the LORD will choose; and you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you; [11] according to the instructions which they give you, and according to the decision which they pronounce to you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the verdict which they declare to you, either to the right hand or to the left. [12] The man who acts presumptuously, by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die; so you shall purge the evil from Israel. [13] And all the people shall hear, and fear, and not act presumptuously again.
"We see from this place," says the Jesuit, "that all who are in doubt on any matter, are sent to a living judge, not to their own private spirits." I answer: It is a malicious assertion of the Jesuit to say that we send men in doubt on any matter to their own private spirits: for we send no man to his own private spirit, but to scripture itself, and the Spirit of God speaking clearly in the scripture. (p. 418)
This is another distinction without a difference, for the private man going to Scripture privately without authoritative guidance, can (quite possibly) merely read into Scripture things from his own whims and fancies, and be led into heresy. It still has to be interpreted, and we are left with the choice of historical, corporate, ecclesiastical interpretation, or private judgment.
But, to give a distinct answer, I say, first, that this precept was conditional, as appears from the very words themselves. For they who consulted that supreme judge were ordered to do according to "that sentence of the law which he should teach them." All, therefore, are commanded to obey the decree of the judge, but with this condition, provided that he judge according to the law of God, that is, shew from the law that it is the will of God. This we also willingly concede, that every priest and minister, and not the pope alone, is to be obeyed whenever he judges according to the law. Meanwhile this place does not establish any such supreme judge as may determine what he pleases at his own caprice, and by whose judgment, though destitute of all scripture authority, we are bound to stand: yea, rather, when it requires him to answer according to the law, it assigns the supreme judgment to the law and not to him. (pp. 418-419)
This is not true. The biblical teaching is that both the Law and the authoritative teacher are supreme. A book of laws cannot govern without human administrators and teachers. The US Constitution is simply a powerless piece of paper without judges and lawmakers who interpret and apply it. The same applies to Mosaic Law or New Testament teaching. Whitaker's "condition" is not present in the text. There is no such notion that every hearer can make a decision whether the priest was right or not according to the law. No! This is the unbiblical sola Scriptura mentality and arbitrary tradition gratuitously smuggled and read into the text.
In Deuteronomy 17 (the passage being discussed), the choice was to either obey the interpretation of the priest or die (17:12). It was the same with Joshua (Josh 1:18). Under the Law, one couldn't even curse his mother or father, under pain of death (Lev 20:9). It's as simple as that. Whitaker's Protestant "every man for himself" scenario is utterly absent from the text. We don't put people to death anymore, but obviously God's point was to uphold a strong teaching authority, and that analogy is still in force today.
. . . he who should presumptuously despise the priest or the judge should be put to death. Thus it is not every dissent from the decision, however modest, and with probable grounds, pious and reasonable; but such as was bold, presumptuous, headlong and frantic, that was punished capitally. (p. 420)
This is some prime sophistry. The text doesn't say that only exceptionally presumptuous or "bold" or "frantic" rebellion was punishable by death (Whitaker's spin), but rather, "The man who acts presumptuously, by not obeying the priest . . . shall die" (Deut 17:12). In other words, all disobedience was presumptuous; thus all punishable by death. But maybe, in charity, Whitaker was a victim of inaccurate translation. The King James Version, close to Whitaker's time, shows some ambiguity that he capitalized on:
And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest . . .
The comma implies a separation of the presumption from the disobedience, as if two different things were being discussed. But later translations within the textual / stylistic tradition of the KJV make this clearer, and the sense goes against Whitaker's textual argument:
ASV And the man that doeth presumptuously, in not hearkening unto the priest . . .
NASB The man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest . . .
RSV The man who acts presumptuously, by not obeying the priest . . .
Many other (non-Catholic) translations render the passage similarly. For example:
NEB + REB Anyone who presumes to reject the decision either of the priest . . . or of the judge . . .
Moffatt Any man who presumptuously refuses to listen . . .
Goodspeed The man who acts presumptuously, in not heeding the priest . . .
Clearly, the overwhelming consensus among Bible translators, is that the presumption is identical with the disobedience; not something distinct from it. It describes disobedience. Thus, Whitaker's exegetical / textual argument collapses.
But these men require obedience to whatever they prescribe, and will by no means suffer their decrees to be examined. (p. 421)
Just as in Deuteronomy 17! But the Catholic Church gives plenty of reasons for why someone should be obedient to her decrees (it's not arbitrary or blind faith): the other side of being "examined". Protestants simply reject them out of hand. But they are given in abundance. The lengthy treatises of Bellarmine and Stapleton that Whitaker himself is responding to is proof of this.
There is such a thing as unquestioned authority, that is found in both Scripture and Church history. Just because Protestants can no longer comprehend such a thing doesn't mean that it is nonexistent or incomprehensible or unbiblical. It is none of those things. It can be solidly defended, as I hope and wish I am presently doing. Obedience to leaders has always been the norm, in both covenants:
Numbers 27:20 You shall invest him [Joshua] with some of your authority, that all the congregation of the people of Israel may obey.
Deuteronomy 30:2 and return to the LORD your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you this day, with all your heart and with all your soul;
Joshua 22:2 and said to them, "You have kept all that Moses the servant of the LORD commanded you, and have obeyed my voice in all that I have commanded you;
Judges 3:4 They were for the testing of Israel, to know whether Israel would obey the commandments of the LORD, which he commanded their fathers by Moses.
1 Chronicles 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father; and he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.
Ezra 7:26 Whoever will not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be strictly executed upon him, whether for death or for banishment or for confiscation of his goods or for imprisonment."
Jeremiah 38:20 Jeremiah said, "You shall not be given to them. Obey now the voice of the LORD in what I say to you, and it shall be well with you, and your life shall be spared.
Philippians 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
2 Thessalonians 3:14 If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.
Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Secondly, I answer, that these words are not to be understood of a perpetual right of interpreting the scriptures, but only of an authority of determining difficult disputes and controversies; if ecclesiastical, by the minister; if political or civil, by the magistrate; so as that, in either case, there might be some one from whom there should be no appeal; for otherwise there would be no end of litigation. (p. 421)
This is precisely how the Catholic sees the role of the Church in Bible interpretation. The Church is not "looking over the shoulder" of every Bible reader, like a wet nurse, as if no one had a brain in their head, or cannot learn anything from Bible-reading. It gives the limits and solves doctrinal disputes. Otherwise, there is chaos. Protestants can do this in a denomination (after all, they have creeds and confessions to go by) but then it breaks down at some point, since there are competing denominations and views, and no way to resolve the division by Protestant principles.
***
.jpg)
